You can exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003 of the following computer products: Any desktop, laptop, or tablet computer made by any manufacturer for any operating system platform, or any of the following devices: printers, scanners, monitors, keyboards, or pointing devices (e.g. mouse, trackball).
Sounds like this might stimulate the California economy for computer products. Good deal.
Why can't I bet on things like this in Vegas or Atlantic City?
I don't know about Vegas, but in Atlantic City you can only bet on things which the New Jersey government specifically approves for you to bet on, and these things have to be approved by the voters in a special election. It's right in the New Jersey Constitution.
You statement wasn't specifically about Iraq, you made a general statement about "other countries".
True. But my statement meant that it is not necessarily absurd to accuse other countries of having WMD. Obviously it may be absurd in certain situtations. You can't take my statement out of context. We were talking about Iraq, and specifically we were talking about the notion that it is necessarily absurd to accuse a country of doing something that you yourself do.
The problem with your statement and your attitude is that you are implying it's OK for the US to have WMDs but nobody else.
It's OK with me.
And most people in the world would probably disagree with you.
I am assuming that this is a troll but I'll bite anyway.
It's not a troll. I seriously don't think it should be illegal to have red and blue lights on top of your car.
If a car has the red and blue flashing lights, it is effectively saying "I'm a police officer." (Impersonating a police officer is against the law.)
That's only because we have this law in the first place. And if an existing law (impersonating a police officer) already applies, then why do we need another one?
So when you see the red and blue lights, you can instantly associate that with police cars and not have to worry that when you pull over you are going to be robbed or something.
Yeah, cause police never rob people.
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand why it is illegal to try to pass your car off as a police car.
And I don't see why police need to get any special privileges in the first place. Police should follow the law, not be above it.
I work fairly close to a hospital and a fire station and see them coming through intersections all the time. Most of the time they don't even bother changing the light (though they do stop at a red light for a moment before going through the intersection and hit the horn a few times), probably because the traffic is screwed up enough as it is in this area.
Umm, are you sure your area has these? Most don't.
I'd say about 25% of the time they have to go through the intersections on the wrong side of the road because no one can get out of the way in time (and this might actually be why they don't change the light, since there will be less on-coming traffic and less traffic on the other side of the intersection.
These devices usually turn the light for the oncoming traffic to red as well.
So we should reward then for dangerous, illegal behavior, and being, as others have put it, "complete assmunches" and "fucktards?"
Of course not.
When you see a specimen of Idiotus Automotivus running a red, you call the police. If you are going to go through red lights on a regular basis, then you should not be driving.
I always come to a full stop before going through a red light, personally.
There should be no law against painting your car like a police car and putting red and blue lights on your top.
There should't. Laws should apply to everyone equally. Why should the police get red and blue lights but I can't? Sure, I can see a law against using red and blue lights in a non-emergency, but a law against merely posseessing them? I wouldn't go so far as to call it unconstitutional, but it is a bad law.
They would cause people who have radar detectors to slow down.
Since they'd probably be even cheaper than speed limit signs, they'd fill a useful and cost effective function.
Sure, the devices themselves might be cheap. But think about all the lost revenue from writing fewer speeding tickets. That's the real reason we have stupid speed limits in the first place.
They could however instead flash red and yellow alternately and quickly so that it would mean EXACTLY and ONLY that an emergency vehicle is approaching and ALL ways need to stop to give it right of way.
What if two emergency vehicles reach the same intersection at the same time? That's going to be a nasty collision.
Gridlock isn't dependent on the traffic lights (remembering various stories about New York where the fire engines were in the middle of a block and it would take 30 minutes to go just over a mile.
It depends. In manhattan during rush hour (which is about 8 hours out of each day), you're quite right, and turning the lights either green or red could be devestating. In those places it's much better to just leave bad enough alone, unless you're going to coordinate a very complicated system to clear the way.
What problem does that solve? Someone can still use the device and then go through the red light. But this is illegal, you say? So is using the device if you're not an emergency vehicle. And don't tell me the cop isn't going to notice the light suddenly changing (and the emergency flashing light at the top coming on).
Making all lights go red solves nothing, and defeats the purpose of having the device in the first place.
Unlike England, where the British Post Office (?) (the regulator of radio in Britain) controls electromagnetic waves all the way up through gamma if they carry a communication channel.
What about the visible spectrum? Do they control flashlight use, too?
The best option is to buy the equipment which allows codes to be changed at will (since most lights have a central link anyway) and cars which can similarily be updated at will.
