sounds like a bad design for a PDA. Memory cards are cheap and people would rather buy whatever kind than have bigger, fatter device. CompactFlash port, in particular is very bulky. As for plugins like a camera, USB would be a better interface. Doesn't it already have a USB port for the desktop?
There is a huge difference between a USB host controller and a USB device. In order to be a USB 1.1 compliant host you much be able to source 5VDC 1.2A Most PDAs are 3.3V internally, and carry nowhere near that amount of current capability. Yes, the are ways to get around this, and the are new standards on the way, but what good does that do now if you can put USB on the box?
CF is a great interface for PDAs. It's open and it's just a miniturized PCMCIA bus. That means it's really easy for manufacturers to take their existing designs and produce them is a smaller CF card for factor.
Besides the technical reasons why USB isn't that great of an idea, there are other issues as well. With the CF wifi card for my Zaurus, the antenna sticks out of the slot a little bit, and that's it. I shudder when I imagine using a USB wifi adaptor with it. I'd be forced to have some oddly-shaped little box dangling by a cord from my PDA. How much of a pain in the ass would that be to take in and out of your pocket?
IRDA is also not really good for anything. People have to wiggle their devices for minutes just to send a business card. Forget about trying to HotSync with a laptop. Save that space for bluetooth or 802.11.
Actually IRDA is really useful. It's about the only fully standardized way to exchange data between almost all modern PDAs. It's useful for a lot more things than busness cards too. I can just hold my Zaurus next to the IR port on my laptop. A little popup tells my windows sees the Zaurus, and then I can send it whatever files I want. No wires to carry around, no extra drivers to install. It would be silly not to implement IRDA. The amount of hardware resources required is tiny. It's probably less than 1cm^2 of board space. Maybe less than.5cm^2. The serial port is already going to be built into the processor anyways.
If you don't like it, don't use it, but IRDA is not the reason this thing doesn't have built-in wifi.
Freenet may eventually contain a political treatise from the oppressed citizens of a dictatorship, but it will probably contain copyrighted songs, movies, porn, etc. by a factor of a hundred thousand to one. Supporting anonymous political speech is more good than illegal copying is bad, but by a factor of 100,000?
You ideals are way too narrow here. Porn may not be dissident speech here, but it might be in Iran. This isn't just about politcal speech, this is about being able to freely express oneself. The whole point is that free thought (and its transfer) are essential for any democracy. It's idiotic to squash it at the whim of an organization whose time has come and gone.
Knowledge/Information is power. Power to the people. The least thing we need to be giving more power to right now are the megacorps (Sony, et al).
This comment makes me sick. How do P2P apps contribute to liberating legitimate music distribution?
By cutting off the money supply of the RIAA cartel. With no one buying music, they have no money coming in. Their mafia-like racket, which takes advantage of artists, consumers, and retailers will finally be broken.
No more "protection" money for them. The RIAA's failure will be a boon to artists (no longer forced to sign exclusive & insane contracts), consumers (more music, cheaper, while supporting your favorite artists), and retailers. (price-fixing anyone?)
Re:I love the punk kids....
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 1
I really like have my loud stereo for bikers.
I was sitting at a light in town 2 weeks ago and whole pack of Harley's came up behind me and kept revving their engines.
Flip a switch, turn a knob, and they have to listen to me instead. Oh, and I have 2000 watts so.... mine's bigger than yours:P
BTW, 112 Db is child's play these days. Really, I don't even think my current system is that good. I would never compete with it.
You should be a bit more careful with your choice of words. Just as there is no "Unbreakable" crypto (please no OTP comments), the is no way to be totally anonymous.
You can only get a certain degree of anonyminity. It's all a question of how much info someone would need to collect.
I say please no OTP comments because it's analogous to making a locked box invincible, by putting it inside an invincible locked box. Yes that would technically make it invincible, but really all you're doing is shifting the burden of security elsewhere. It's a useful thing to do, but it's not really and answer to the question, "How can I secure an information channel?" as it requres another, secure information channel.
Now you're either being sexist (bad, because I know lots of pretty OK women drivers), or anti-SUV drivers (good, because they tend to be bad drivers with low self-confidence and correspondingly low skill).
