"Broadband" what shit. Most "Broadband" "service" providers, as opposed to ISPs, are busy adding to the problems hinted at by the New York Times article, THAT THERE ARE FEWER NEW INTERESTING SITES BECAUSE TOO MANY ASSHOLES HAVE GOTTEN IN THE WAY. My cable provider blocks port 80 and 25. The stupid terms of service forbid all "servers". So, while people might think the Yellow Buss site (random pictures taken from my 1970 VW van) would be interesting, I can't offer it. The NYT article blames this vaugly on comercialization but completely misses the underlying problems of federal regulation encouraged media consolidation and Microsoft's abusive practices.
There are few people willing to wage the fight to present interesting content. Those that hold the keys to access are either owned by hollywood or are interested in making a buck off your ideas more than entertaining and sharing. If you are lucky or smart enough to get around that ass pain, then most people won't be able to look at your more interesting content anyway because M$ will break anything but the latest activeX crap. So why bother? Let all the greedheads suffer in their lack of creativity.
Sorry, but I'm keeping my little ftp site quiet and among friends. I'd like to share more, but I'd be shut down fast by the same dumb ass company that gave me a user name with an @, at, character in the midle of the username and who's tech told me I should use Outlook because Mozilla was "internet unfriendly"!
"Broadband" as presented by the senator from Disney will push more crap at you and further destroy the web.
Gee, nice of you to waste your mod points trolling slashdot like that. Visible is easy to eliminate.
You say:
...it's worth a reminder that amateur packet radio is subject to a number of content restrictions that make it extremely poorly suited as a transport medium for general Internet traffic.
The author's page, presenting yet another sucessful end run around the last mile problem, promisses:
If your like me and are seeking a simple way to build a high speed, affordable, RF network, where you mimic the internet and have webpages, conferencing, FTP and so on, I encourage you to look into this technology and use it. If you use this technology and would like to share your experiences, or if you have questions, you may contact me. Also feel free to link to this document and or reprint any portion of it.
So what am I missing here? How is this limited? Whatever you are talking about is at varience with other hopeful posts here. Of course, you sig, "Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!", kinda tells us what you are all about.
Resources squandered represent losses of labor and opertunity. Southern pine could be used to make houses instead of printing word docs that no one will ever read. While this may be good for the paper mill, it's hard to argue that society is better off that way rather than if those people were employed in contruction instead.
The issue of power consumption is silly. People are never going to stop using PCs regardless of how much paper they waste. The PC will sit on their desk burning up electricity even if it's only used to print duplicates of email and view porn. PCs will consume less energy in the future and reprocessed nuclear fuel is a renuable resource much like southern pine.
Finally, rain forests are not being cut for cattle farming and exotic hard wood. Most trees in Brazil are felled for slash and burn agriculture by "settelers", refugees from urban slums. The exotic hardwood is burnt with the rest because few countries will buy it. Cattle farming may move in after the land is exhausted (one year or so for the soil to errode to unusable clay.) but it's not a pimary cause.
The world is what you make it. We can use our resources wisely and make more for each other, of we can let vendors of shoddy wares waste our resources and efforts. Surely, M$ is the primary reason people print all of their junk at work, and the paperless office uses more paper than ever before.
Now if only I could convince my girlfriend of the virtues of me having a messy house....
The limit of girlfriend as age goes to thirty is wife or zero.
When her belly swells, some things get pushed to the side and never come back. No, not those things! I mean dishes, laundry, what not. When it happens you will understand Elvis and "Shake rattle and roll." "Get in the kitchen and make some noise with your pots and pans!" he says. Good luck.
Oh, on topic, people who don't have virtual screens and desktops on operating systems that don't crash and that can serve files with proper permisions, will never believe that an office can work without paper. So sad, too bad, what can you expect from the tiny mummies at the New Yorker?
Is your first name Buster?
Draft copies are the biggest reason there will never be a paperless office. If you have a 15 page draft and distribute it to 20 people for comments, trying to organize and incorporate the comments is damn near impossible.
So how is it that the average free software project integrates the work of hundreds of people from all around the globe who may never see each other? Mystery of mystery to the average Word user I'm sure.
Crappy propriatory software is the problem not the solution. Know what happens when you pass out 20 coppies of a "document" at my office? You get a ream of garbage, that's what. Just try sorting through all of it by hand. Why not set up a freaking web page and send a link to ask for comments? Wow, you might even recieve them in the mail and talk to the folks that sent them if you don't understand. If you can't incorporate them into your work, your work is not well organized. Where I work, people have to print everything out because the viewing programs are not well designed. Of course, it's hard to look at a large drawing with M$'s single virtual screen! Hell, it's hard to even organize your work into piles without virtual screens and desktops. Bleh, the "server" to share work? Give me a break, it's been set up into individual home directories with no read permisions that can't be changed, but that's to be expected for an OS that does not have user, group, world file permisions built into the file system and kernel. The rest of the "share" space is chronically disorganized so that all sorts of duplicate junk clutters and clogs it up. Can it be worse? Yes, add Outlook and Access to it. Oultook XP can't handle text anymore and most people are flinging around word docs that they then print and walk a further distance to the printer than to the sender's desk.
Fundamental design flaws made to protect an obsolete marketing model have led to all that, and it's given people a very false impression. My computers at home never crash, yet look at all the posts about how reliable paper is. Paper in my house is something the cat might eat. The computers, running debian and red hat are up 24/7. It's hard for people to imagine things beyond their crappy M$ desktop, and they are so oppressed by the thing at work they don't even want to look at one at home. Should we be supprised when people who look at the 10 lines of text they can read on a doc displayed by word go and print the thing out? Should we be supprised that people who feel like they have to print all of their mail consider email a pain? They think this because they have inadequate tools and don't know there is better stuff in the world.