Why not just make it illegal to use the damn things? It's not like traffic lights stop traffic from passing through an intersection, they just determine who is legally allowed to pass through the intersection.
If the convicted felon can legally carry a handgun, then, yes, it is absurd. If the convicted felon cannot legally carry a handgun, then it is a valid legal accusation.
So you are reliant upon your governmennt to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Personally I separate what is moral from what is legal.
In any case, the UN decided that Iraq cannot legally possess WMD. So the analogy holds.
And, if you knew anything, you would know the next IP scheme would be IPv8.
Umm, OK, I guess I don't know anything.
IPv$oddnumber is reserved for non-public testing of the draft. Sort of like Linux. Things that end in even numbers are acceptible for the general public to use.
When you say 'it doesn't work very well', what do you mean ?
I mean it said I live in Georgia, when I actually live in New Jersey.
Yup, it's pretty empty at the moment - it's been up for about 90 minutes [grin], and had about 67 people add a city. That's it.
If you're relying on everyone in every IP address sublock to manually go about recording their city I'm afraid you're never going to have a usable system. After a brief check it looks like you're using the ripe data. Yeah, that'll get you the country some of the time, but it's completely useless as far as getting any deeper than that. Also, the other two files your fetch program tries to obtain seem to be unavailable. I'm still grepping through it, though.
Always open to co-operation - use my email (should be in the header) to get in touch:-) I might take you up on the TSV data once I've had a look at the sarangworld data.
I just used a simple perl script (and HTML::TreeBuilder) to parse his html. If you're not familiar with TreeBuilder I could send you the script. I'll send you an email with my email and AIM login. I probably won't have time to go over your scripts today, but I'd definately like to try to incorporate what you have into my scripts which I based on the sarangworld data.
Umm, how the hell does this solve against DDoS attacks?
In theory it could protect against DoS attacks which use IP spoofing, but that's purely theoretical. I'm talking about real world problems that aren't already solved some other way.
It doesn't work very well... I suggest you download the databases from here and incorporate them into your info. Click on list of patterns and list of translations. Or if you want I'll send you my tab separated values and some sample perl code. But first you have to open up your code. Anyone else have some data to add to the mix? If we combine the work of just 5 or 6 of us we'll probably have VisualRoute beat in no time.
I have a better idea. Why don't we spend 2 years creating IPv7, and make it backward compatible with IPv4. Then we can allow people to gradually switch as they find it necessary.
I thought the current issue with IPv4 was not the limited number of ip addresses, but the increased routing tables brought on by classless routing?
First of all, I think moore's law already took care of that problem.
But secondly, the solution is not to redo the entire internet. If you want to solve routing problems there is absolutely no reason to involve the end-user. You could, have the ISPs automatically tag extra routing information at the second hop. DJB was right when he said that one of the major flaws with IPv6 is that the "designers don't have a transition plan." (emphasis his)
You're not going to be able to connect to a server inside a private inside a private inside a private network, except through some port juggling hacks which you're not likely to get from your commercial ISP.
You're not likely to be able to get an IPv6 address from your commercial ISP either so that's a moot point. Port juggling hacks, while not elegant, work just fine. If an ISP wanted you to receive incoming connections (most don't), giving you a few static IP/port pairs forwarded to your private IP would easily solve that problem.
The true benefits of IPv6 are things like; improved routing, multicasting scope, greater flexibility in what packets contain, flow labeling, privacy and authentication.
Then get rid of the larger address space and introduce a protocol which is backward compatible with the current one. Allow the ISPs to upgrade without the end-users needing to. It can be done. Call it IPv7.
Especially flow labeling will be important if the net is going to be a source of media. Streams could get a higher priority, so low latency and glitch free audio and video can be possible.
IPv4 already has this.
Makes me wonder if this couldn't be abused though.
Slashdot Mirror
You can exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003 of the following computer products: Any desktop, laptop, or tablet computer made by any manufacturer for any operating system platform, or any of the following devices: printers, scanners, monitors, keyboards, or pointing devices (e.g. mouse, trackball).
Sounds like this might stimulate the California economy for computer products. Good deal.
Why can't I bet on things like this in Vegas or Atlantic City?
I don't know about Vegas, but in Atlantic City you can only bet on things which the New Jersey government specifically approves for you to bet on, and these things have to be approved by the voters in a special election. It's right in the New Jersey Constitution.
No, you just made a bad analogy.