Bullshit. I didn't pick the SUV example of the person being a girl, and suggesting that a girl like the one in his example might do her make-up is hardly sexist.
If I'd said "Women can't drive." That would be sexist.
There are bad female drivers out there, who do their makeup, yak incessantly on their phones, etc. That's reality. There are bad male drivers too.
What I was being was anti-irresbonsible, unattentive drivers.
It's funny how willing you are to belittle a large group of people based on a single characteristic (owning an suv), yet you see no problem calling me a sexist because you didn't get my point.
Here's my point:
Susy was gabbing on her cellphone. Susy wasn't paying attention to the road. She ran into someone else. This indicates that Susy does not pay a sufficient level of attention to the road. For some reason she doesn't feel she has to. Taking away her phone isn't going to change her attitude. It will take away one distraction, but chances are she'll find another one.
Peace in the middle east would also solve a good portion of the problem (from an engineering perspective) and it doesn't cost millions of dollars. AND it is immune to hacking.
Immune to hacking?! Not even close. Say there was a historic peace accord. All someone needs to do is a little social engineering. Convince each side that the other is secretly using the case-fire are a ruse to give them time to build up miltiary force. Set off a bomb or two. There ya go, 10,000 more years of war. Enjoy.
No problem. There will be a panel in the cockpit. Remove that panel and you will find two wires leading to the "tamperproof" soft-wall decision box, a red one and a blue one. A bad guy would know which wire to cut because he did his research beforehand, but you're a good guy, so you will have to agonize over the matter. "Do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire?" Beads of sweat break out on your forehead as you position the wire clippers over the blue wire, change your mind at the last instant and clip the red wire. This turns out be the right decision, so you will be able to steer the plane to avoid disaster just in the nick of time. Hurray!
That's because terrorists all know and follow the International Terrorist Wire Color Code (I think it's an IEE (Institute of Evil Engineers) standard or something. It's the same standard that requires bombs to have large red LED countdown diplays. It also forbids the use of any boobytraps to prevent someone from opening the box.
Politicians and inventors seem to think that the cause of cell-phone related accidents has something to do with their hands being too occupied. I think it's quite obvious that the real problem is that people can't focus on two things at once.
I think you're quite wrong. If that was true, it should also be illegal to talk to the passengers in your car. I think we can all agree that your average person can handle driving down the road and talking to the person next to them. They have to if the want to pass their driver's test.
The problem is cellphones are to complex to operate while you're going down the road. Think about how much time it take to dial seven number accurately on a tink keypad with poor tactile response. Or to press the volume button seven times just to get the volume level right. We never saw these kinds of problems with CB radios because they're simple. See my other post about how voice dialing should be mandatory for cellphone use in cars.
Susy is just a reckless, irresponsible person. She shouldn't be on the road, even without a cellphone. Without one, she would have been looking in the rearview, doing her makeup when she hit you. The problem in her case doesn't have very much to do with cellphones at all.
If I'm going to take my hands off the wheel,
I want to do something quick and unambiguous, then out them right back where they were. Buttons and switches are simple, reliable, and give tactile feedback. When I flip a switch on my dash, I can feel it move, and heard it click. I know my will has been done and I can go back to driving the vehicle. With a gesture system, there will be a tendency to wait and see if the system has properly recognized your motions before returning your attention to the road This is bad.
Steering-wheel mounted controls are the way to go. Control the radio with you thumbs and maybe dial your phone with buttons in the middle of the wheel.
Controls need to be quick and simple. We don't have any laws saying you need a hands-free kit for your CB in any state that I know of because they aren't that distracting. A single button push or know twist will effect whatever changes you want, and no one hesitates to drop their mic if they need to, since they're desiged to handle it. Contrast this with a typical handheld cellphone: Tiny keys, poor tactile feedback, inefficient controls (volume buttons instead of a knob), tiny displays. Just think about how much time you take your eyes off the road to dial a seven digit number. Plenty of time to get you killed on the wrong day.
Voice dialing (for ANY number: "five-five-five-one-two-one-two"), volume control knobs, and a single button that takes the phone on and off-hook should be mandatory for all cellphones used while driving. NYS already has a law requiring the use of a "hands free" kit, but AFIAK just plugging and earbud into your phone satisfies that requrement.