Not only is apple within their rights here, but they must actually exercise this to protect future rights.
This just goes to show that Apple does not want to be free. The only future "rights" that can be protected this way, is for Apple to keep you from:
Using your software as you see fit.
Changing your software to suit your needs.
Sharing your improvements with your friends.
Allowing your friends all the above rights.
Don't tell me that this was not HIS software, but was Apple's. He was writing it, it was his as well as others. As with most non-free software interests, Apple locked our friend out of his work.
Why do people appologize and defend such obviously ugly behavior? Once again, the downsides of non-free development are made manifest. What were the benifits? That more people would use your code thanks to Apple's marketing department? That Apple would better control quality? That Apple's co-operation with other non-free software and hardware vendors would make sure that users of your code could use hardware not available to others? That you would have to give Apple money to have your software back? As you help Apple to deny other's rights you make them stronger and more able to do things like this to you. If you consider such impositions "protecting future rights", you are really warped.
No, in the real world, when you act like a greedy pig people go around you. When IBM charged too much for OS/2 and OS/2 development tools, M$ was able to crush them by dumping a vastly inferior bunch of stuff. Now M$ is making all the same, and a few inovative mistakes. While the telcos are sitting on top of their dark fibers and rejoicing the Toe-Zan bill, and while the cable companies are celebrating their newfound FCC protections against competition, the rest of us are planning wireless networks to circumvent them. Those who wish to be "the asshole in the middle" are usually remembered only as assholes.
A larger picture should be kept in mind, though. The government would love to turn the internet into a broadcast media that they can manipulate as easily as TV and radio. The empty TV spectrum is a nsaty reminder of this control. Government will promote control of the physical media by a few large companies they can bully and in turn will give these companies the ability to crush all others. Government will also seek to destroy circumvention of their tools. You will NOT be able to publish on the net and the concept of peer computers will go away.
The RIAA and MPAA are overreaching here. Instead of asking for a rational extention of the DMCA to address piracy networks they are making a naked grab for their self interest.
This bill is the logical extention of the DMCA. Encrypted formats were trade secrets, and had NO LEGAL protection at all, until the DMCA was used as we knew it would be. The goal of the exclusive franchise created by copyright is to increase what's available to the public domain. The DMCA severly restricts what gets out to the public domain, as readers of "protected" formats won't work when the copyright expires (crutently 75 years). Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, these formats are not as popular as unecumberd formats, so they have introduced this bill to MANDATE their formats. This will eliminate the public domain altogether as it will eliminate user control of the devices used to create and distribute digital media. In the future, there will be nothing but digial publication, therefore there will be no publishing exept by approved and authorized software. It will outlaw free software. If you don't think that non free software restricts what you say, you need to re examine your non free EULA. Right now, I don't care if Microsoft decides that I can not ever use their software again (as they can by their EULA). If this bill passes, that will mean that I can't publish.
The only rational extention of the DMCA if for the supreme court to strike it down as a clear violation of free speech.
In the mean time, I am going to hand write my representative. Want to guese which letter will have a greater effect, this one or that one? Hmmm, it might be time to use some old fashion press to influence the local comunity. In the future, an inflamatory handbill might not pass the "protection" program in my copy machine. See where things can go?
A stab at Dell. Would that make Bill Gates happy or sooth his sense of betrayal? Nah.
This is insightful, if true, but it's something that needs to be compared to OTHER tech supports from comperable vendors.
Gateway? Forget it, unless you are a "corporate" customer you ride a merry go round of automated answering machines. Only the magic sales button pulls up a human being, and you had better tell them you are a corporate customer or you are back at the auto BS. This applies to the numbers they supplied in a case for a broken monitor the place I was working for three years ago. I imagine it's worse in a recession.
Make port 3333 go to port 21 on box a, and 3334 go to port 21 on box b etc
This is going to sound stupid, but how do I get my mom to see port 3333 instead of 21? I've seen the ipchains directive to do things on my end, but I have not figured out the other side. Most family members will only use a browser to look at things, sad but true. What does is it look like on say IE or Mozilla? ftp://65.x.xxx.x -what?
Oh, sorry about that. I get really fed up with the idea that I'm just some kind of "consumer" of bits, to be driven into a self consuming frezy of spending on empty and unsatifying nonsense. Kind of like fast food and obesity, imagine that. I also missed the key phrase, "in the view of," not your own. Blind rage, oh well it keeps the rhetoric practiced.
There is, however, a "right of way". It exists between my house and yours. Power lines, gas lines and even these little words travel over it. It is a public thing and it CAN be claimed if those given stewardship fail to live up to their reponsibilities. One day, I might even be able to serve that public good. Time, it takes time.
If you are blessed with a M$ desktop, the admins will watch your desktop with a kind of spy tool, called VPN by M$. Worse, they can keylog your username and password....
On the other end, the cable companies are now expressly forbiding "VPN". While you may think they are only after the retarded M$ full desktop bandwith hogger, what they really want is your money. The asses that block ports 25 and 80 will get around to 22 sooner or later, regardless of your actual badwith use. My cable company, Cox, just started to block port 21 on incoming ftp request. I'm not sure how they can distinguish that from the AOL client, but they did tonight and my mother got a "blocked by administrator" sign instead of pictures of my baby girl. So clever, they will soon be out of my $65/month I'm paying for a static IP. No the asses are not going to get the $50/month DHCP fee from me either. Snip, bye bye.
The internet is almost the coporate lap dog the entertainment companies, publishers and telcos wanted. If the feds kill wireless there will be no useful net left. I'm fed up with the spam, the adverts, the unilateral contracts, the credit card demands and the whole fuck you.