I think I made a perfect analogy.
You statement wasn't specifically about Iraq, you made a general statement about "other countries".
True. But my statement meant that it is not necessarily absurd to accuse other countries of having WMD. Obviously it may be absurd in certain situtations. You can't take my statement out of context. We were talking about Iraq, and specifically we were talking about the notion that it is necessarily absurd to accuse a country of doing something that you yourself do.
The problem with your statement and your attitude is that you are implying it's OK for the US to have WMDs but nobody else.
It's OK with me.
And most people in the world would probably disagree with you.
Sure, I'd expect them to.
1) I've never seen an 'emergency flashing light at the top [come] on' when an emergency vehicle changes the lights
As others have said, they have them.
2) Who would actually use this while a cop was around?
Who would actually use it when a cop isn't around? Just blow the light.
3) They do need to find a better way of doing this, such as using an encrypted signal and an identifier
Agreed. Unless it's too expensive.
I am assuming that this is a troll but I'll bite anyway.
It's not a troll. I seriously don't think it should be illegal to have red and blue lights on top of your car.
If a car has the red and blue flashing lights, it is effectively saying "I'm a police officer." (Impersonating a police officer is against the law.)
That's only because we have this law in the first place. And if an existing law (impersonating a police officer) already applies, then why do we need another one?
So when you see the red and blue lights, you can instantly associate that with police cars and not have to worry that when you pull over you are going to be robbed or something.
Yeah, cause police never rob people.
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand why it is illegal to try to pass your car off as a police car.
And I don't see why police need to get any special privileges in the first place. Police should follow the law, not be above it.
I work fairly close to a hospital and a fire station and see them coming through intersections all the time. Most of the time they don't even bother changing the light (though they do stop at a red light for a moment before going through the intersection and hit the horn a few times), probably because the traffic is screwed up enough as it is in this area.
Umm, are you sure your area has these? Most don't.
I'd say about 25% of the time they have to go through the intersections on the wrong side of the road because no one can get out of the way in time (and this might actually be why they don't change the light, since there will be less on-coming traffic and less traffic on the other side of the intersection.
These devices usually turn the light for the oncoming traffic to red as well.
So we should reward then for dangerous, illegal behavior, and being, as others have put it, "complete assmunches" and "fucktards?"
Of course not.
When you see a specimen of Idiotus Automotivus running a red, you call the police. If you are going to go through red lights on a regular basis, then you should not be driving.
I always come to a full stop before going through a red light, personally.
It is a first come first serve type of operation. The first unit that trips the signal gets the green light, all other lights go red.
The suggestion that I was responding to was that the lights "flash red and yellow alternately and quickly."
All emergency vehicle drivers are trained to stop on red and then go.
Which is why the light needs to turn green if it's going to accomplish anything. Not red, not yellow and red, green.
There should be no law against painting your car like a police car and putting red and blue lights on your top.
There should't. Laws should apply to everyone equally. Why should the police get red and blue lights but I can't? Sure, I can see a law against using red and blue lights in a non-emergency, but a law against merely posseessing them? I wouldn't go so far as to call it unconstitutional, but it is a bad law.
They would cause people who have radar detectors to slow down.
Since they'd probably be even cheaper than speed limit signs, they'd fill a useful and cost effective function.
Sure, the devices themselves might be cheap. But think about all the lost revenue from writing fewer speeding tickets. That's the real reason we have stupid speed limits in the first place.
Where I live we already have enough drivers plowing through red lights. Six people are dead in the last incident that made the news.
If those loons had these devices, six more people would be alive today.
They could however instead flash red and yellow alternately and quickly so that it would mean EXACTLY and ONLY that an emergency vehicle is approaching and ALL ways need to stop to give it right of way.
What if two emergency vehicles reach the same intersection at the same time? That's going to be a nasty collision.
Gridlock isn't dependent on the traffic lights (remembering various stories about New York where the fire engines were in the middle of a block and it would take 30 minutes to go just over a mile.
It depends. In manhattan during rush hour (which is about 8 hours out of each day), you're quite right, and turning the lights either green or red could be devestating. In those places it's much better to just leave bad enough alone, unless you're going to coordinate a very complicated system to clear the way.
What problem does that solve? Someone can still use the device and then go through the red light. But this is illegal, you say? So is using the device if you're not an emergency vehicle. And don't tell me the cop isn't going to notice the light suddenly changing (and the emergency flashing light at the top coming on).
Making all lights go red solves nothing, and defeats the purpose of having the device in the first place.