Also, UL can be a bad thing for some manufacturers. Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
Yeah testing costs money, but really, how can you claim your product is safe if you don't test it? The solution is definately not to left people get away without having their products tested.
Product development these days, costs a lot of money. Testing is a necessary part of that develpoment. Think about it this way:
I walk into a store. There's a few automatic coffee pots there on the shelf. One is a band I've never heard of and isn't certified by anybody. The others are well-know brands and are all UL-listed. How the heck an I supposed to know what the story with your small company's product is? Maybe you didn't have the money to get it certified. Maybe you didn't care. Maybe it wouldn't pass, and is dangerous. There's no way for me as consumer to know which possibility it is.
You have to admit that, if I buy your product, I'm taking a gamble in terms of saftey. IMO testing is especially important for small/new companies, because they don't have an established reputation to rely on. I don't know you? I don't trust you. Proove to me that you give a @#$% about building a quality product. Every sticker on that box, is another name I already know, vouching for your product.
Now here's a general good tip on getting things tested: Send someone to the lab where you're getting your product tested. If you don't do that, some labs will their time (and bill you for it).
Use IPSec. There are many tutorials for using IPSec in tunnel mode as a replacement for WEP. Google it. I wrote the 3rd or 4th one down - it isn't that hard, guys. Please don't use WEP, it really isn't smart.
Actually, the smart thing to do is to use both.
"You use WEP?!"
Well duh, that keeps unautorized users off your network. Yeah it's crackable, but IPSec does nothing for lower-layer security. IPSec was designed for a different purpose than WEP If you want a secure network, use both.
As long as there are threats, the US will need to have a strong military. And the rest of the world should be glad that the US is not in the business of building an empire.
And to fund this war mindset continually, we'll invent the threat, continually.
There is a HUGE difference between peace through strength, and continual war. I think you're missing the point:
Just as we need a police force to protect us from those who would otherwise do whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted, we need a military to protect us from threats abroad.
Yes, those threats do exist. Some people just have issues with reality.
Resolution for what? Sadam still being the legal leader of his country?
Legal how, because he kills severyone who opposes him?
And that was our business why?
Because of his tendency to invade other countries, gas people, etc.
Did he have WMD? Nope.
Actually, yes he did. We should know, since we helped him get them. If he didn't have chemical weapons, how the heck did he ACTUALLY USE THEM.
So, what was the problem? What did we have to get tough about? Nothing. It was all a pack of lies told to convince us that we were doing the right thing.
Removing a brutal dictator from office sure sounds like the right thing to me. Even if we don't get anything out of it (heaven forbid) we'll at least be helping out the people who actually live in that country.
right now in iraq and what we did in vietnam is acting like police... it is always a complete failure at the end with lots of casualties on both sides... NO police action was ever sucessful in the history of man... the romans learned it early on.
Bullshit. Somalia anyone? Bosnia? Serbia? Haiti? It's silly to make unilateral claims like that. There are times when police actions are a good idea and other times when they aren't.
Carpet bombing Iraq, now or in five years is not a solution, and doesn't win anything. It's the worst idea I've heard in a long time, and shows an amazing amount or disrespect for human life. Killing everyone in Iraq is not an option. At least for anyone who isn't Stalin, Hitler, Milosevic, Enver, Jemal, Talat or apparently, you.
I hope we stay there....for years. Maybe we're finally learing a bit from our past. Cuba for example. If we don't like the dictator in power, we shouldn't just take him out of power....we should make sure another one does not take his place.
(unless they are in a country that HAS no such laws, or doesn't honor extradition requests from foreign nations)
Wouldn't this be a great chance to use a few cruise missles? All we have to do is equate spammers with terrorists and I'm sure we can get dubya right on it. Or maybe we can tell the Israelis that they're members of Hamas....
Allright, I know making politcal staments was playing with fire, but won't someone please think of the spammers? Can't we convince someone to hunt them down for us?
Sorry, but there are no international agreements regarding unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz band is a privilege, not a right, and is permitted only in the US and a few other countries.