To spend tens of thousands of dollars and so many man years to prevent millions of dollars in damage and lost work because an OS that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run is so fragile. Why? When free alternatives that provide stability, security and control the idiots in Redmond will never provide, why do so many people go through all that trouble.
Asside. If your company "firewall" is anything like mine, your users, aka peers, can send anything they want at a ".zip" or anything that is not one of the banned names so frightening to M$ Admins.
Incompetence breeding inconvenience for the rest of us. Nice work, meat heads. It's not going to bother me too much because my job gives me enough time at home to have a life. Some people will not be so lucky and your efforts, or lack thereof, will really burn them. Get your freaking act togeter or go away or expect your best people to pack up and leave.
Anyway, remote desktop runs much better than VNC, and is sure a lot better than a screen capture... oh well. Besides, with VNC can you play a CD on the remote computer and listen to it at your local machine? =
What's this VNC buzzword? People have been able to do that and more with M$ platforms freaking forever, see this ancient page, HA HA!. I'm not sure what's really better than a screen capture like that.
All this is just another nail in the M$ coffin. M$'s VNC is good only for getting your machine cracked and peered into by your ISP, M$, and whoever. Why bother when free and technically superior alternatives like SSH and X are available? The DOS command line is a pain in the ass to use, so low bandwith utilization is impossible on that platform. Why oh why do people use this junk?
I'll reply to a troll replying to a troll. I'm not sure why, but something you said sounded funny. You said:
But what if your neighbor borrows your car when you're not using it? Assume, for sake of argument, that your neighbor only borrows your car when you wouldn't be using it, returns it whenever you ask for it, doesn't use any gas or other tangible good, and doesn't induce wear and tear on the car. You can still turn around and sell it at any time, with zero interference.
In that case, you wouldn't be deprived of any property. The fact that your neighbor is borrowing your car has absolutely no impact on you.
That's a stupid analogy on its face, but it's a pretty good one for considering the case of a software vendor "stealing" clock cycles from your computer. No matter what's going on under the hood, you're not being directly deprived of any property. Your computer isn't magically worth less because it's running somebody else's code.
No!!! Try this one:
The other day, while I was at work a plumber visited my house to fix some pipes. While he was there, he borrowed my wife and gave her incurable sexual diseases....
I'd feel the same way if he fixed my computer by installing M$. Yes, it would be worth less because it does less for me. These companies that break your poor little Windows box so that they can send you adverts are really repulsive.
Well well, looks like I've been trolled by two bogus AC's. Well the first made more sense. Let's start with the second's rather ugly start:
Glad you're not an engineer.
He made more sense then you do. You:
I thought of this concept a while back, even started modelling it in Simulink (part of Matlab).
Nice work, drawing pictures lends credibility. Nope. I'm a Mechanical Engineer. I've done some rudimentary fan designs (you know vector diagrams, work balance, that kind of thing), but I won't play a fan designer on TV or stomp reasonable people. Him:
"First, the velocity of the blades near the hub are too slow to put work into the air and therefore the air tends to leak backwards near the hub. This is why putting the motor in the hub area does not degrade fan performance."
You:
First of all, the hub is smaller, meaning the there is more air intake near the hub...anything which calls for a greater air debit at the top of the fan is good. The air will only 'leak back' if the air pressure under th fan is greater than on top, which doesn't happen until you hit high RPM's. What you will get is vortices under the fan near the hub, which is good...it means a lot of airflow over the die of the chip, which leads to cooling of the chip. Note that this happens under the fan, which is where you do want vortices.
He's right, again. If your fan does not give you any pressure increase, you have a poor difuser or a poor fan or both. There is zero motion at the axis. The best thing to do with that air is to redirect it outward towards your blades. If your hub does not do this, you might get some recirculation there that will do what your hub should have. Him again:
"Second, while the fastest parts of the fan (the blade tips) make most of the fan noise, changing their shape does the most to reduce the noise. The noise has nothing to do with the "motor parts" that reside in the blade tips in this design."
You:
The thing is, the tips of the blades are in the ring surrounding the fan...now the air first gets led through a bounding area before it gets spun by the fan...it goes from vertical to horizontal directly, like in any good pump, without having that airflow distorted by the boundary conditions created by the tips of the fan being near but not touching the side of the fan case. Vortices on top of the fan only make for a decrease in airintake which is bad for cooling.
Huh? What does that have to do with what he said about decreasing noise by changing blade shape? Any axial fan will create an axial vortex above it unless you put stator blades in the way. If you want to get rid of the blade tip vorticies you change their shape, or you could put a ring around them but that makes other problems. Him:
"Third, the pressure generated by the fan is solely dependant on the fan design and has nothing to do with how the fan is powered."
You, again:
But here the method of powering the fan has led to an improvement in fan design (more air intake due to higher area of the fanblades).
You are starting to repeat yourself, which would be OK if you were correct or even consistent. You know, he's right again. While you fail to actually contradict him, you do contradict yourself by not bothering to say anything about pressure differences that you don't understand very well. Him:
"Fourth, of course the torque is more effective at a larger radius, but this has nothing to do with efficiency."
You:
Thiuss hasd no bearing on the situation other than stating that the larger a fan is, the better it works...duh, we already knew that.
Ummm, that's not what he said, but it's nice to see that you have the spirit to be condesending. Can you explain why a larger fan works better for us? Is it because the ends may be turning faster? Isn't this why axial turbines are generally rows of blades mounted further away from the axis than they are long? Would they be more efficient with a large hole in the center? Him again:
"Fifth, any increase in air flow has to do with the shape of the blades and the speed of the fan and can probably be improved a somewhat by blocking the hub a little."