Unlike England, where the British Post Office (?) (the regulator of radio in Britain) controls electromagnetic waves all the way up through gamma if they carry a communication channel.
What about the visible spectrum? Do they control flashlight use, too?
The best option is to buy the equipment which allows codes to be changed at will (since most lights have a central link anyway) and cars which can similarily be updated at will.
Why not just make it illegal to use the damn things? It's not like traffic lights stop traffic from passing through an intersection, they just determine who is legally allowed to pass through the intersection.
If the convicted felon can legally carry a handgun, then, yes, it is absurd. If the convicted felon cannot legally carry a handgun, then it is a valid legal accusation.
So you are reliant upon your governmennt to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Personally I separate what is moral from what is legal.
In any case, the UN decided that Iraq cannot legally possess WMD. So the analogy holds.
IPv4 dosen't have it by default.
So?
QoS is an addon, and a hack.
Most useful things are.
And, if you knew anything, you would know the next IP scheme would be IPv8.
Umm, OK, I guess I don't know anything.
IPv$oddnumber is reserved for non-public testing of the draft. Sort of like Linux. Things that end in even numbers are acceptible for the general public to use.
Can anyone back that up?
When you say 'it doesn't work very well', what do you mean ?
I mean it said I live in Georgia, when I actually live in New Jersey.
Yup, it's pretty empty at the moment - it's been up for about 90 minutes [grin], and had about 67 people add a city. That's it.
If you're relying on everyone in every IP address sublock to manually go about recording their city I'm afraid you're never going to have a usable system. After a brief check it looks like you're using the ripe data. Yeah, that'll get you the country some of the time, but it's completely useless as far as getting any deeper than that. Also, the other two files your fetch program tries to obtain seem to be unavailable. I'm still grepping through it, though.
Always open to co-operation - use my email (should be in the header) to get in touch :-) I might take you up on the TSV data once I've had a look at the sarangworld data.
I just used a simple perl script (and HTML::TreeBuilder) to parse his html. If you're not familiar with TreeBuilder I could send you the script. I'll send you an email with my email and AIM login. I probably won't have time to go over your scripts today, but I'd definately like to try to incorporate what you have into my scripts which I based on the sarangworld data.
Umm, how the hell does this solve against DDoS attacks?
In theory it could protect against DoS attacks which use IP spoofing, but that's purely theoretical. I'm talking about real world problems that aren't already solved some other way.
It doesn't work very well... I suggest you download the databases from here and incorporate them into your info. Click on list of patterns and list of translations. Or if you want I'll send you my tab separated values and some sample perl code. But first you have to open up your code. Anyone else have some data to add to the mix? If we combine the work of just 5 or 6 of us we'll probably have VisualRoute beat in no time.
I have a better idea. Why don't we spend 2 years creating IPv7, and make it backward compatible with IPv4. Then we can allow people to gradually switch as they find it necessary.
I thought the current issue with IPv4 was not the limited number of ip addresses, but the increased routing tables brought on by classless routing?
First of all, I think moore's law already took care of that problem.
But secondly, the solution is not to redo the entire internet. If you want to solve routing problems there is absolutely no reason to involve the end-user. You could, have the ISPs automatically tag extra routing information at the second hop. DJB was right when he said that one of the major flaws with IPv6 is that the "designers don't have a transition plan." (emphasis his)
Imagine a world where you can trust the "from" IP address in a packet.
OK. I imagined it. So what? What real world problem does this solve that isn't already solved?
You're not going to be able to connect to a server inside a private inside a private inside a private network, except through some port juggling hacks which you're not likely to get from your commercial ISP.
You're not likely to be able to get an IPv6 address from your commercial ISP either so that's a moot point. Port juggling hacks, while not elegant, work just fine. If an ISP wanted you to receive incoming connections (most don't), giving you a few static IP/port pairs forwarded to your private IP would easily solve that problem.
The true benefits of IPv6 are things like; improved routing, multicasting scope, greater flexibility in what packets contain, flow labeling, privacy and authentication.
Then get rid of the larger address space and introduce a protocol which is backward compatible with the current one. Allow the ISPs to upgrade without the end-users needing to. It can be done. Call it IPv7.
Especially flow labeling will be important if the net is going to be a source of media. Streams could get a higher priority, so low latency and glitch free audio and video can be possible.
IPv4 already has this.
Makes me wonder if this couldn't be abused though.
It can, that's why almost all routers ignore it.