Use of air is a privilege? Damn, he really is screwed! Can we some some people together to send him some canned air? (Note to the clueless:I'm being facetious.)
Now seriously, why is use of XXX band a privilege and not a right? The RF spectrum belongs to the public, therefore the public has a right to use at least some of it. It's the same way with roads. People will say "driving is a privilege, not a right" without even thinking. Do your taxes pay for those roads? Since you're paying for it don't you have some right to use it? Would you be okay with the federal, state, and local gov'ts each charging a $1,000/year "driver's fee"?
I'm not saying driving should be an unconditional right. Heck we don't have any of those anyways. I'm saying that you, as a member of the public have a right to benefit from public property, which you pay to maintain.
Computers are not needed for small kids.
It is better for them to learn some math,
or more important their language.
This is insightful?
Please.
Computers are a fact of life. Kids should be exposed to them early.
The comments about math and language are a nonsense argument. Kids shouldn't be taught one skill, or two skills. They should be taught a variety of skills. Computer use, and more importantly, understanding basic computer concepts are very important skills.
Mod down and Flame away, but I'll be brave...
I've been doing audio production work for a couple years using Windows 2000, Nuendo, Amplitube, This incredible $139 gadget, using only this inexpensive audio card. I don't get blue screens of death, my hardware is fully supported, etc. I run a second HD with Red Hat 9 (and incidentally, the awesome Ximian Desktop), and I can't even get my sound card to work. I love Linux, but no serious musician will be using the penguin for audio production for at least a few more years.
!!!???!!!!
Because Linux doesn't work with your specfic sound card, "no serious musician blah blah".
You're not even trying to be fair. Linux supports a reasonable number of sound cards. Not a huge amount, but definately enough to get sound going. If you didn't even have the equipment to try sound editing on Linux, then your opinion isn't really worth jack.
No, you're not. Is your intent to get his gun because you'd like to have it and keep it? That's not theft, that's an attempt to reduce your personal danger. Self-defense, actually.
Actually, yes you are stealing. It's a very justifiable theft, but you are still taking someone else's property without their permission. It is also an act of self-defense.
You see, the thing is that you have rights, and he has rights. Sometimes those rights collide. He has a right to his property, but you have a right to personal safety. In this case society has deemed that your rights in the matter are more inportant than his, and you will not be prosecuted for violating his rights.
This does not mean that your violation of his rights did not occur, it means society has decided that it is forgivable.
Protection racket? Explain how you make *that* leap. Who are they "protecting"?
So yes, it is hard to justify violating their rights. Using pejorative statements such as 'ill-begotten' is very misleading and does not an argument make. They are acting within the law, unlike a protection racket and you're just a cheap-skate who wants to set all the prices yourelf. If you really want everything for free, vote for whatever communist party is in your country. see how far that gets you.
The courts don't seem to argee with you. And the communist remark was childish, and shows a major lack of understanding of the situation. The RIAA is interfering with normal economic competition, and therefore capitalism.
What they did was attempt to keep smaller music only stores in business.
This is hearsay. I would suggest their real reason was to maximize their profits.
However that is not true, if you adjust for inflation the price has come down.
So the "oligopoly price" of CDs has gone down. What's your point? It's still much higher than it should be in a free, competitve market. This is due to their illegal manipulation of prices.
If market forces we setting the price of CDs, they would have started out cheaper than cassetes and gone down from there. Even back then, they were cheaper to produce.
Slashdot Mirror
sounds like a bad design for a PDA. Memory cards are cheap and people would rather buy whatever kind than have bigger, fatter device. CompactFlash port, in particular is very bulky. As for plugins like a camera, USB would be a better interface. Doesn't it already have a USB port for the desktop?
.5cm^2. The serial port is already going to be built into the processor anyways.
There is a huge difference between a USB host controller and a USB device. In order to be a USB 1.1 compliant host you much be able to source 5VDC 1.2A Most PDAs are 3.3V internally, and carry nowhere near that amount of current capability. Yes, the are ways to get around this, and the are new standards on the way, but what good does that do now if you can put USB on the box?