You, sigh:
No, that would only limit the area of air-intake, which is bad...you want a big area of intake, to get as much air down the fan as possible. Blocking the hub is a Bad Idea(tm)
Do you know any other tune than, "this thing rocks because it has a smaller hub"? I think I've alrady stated the purpose of the hub. Go figure. Him:
"Sixth, I do not see how the fan improves the efficiency of cooling anything. Increased air flow will cool anything better, according to how much horsepower do you want to put into your fan. And, it matters a whole lot where the parts to be cooled are in relation to the exit air stream, etc.etc.etc."
You:
Yeah, you got the idea...this new design improves airflow, which is good!
Same tune. You know what is good but not how to achieve it. He does. But wait, you have a conclusion:
Not PR, just airflow...they increase the airintake (by having a smaller hub, which also means better cooling near the centre of the fan) while lowering vortices near the airintake (by having a seamless fancase-fan interface), thus creating better cooling
OK. Does anyone have any numbers around here? Like flow vrs current for various radiuses? Yes that would be useful, a repeatable experiment comparing various available designs. The data sheet is slashdotted. Perhaps you can CAD up some drawings of a test bench for us?
The further you have mass from the axis of rotation the more likely you are to have imbalances, vibes and noise. If these things have magenets on the tips, expect them to wear out their bearings fast and sing.
Hmmm the article mentions about every piece of M$ crap ever made,
On Thursday, researchers reported that at least nine of Microsoft's major applications--including Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, DirectX, Messenger and Front Page--appear to incorporate borrowed code from the compression library and could be vulnerable to a similar attack.
Gosh, what else do they make besides a second rate search engine? That there is no security on M$ is no secret.
Their response according to the article is:
Microsoft representatives said that the software giant's security response team is investigating the zlib flaw and that some Microsoft applications use code from that compression library.
Meanwhile, in a dark Seatle back room someone is running "apt-get update" for a fix! Well, that's what I did. No problems now.
Whoh, that was so stupid that I have to quote the whole thing and reference it, because no one will believe it otherwise:
I think that the key difference between Cablecos and telcos is that Telcos, as far as POTS is concerned, are treated as common carriers: they have no editorial control over what goes over their lines, and have to file tariffs (rate cards) with the FCC and the state PUC which in turn need regulatory approval. Cablecos are not Common Carriers, so they get editorial control over what goes over their wires (ie, you don't get channels they don't supply, but in turn they have some liability for their content). The general feeling at the Federal and most state levels, from what I've seen, is that cable TV and internet services are not seen as sufficently vital to everyday life (as opposed to basic telephone service, which is considered to be such) for the providers to be granted Common Carrier status.
Editorial control from my ISP? I think not. Your view, and that at the moronic Federal and State levels, only make sense if your ISP is really an entertianment company pushing crap down your throat. That's not what the internet is for, and it is outrageous that the public right of way is being given to people who think differently.
Get this! I'm not paying an ISP for yet another way to get Hollywood garbage. I'm paying my ISP for communications services. That my ISP would exercise "editorial" control by keeping me from serving, and that my ISP is a monopoly carrier is OBVIOULY against the public interest. My internet connection is worth more to me than my phone, my tv and all my magazine subscriptions as it has taken their place. My desire to contribute to the public domain is shared by countless others, who get it. Blocking our contributions will destroy the web as a forum of information creation and make it worthless, much like the poorly regulated Cable TV, and broadcast media.
Now go tell your friends what I said so I don't have to kick their ass.
The WHO, cited here [world-nuclear.org], "linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl accident". In the same source, UNSCEAR linked "some 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer" to the accident. Note that the cited source is an advocate of nuclear energy for electricity production.
Ok. These aren't birth defects, but the central point remains.
Uhhh, what's the point? Thyroid cancer is both preventable and curable. It happens because airborn radioactive iodine concentrates in your thyroid. It can be prevented by taking massive doses of non radioactive iodine before exposure. It can be cured later, but obviously this is not desirable. Tens of thousands of "human robots" were thrown into the mess and forced to recieve much larger than necessary doses. If you look into the report, you will see that these numbers are taken into account to provide the overall mortality cited. It will be in the hundreds (180 or so), not the tens of thousands, and there are no expected increases in birth defects and other horrors.
A crashing nuclear rocket will be of comprable scale. It's a significant risk, but one that should be weighed correctly.
F Microsoft is going out of its way to develop a new FS, and IF that FS is not going to contain the copy-protection goodies that the entertainment industry is clamoring for, that Microsoft is basically thumbing its nose at the MPAA and RIAA, and siding fully with PC users and hardware manufacturers.
If you look around, people are saying this is just going to make your file system into one big database. I'll leave the reliability of M$ databases alone to answer your pressing concern. If you read the intro to this article again in the right light you have it:
ts planned that the new filesystem will make searches easier, faster, and more reliable.
That's searches of YOUR file system, but not always YOUR searches. By the new XP EULA M$ has delcared the right to check your entire file system for copy-right violating material and remove it. They also reserve, as do all the slave masterts, the right to terminate your license at anytime they decide you are non complient. So put it together. You copy N-Stink, they turn you off. Nice eh? You don't put it past the company that records every song you listen to and how many times with their media player, do you? Pay per play is on the way.
If there exists files on your computer not needed to run the computer itself which you can not modifiy, copy or remove, but someone else can, Then they are root and you are not.
I imagine that any self respecting country would have some kind of indigenous dino maker. Let's see. Germany? Nope.
UK? Nope. Similar pages can be found for France. Bully for Germany and Japan for at least trying, but it looks like the US kicks ass in this field. I suppose that you can charge alot when you make something others have a hard time keeping up with.
Thousands of birth defects? Who told you that, Greenpeace? Here is a nice sober paper for you. Outside preventable exposures in radiation workers and children, there are no statistically noticible differences.
I've read the World Health Organization's ten year report and I'd point to it if I could. Unfortunately, that one and a new one are not free information. Order it or go visit a library.
I'm not going to say there are no risks, what I'll ask you to do is weigh the risks of doing nothing. The shutdown of the US space program is a national embarassment. We beat up all the lions, tigers and bears. Even the baboons gave up (Appologies to W. Chruchill). The world is watching us and they expect results. We should show them that it is better co-operate and create new resources than it is to squabble over and destroy old ones. If we wait too long, we may no longer be able to afford the effort.
- What happens if fission powered rockets crash? Instant nuclear disaster, unless the containment vessel holds (and it might, but the public will not be convinced it would).
Oh, you mean like Chernobyl? Not to make light of 100 or so deaths, but there are worse things in the world. It's hard to get worse than Chernobyl: Big core with high burn-up (that's lots of fision products from running), Zero containment, chemical explosions and fire at ground level.
Or perhaps you were thinking of all of the thousands of above ground nuclear bomb tests that the people have performed?
- Other countries fears that fission powererd rockets are actually orbiting nuclear weapons, able to be dropped on them at will. And again, even if they weren't bombs, orbiting fission rockets would be nuclear weapons: all you have to do is build the containment vessel so it can be blown apart on impact via conventional explosives, leaving a cloud of contamination.
Holy Armagedon, Batman! Do you think that this is a more practical means of nuking your friends than the tens of thousands of purpose built warheads lying around?! What shall we do?
I suggest we quit fooling around with bullshit fears and get some good use out of Nuclear technology. Projects Kiwi and NERVA were technical sucesses killed by ludite nonsense. We can go to Mars, we can exploit the solar system and we should do so. The sooner the beter, population expands geometricaly. We can use nukes to solve our problems peacefully, or we will use them the other way as we run out of exploitable resourses here. Chose your children's future.
Slashdot Mirror
There are few people willing to wage the fight to present interesting content. Those that hold the keys to access are either owned by hollywood or are interested in making a buck off your ideas more than entertaining and sharing. If you are lucky or smart enough to get around that ass pain, then most people won't be able to look at your more interesting content anyway because M$ will break anything but the latest activeX crap. So why bother? Let all the greedheads suffer in their lack of creativity.
Sorry, but I'm keeping my little ftp site quiet and among friends. I'd like to share more, but I'd be shut down fast by the same dumb ass company that gave me a user name with an @, at, character in the midle of the username and who's tech told me I should use Outlook because Mozilla was "internet unfriendly"!
"Broadband" as presented by the senator from Disney will push more crap at you and further destroy the web.
Have a nice day, folks.
You say: ...it's worth a reminder that amateur packet radio is subject to a number of content restrictions that make it extremely poorly suited as a transport medium for general Internet traffic.
The author's page, presenting yet another sucessful end run around the last mile problem, promisses:
If your like me and are seeking a simple way to build a high speed, affordable, RF network, where you mimic the internet and have webpages, conferencing, FTP and so on, I encourage you to look into this technology and use it. If you use this technology and would like to share your experiences, or if you have questions, you may contact me. Also feel free to link to this document and or reprint any portion of it.
So what am I missing here? How is this limited? Whatever you are talking about is at varience with other hopeful posts here. Of course, you sig, "Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!", kinda tells us what you are all about.
The issue of power consumption is silly. People are never going to stop using PCs regardless of how much paper they waste. The PC will sit on their desk burning up electricity even if it's only used to print duplicates of email and view porn. PCs will consume less energy in the future and reprocessed nuclear fuel is a renuable resource much like southern pine.
Finally, rain forests are not being cut for cattle farming and exotic hard wood. Most trees in Brazil are felled for slash and burn agriculture by "settelers", refugees from urban slums. The exotic hardwood is burnt with the rest because few countries will buy it. Cattle farming may move in after the land is exhausted (one year or so for the soil to errode to unusable clay.) but it's not a pimary cause.
The world is what you make it. We can use our resources wisely and make more for each other, of we can let vendors of shoddy wares waste our resources and efforts. Surely, M$ is the primary reason people print all of their junk at work, and the paperless office uses more paper than ever before.
The limit of girlfriend as age goes to thirty is wife or zero.
When her belly swells, some things get pushed to the side and never come back. No, not those things! I mean dishes, laundry, what not. When it happens you will understand Elvis and "Shake rattle and roll." "Get in the kitchen and make some noise with your pots and pans!" he says. Good luck.
Oh, on topic, people who don't have virtual screens and desktops on operating systems that don't crash and that can serve files with proper permisions, will never believe that an office can work without paper. So sad, too bad, what can you expect from the tiny mummies at the New Yorker? Is your first name Buster?
So how is it that the average free software project integrates the work of hundreds of people from all around the globe who may never see each other? Mystery of mystery to the average Word user I'm sure.
Crappy propriatory software is the problem not the solution. Know what happens when you pass out 20 coppies of a "document" at my office? You get a ream of garbage, that's what. Just try sorting through all of it by hand. Why not set up a freaking web page and send a link to ask for comments? Wow, you might even recieve them in the mail and talk to the folks that sent them if you don't understand. If you can't incorporate them into your work, your work is not well organized. Where I work, people have to print everything out because the viewing programs are not well designed. Of course, it's hard to look at a large drawing with M$'s single virtual screen! Hell, it's hard to even organize your work into piles without virtual screens and desktops. Bleh, the "server" to share work? Give me a break, it's been set up into individual home directories with no read permisions that can't be changed, but that's to be expected for an OS that does not have user, group, world file permisions built into the file system and kernel. The rest of the "share" space is chronically disorganized so that all sorts of duplicate junk clutters and clogs it up. Can it be worse? Yes, add Outlook and Access to it. Oultook XP can't handle text anymore and most people are flinging around word docs that they then print and walk a further distance to the printer than to the sender's desk.