CF is a great interface for PDAs. It's open and it's just a miniturized PCMCIA bus. That means it's really easy for manufacturers to take their existing designs and produce them is a smaller CF card for factor.
Besides the technical reasons why USB isn't that great of an idea, there are other issues as well. With the CF wifi card for my Zaurus, the antenna sticks out of the slot a little bit, and that's it. I shudder when I imagine using a USB wifi adaptor with it. I'd be forced to have some oddly-shaped little box dangling by a cord from my PDA. How much of a pain in the ass would that be to take in and out of your pocket?
IRDA is also not really good for anything. People have to wiggle their devices for minutes just to send a business card. Forget about trying to HotSync with a laptop. Save that space for bluetooth or 802.11.
Actually IRDA is really useful. It's about the only fully standardized way to exchange data between almost all modern PDAs. It's useful for a lot more things than busness cards too. I can just hold my Zaurus next to the IR port on my laptop. A little popup tells my windows sees the Zaurus, and then I can send it whatever files I want. No wires to carry around, no extra drivers to install. It would be silly not to implement IRDA. The amount of hardware resources required is tiny. It's probably less than 1cm^2 of board space. Maybe less than
If you don't like it, don't use it, but IRDA is not the reason this thing doesn't have built-in wifi.
Freenet may eventually contain a political treatise from the oppressed citizens of a dictatorship, but it will probably contain copyrighted songs, movies, porn, etc. by a factor of a hundred thousand to one. Supporting anonymous political speech is more good than illegal copying is bad, but by a factor of 100,000?
You ideals are way too narrow here. Porn may not be dissident speech here, but it might be in Iran. This isn't just about politcal speech, this is about being able to freely express oneself. The whole point is that free thought (and its transfer) are essential for any democracy. It's idiotic to squash it at the whim of an organization whose time has come and gone.
Knowledge/Information is power. Power to the people. The least thing we need to be giving more power to right now are the megacorps (Sony, et al).
This comment makes me sick. How do P2P apps contribute to liberating legitimate music distribution?
By cutting off the money supply of the RIAA cartel. With no one buying music, they have no money coming in. Their mafia-like racket, which takes advantage of artists, consumers, and retailers will finally be broken.
No more "protection" money for them. The RIAA's failure will be a boon to artists (no longer forced to sign exclusive & insane contracts), consumers (more music, cheaper, while supporting your favorite artists), and retailers. (price-fixing anyone?)
I really like have my loud stereo for bikers.
:P
I was sitting at a light in town 2 weeks ago and whole pack of Harley's came up behind me and kept revving their engines.
Flip a switch, turn a knob, and they have to listen to me instead. Oh, and I have 2000 watts so.... mine's bigger than yours
BTW, 112 Db is child's play these days. Really, I don't even think my current system is that good. I would never compete with it.
You should be a bit more careful with your choice of words. Just as there is no "Unbreakable" crypto (please no OTP comments), the is no way to be totally anonymous.
You can only get a certain degree of anonyminity. It's all a question of how much info someone would need to collect.
I say please no OTP comments because it's analogous to making a locked box invincible, by putting it inside an invincible locked box. Yes that would technically make it invincible, but really all you're doing is shifting the burden of security elsewhere. It's a useful thing to do, but it's not really and answer to the question, "How can I secure an information channel?" as it requres another, secure information channel.
Now you're either being sexist (bad, because I know lots of pretty OK women drivers), or anti-SUV drivers (good, because they tend to be bad drivers with low self-confidence and correspondingly low skill).
Bullshit. I didn't pick the SUV example of the person being a girl, and suggesting that a girl like the one in his example might do her make-up is hardly sexist.
If I'd said "Women can't drive." That would be sexist.
There are bad female drivers out there, who do their makeup, yak incessantly on their phones, etc. That's reality. There are bad male drivers too.
What I was being was anti-irresbonsible, unattentive drivers.
It's funny how willing you are to belittle a large group of people based on a single characteristic (owning an suv), yet you see no problem calling me a sexist because you didn't get my point.
Here's my point:
Susy was gabbing on her cellphone. Susy wasn't paying attention to the road. She ran into someone else. This indicates that Susy does not pay a sufficient level of attention to the road. For some reason she doesn't feel she has to. Taking away her phone isn't going to change her attitude. It will take away one distraction, but chances are she'll find another one.