Fundamental design flaws made to protect an obsolete marketing model have led to all that, and it's given people a very false impression. My computers at home never crash, yet look at all the posts about how reliable paper is. Paper in my house is something the cat might eat. The computers, running debian and red hat are up 24/7. It's hard for people to imagine things beyond their crappy M$ desktop, and they are so oppressed by the thing at work they don't even want to look at one at home. Should we be supprised when people who look at the 10 lines of text they can read on a doc displayed by word go and print the thing out? Should we be supprised that people who feel like they have to print all of their mail consider email a pain? They think this because they have inadequate tools and don't know there is better stuff in the world.
This just goes to show that Apple does not want to be free. The only future "rights" that can be protected this way, is for Apple to keep you from:
Using your software as you see fit.
Changing your software to suit your needs.
Sharing your improvements with your friends.
Allowing your friends all the above rights.
Don't tell me that this was not HIS software, but was Apple's. He was writing it, it was his as well as others. As with most non-free software interests, Apple locked our friend out of his work.
Why do people appologize and defend such obviously ugly behavior? Once again, the downsides of non-free development are made manifest. What were the benifits? That more people would use your code thanks to Apple's marketing department? That Apple would better control quality? That Apple's co-operation with other non-free software and hardware vendors would make sure that users of your code could use hardware not available to others? That you would have to give Apple money to have your software back? As you help Apple to deny other's rights you make them stronger and more able to do things like this to you. If you consider such impositions "protecting future rights", you are really warped.
Thanks, I'll try that out.
A larger picture should be kept in mind, though. The government would love to turn the internet into a broadcast media that they can manipulate as easily as TV and radio. The empty TV spectrum is a nsaty reminder of this control. Government will promote control of the physical media by a few large companies they can bully and in turn will give these companies the ability to crush all others. Government will also seek to destroy circumvention of their tools. You will NOT be able to publish on the net and the concept of peer computers will go away.
This bill is the logical extention of the DMCA. Encrypted formats were trade secrets, and had NO LEGAL protection at all, until the DMCA was used as we knew it would be. The goal of the exclusive franchise created by copyright is to increase what's available to the public domain. The DMCA severly restricts what gets out to the public domain, as readers of "protected" formats won't work when the copyright expires (crutently 75 years). Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, these formats are not as popular as unecumberd formats, so they have introduced this bill to MANDATE their formats. This will eliminate the public domain altogether as it will eliminate user control of the devices used to create and distribute digital media. In the future, there will be nothing but digial publication, therefore there will be no publishing exept by approved and authorized software. It will outlaw free software. If you don't think that non free software restricts what you say, you need to re examine your non free EULA. Right now, I don't care if Microsoft decides that I can not ever use their software again (as they can by their EULA). If this bill passes, that will mean that I can't publish.
The only rational extention of the DMCA if for the supreme court to strike it down as a clear violation of free speech.
In the mean time, I am going to hand write my representative. Want to guese which letter will have a greater effect, this one or that one? Hmmm, it might be time to use some old fashion press to influence the local comunity. In the future, an inflamatory handbill might not pass the "protection" program in my copy machine. See where things can go?
This is insightful, if true, but it's something that needs to be compared to OTHER tech supports from comperable vendors.
Gateway? Forget it, unless you are a "corporate" customer you ride a merry go round of automated answering machines. Only the magic sales button pulls up a human being, and you had better tell them you are a corporate customer or you are back at the auto BS. This applies to the numbers they supplied in a case for a broken monitor the place I was working for three years ago. I imagine it's worse in a recession.
Anyone got any other good stories like that?
This is going to sound stupid, but how do I get my mom to see port 3333 instead of 21? I've seen the ipchains directive to do things on my end, but I have not figured out the other side. Most family members will only use a browser to look at things, sad but true. What does is it look like on say IE or Mozilla? ftp://65.x.xxx.x -what?
There is, however, a "right of way". It exists between my house and yours. Power lines, gas lines and even these little words travel over it. It is a public thing and it CAN be claimed if those given stewardship fail to live up to their reponsibilities. One day, I might even be able to serve that public good. Time, it takes time.
On the other end, the cable companies are now expressly forbiding "VPN". While you may think they are only after the retarded M$ full desktop bandwith hogger, what they really want is your money. The asses that block ports 25 and 80 will get around to 22 sooner or later, regardless of your actual badwith use. My cable company, Cox, just started to block port 21 on incoming ftp request. I'm not sure how they can distinguish that from the AOL client, but they did tonight and my mother got a "blocked by administrator" sign instead of pictures of my baby girl. So clever, they will soon be out of my $65/month I'm paying for a static IP. No the asses are not going to get the $50/month DHCP fee from me either. Snip, bye bye.
The internet is almost the coporate lap dog the entertainment companies, publishers and telcos wanted. If the feds kill wireless there will be no useful net left. I'm fed up with the spam, the adverts, the unilateral contracts, the credit card demands and the whole fuck you.
Asside. If your company "firewall" is anything like mine, your users, aka peers, can send anything they want at a ".zip" or anything that is not one of the banned names so frightening to M$ Admins.
Incompetence breeding inconvenience for the rest of us. Nice work, meat heads. It's not going to bother me too much because my job gives me enough time at home to have a life. Some people will not be so lucky and your efforts, or lack thereof, will really burn them. Get your freaking act togeter or go away or expect your best people to pack up and leave.
What's this VNC buzzword? People have been able to do that and more with M$ platforms freaking forever, see this ancient page, HA HA!. I'm not sure what's really better than a screen capture like that.
All this is just another nail in the M$ coffin. M$'s VNC is good only for getting your machine cracked and peered into by your ISP, M$, and whoever. Why bother when free and technically superior alternatives like SSH and X are available? The DOS command line is a pain in the ass to use, so low bandwith utilization is impossible on that platform. Why oh why do people use this junk?
But what if your neighbor borrows your car when you're not using it? Assume, for sake of argument, that your neighbor only borrows your car when you wouldn't be using it, returns it whenever you ask for it, doesn't use any gas or other tangible good, and doesn't induce wear and tear on the car. You can still turn around and sell it at any time, with zero interference. In that case, you wouldn't be deprived of any property. The fact that your neighbor is borrowing your car has absolutely no impact on you.
That's a stupid analogy on its face, but it's a pretty good one for considering the case of a software vendor "stealing" clock cycles from your computer. No matter what's going on under the hood, you're not being directly deprived of any property. Your computer isn't magically worth less because it's running somebody else's code.
No!!! Try this one:
The other day, while I was at work a plumber visited my house to fix some pipes. While he was there, he borrowed my wife and gave her incurable sexual diseases....
I'd feel the same way if he fixed my computer by installing M$. Yes, it would be worth less because it does less for me. These companies that break your poor little Windows box so that they can send you adverts are really repulsive.
But I love them. Yes, I love the fact that all of these companies like Creative, M$ (by the EULA) and others treat their users like total crap. It shows everyone why they should be using FREE/A software. You trolls are great, you really are, thanks for taking the time to show how much you care.
He made more sense then you do. You: I thought of this concept a while back, even started modelling it in Simulink (part of Matlab).
Nice work, drawing pictures lends credibility. Nope. I'm a Mechanical Engineer. I've done some rudimentary fan designs (you know vector diagrams, work balance, that kind of thing), but I won't play a fan designer on TV or stomp reasonable people. Him: "First, the velocity of the blades near the hub are too slow to put work into the air and therefore the air tends to leak backwards near the hub. This is why putting the motor in the hub area does not degrade fan performance."
You: First of all, the hub is smaller, meaning the there is more air intake near the hub...anything which calls for a greater air debit at the top of the fan is good. The air will only 'leak back' if the air pressure under th fan is greater than on top, which doesn't happen until you hit high RPM's. What you will get is vortices under the fan near the hub, which is good...it means a lot of airflow over the die of the chip, which leads to cooling of the chip. Note that this happens under the fan, which is where you do want vortices.
He's right, again. If your fan does not give you any pressure increase, you have a poor difuser or a poor fan or both. There is zero motion at the axis. The best thing to do with that air is to redirect it outward towards your blades. If your hub does not do this, you might get some recirculation there that will do what your hub should have. Him again: "Second, while the fastest parts of the fan (the blade tips) make most of the fan noise, changing their shape does the most to reduce the noise. The noise has nothing to do with the "motor parts" that reside in the blade tips in this design."
You: The thing is, the tips of the blades are in the ring surrounding the fan...now the air first gets led through a bounding area before it gets spun by the fan...it goes from vertical to horizontal directly, like in any good pump, without having that airflow distorted by the boundary conditions created by the tips of the fan being near but not touching the side of the fan case. Vortices on top of the fan only make for a decrease in airintake which is bad for cooling.
Huh? What does that have to do with what he said about decreasing noise by changing blade shape? Any axial fan will create an axial vortex above it unless you put stator blades in the way. If you want to get rid of the blade tip vorticies you change their shape, or you could put a ring around them but that makes other problems. Him: "Third, the pressure generated by the fan is solely dependant on the fan design and has nothing to do with how the fan is powered."
You, again: But here the method of powering the fan has led to an improvement in fan design (more air intake due to higher area of the fanblades).
You are starting to repeat yourself, which would be OK if you were correct or even consistent. You know, he's right again. While you fail to actually contradict him, you do contradict yourself by not bothering to say anything about pressure differences that you don't understand very well. Him: "Fourth, of course the torque is more effective at a larger radius, but this has nothing to do with efficiency."
You: Thiuss hasd no bearing on the situation other than stating that the larger a fan is, the better it works...duh, we already knew that.
Ummm, that's not what he said, but it's nice to see that you have the spirit to be condesending. Can you explain why a larger fan works better for us? Is it because the ends may be turning faster? Isn't this why axial turbines are generally rows of blades mounted further away from the axis than they are long? Would they be more efficient with a large hole in the center? Him again: "Fifth, any increase in air flow has to do with the shape of the blades and the speed of the fan and can probably be improved a somewhat by blocking the hub a little."
You, sigh: No, that would only limit the area of air-intake, which is bad...you want a big area of intake, to get as much air down the fan as possible. Blocking the hub is a Bad Idea(tm)
Do you know any other tune than, "this thing rocks because it has a smaller hub"? I think I've alrady stated the purpose of the hub. Go figure. Him: "Sixth, I do not see how the fan improves the efficiency of cooling anything. Increased air flow will cool anything better, according to how much horsepower do you want to put into your fan. And, it matters a whole lot where the parts to be cooled are in relation to the exit air stream, etc.etc.etc."
You: Yeah, you got the idea...this new design improves airflow, which is good!
Same tune. You know what is good but not how to achieve it. He does. But wait, you have a conclusion: Not PR, just airflow...they increase the airintake (by having a smaller hub, which also means better cooling near the centre of the fan) while lowering vortices near the airintake (by having a seamless fancase-fan interface), thus creating better cooling
OK. Does anyone have any numbers around here? Like flow vrs current for various radiuses? Yes that would be useful, a repeatable experiment comparing various available designs. The data sheet is slashdotted. Perhaps you can CAD up some drawings of a test bench for us?
The further you have mass from the axis of rotation the more likely you are to have imbalances, vibes and noise. If these things have magenets on the tips, expect them to wear out their bearings fast and sing.
Gosh, what else do they make besides a second rate search engine? That there is no security on M$ is no secret.
Their response according to the article is:
Microsoft representatives said that the software giant's security response team is investigating the zlib flaw and that some Microsoft applications use code from that compression library.
Meanwhile, in a dark Seatle back room someone is running "apt-get update" for a fix! Well, that's what I did. No problems now.
I think that the key difference between Cablecos and telcos is that Telcos, as far as POTS is concerned, are treated as common carriers: they have no editorial control over what goes over their lines, and have to file tariffs (rate cards) with the FCC and the state PUC which in turn need regulatory approval. Cablecos are not Common Carriers, so they get editorial control over what goes over their wires (ie, you don't get channels they don't supply, but in turn they have some liability for their content). The general feeling at the Federal and most state levels, from what I've seen, is that cable TV and internet services are not seen as sufficently vital to everyday life (as opposed to basic telephone service, which is considered to be such) for the providers to be granted Common Carrier status.
Editorial control from my ISP? I think not. Your view, and that at the moronic Federal and State levels, only make sense if your ISP is really an entertianment company pushing crap down your throat. That's not what the internet is for, and it is outrageous that the public right of way is being given to people who think differently.
Get this! I'm not paying an ISP for yet another way to get Hollywood garbage. I'm paying my ISP for communications services. That my ISP would exercise "editorial" control by keeping me from serving, and that my ISP is a monopoly carrier is OBVIOULY against the public interest. My internet connection is worth more to me than my phone, my tv and all my magazine subscriptions as it has taken their place. My desire to contribute to the public domain is shared by countless others, who get it. Blocking our contributions will destroy the web as a forum of information creation and make it worthless, much like the poorly regulated Cable TV, and broadcast media.
Now go tell your friends what I said so I don't have to kick their ass.
Ok. These aren't birth defects, but the central point remains.
Uhhh, what's the point? Thyroid cancer is both preventable and curable. It happens because airborn radioactive iodine concentrates in your thyroid. It can be prevented by taking massive doses of non radioactive iodine before exposure. It can be cured later, but obviously this is not desirable. Tens of thousands of "human robots" were thrown into the mess and forced to recieve much larger than necessary doses. If you look into the report, you will see that these numbers are taken into account to provide the overall mortality cited. It will be in the hundreds (180 or so), not the tens of thousands, and there are no expected increases in birth defects and other horrors.
A crashing nuclear rocket will be of comprable scale. It's a significant risk, but one that should be weighed correctly.
If you look around, people are saying this is just going to make your file system into one big database. I'll leave the reliability of M$ databases alone to answer your pressing concern. If you read the intro to this article again in the right light you have it:
ts planned that the new filesystem will make searches easier, faster, and more reliable.
That's searches of YOUR file system, but not always YOUR searches. By the new XP EULA M$ has delcared the right to check your entire file system for copy-right violating material and remove it. They also reserve, as do all the slave masterts, the right to terminate your license at anytime they decide you are non complient. So put it together. You copy N-Stink, they turn you off. Nice eh? You don't put it past the company that records every song you listen to and how many times with their media player, do you? Pay per play is on the way.
If there exists files on your computer not needed to run the computer itself which you can not modifiy, copy or remove, but someone else can, Then they are root and you are not.
I imagine that any self respecting country would have some kind of indigenous dino maker. Let's see. Germany? Nope. UK? Nope. Similar pages can be found for France. Bully for Germany and Japan for at least trying, but it looks like the US kicks ass in this field. I suppose that you can charge alot when you make something others have a hard time keeping up with.
We shall see the merits of the case.
I've read the World Health Organization's ten year report and I'd point to it if I could. Unfortunately, that one and a new one are not free information. Order it or go visit a library.
I'm not going to say there are no risks, what I'll ask you to do is weigh the risks of doing nothing. The shutdown of the US space program is a national embarassment. We beat up all the lions, tigers and bears. Even the baboons gave up (Appologies to W. Chruchill). The world is watching us and they expect results. We should show them that it is better co-operate and create new resources than it is to squabble over and destroy old ones. If we wait too long, we may no longer be able to afford the effort.
Oh, you mean like Chernobyl? Not to make light of 100 or so deaths, but there are worse things in the world. It's hard to get worse than Chernobyl: Big core with high burn-up (that's lots of fision products from running), Zero containment, chemical explosions and fire at ground level.
Or perhaps you were thinking of all of the thousands of above ground nuclear bomb tests that the people have performed?
- Other countries fears that fission powererd rockets are actually orbiting nuclear weapons, able to be dropped on them at will. And again, even if they weren't bombs, orbiting fission rockets would be nuclear weapons: all you have to do is build the containment vessel so it can be blown apart on impact via conventional explosives, leaving a cloud of contamination.
Holy Armagedon, Batman! Do you think that this is a more practical means of nuking your friends than the tens of thousands of purpose built warheads lying around?! What shall we do?
I suggest we quit fooling around with bullshit fears and get some good use out of Nuclear technology. Projects Kiwi and NERVA were technical sucesses killed by ludite nonsense. We can go to Mars, we can exploit the solar system and we should do so. The sooner the beter, population expands geometricaly. We can use nukes to solve our problems peacefully, or we will use them the other way as we run out of exploitable resourses here. Chose your children's future.