Peace in the middle east would also solve a good portion of the problem (from an engineering perspective) and it doesn't cost millions of dollars. AND it is immune to hacking.
Immune to hacking?! Not even close. Say there was a historic peace accord. All someone needs to do is a little social engineering. Convince each side that the other is secretly using the case-fire are a ruse to give them time to build up miltiary force. Set off a bomb or two. There ya go, 10,000 more years of war. Enjoy.
No problem. There will be a panel in the cockpit. Remove that panel and you will find two wires leading to the "tamperproof" soft-wall decision box, a red one and a blue one. A bad guy would know which wire to cut because he did his research beforehand, but you're a good guy, so you will have to agonize over the matter. "Do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire?" Beads of sweat break out on your forehead as you position the wire clippers over the blue wire, change your mind at the last instant and clip the red wire. This turns out be the right decision, so you will be able to steer the plane to avoid disaster just in the nick of time. Hurray!
That's because terrorists all know and follow the International Terrorist Wire Color Code (I think it's an IEE (Institute of Evil Engineers) standard or something. It's the same standard that requires bombs to have large red LED countdown diplays. It also forbids the use of any boobytraps to prevent someone from opening the box.
Politicians and inventors seem to think that the cause of cell-phone related accidents has something to do with their hands being too occupied. I think it's quite obvious that the real problem is that people can't focus on two things at once.
I think you're quite wrong. If that was true, it should also be illegal to talk to the passengers in your car. I think we can all agree that your average person can handle driving down the road and talking to the person next to them. They have to if the want to pass their driver's test.
The problem is cellphones are to complex to operate while you're going down the road. Think about how much time it take to dial seven number accurately on a tink keypad with poor tactile response. Or to press the volume button seven times just to get the volume level right. We never saw these kinds of problems with CB radios because they're simple. See my other post about how voice dialing should be mandatory for cellphone use in cars.
Susy is just a reckless, irresponsible person. She shouldn't be on the road, even without a cellphone. Without one, she would have been looking in the rearview, doing her makeup when she hit you. The problem in her case doesn't have very much to do with cellphones at all.
If I'm going to take my hands off the wheel, I want to do something quick and unambiguous, then out them right back where they were. Buttons and switches are simple, reliable, and give tactile feedback. When I flip a switch on my dash, I can feel it move, and heard it click. I know my will has been done and I can go back to driving the vehicle. With a gesture system, there will be a tendency to wait and see if the system has properly recognized your motions before returning your attention to the road This is bad.
Steering-wheel mounted controls are the way to go. Control the radio with you thumbs and maybe dial your phone with buttons in the middle of the wheel.
Controls need to be quick and simple. We don't have any laws saying you need a hands-free kit for your CB in any state that I know of because they aren't that distracting. A single button push or know twist will effect whatever changes you want, and no one hesitates to drop their mic if they need to, since they're desiged to handle it. Contrast this with a typical handheld cellphone: Tiny keys, poor tactile feedback, inefficient controls (volume buttons instead of a knob), tiny displays. Just think about how much time you take your eyes off the road to dial a seven digit number. Plenty of time to get you killed on the wrong day.
Voice dialing (for ANY number: "five-five-five-one-two-one-two"), volume control knobs, and a single button that takes the phone on and off-hook should be mandatory for all cellphones used while driving. NYS already has a law requiring the use of a "hands free" kit, but AFIAK just plugging and earbud into your phone satisfies that requrement.
Also, UL can be a bad thing for some manufacturers. Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
Yeah testing costs money, but really, how can you claim your product is safe if you don't test it? The solution is definately not to left people get away without having their products tested.
Product development these days, costs a lot of money. Testing is a necessary part of that develpoment. Think about it this way:
I walk into a store. There's a few automatic coffee pots there on the shelf. One is a band I've never heard of and isn't certified by anybody. The others are well-know brands and are all UL-listed. How the heck an I supposed to know what the story with your small company's product is? Maybe you didn't have the money to get it certified. Maybe you didn't care. Maybe it wouldn't pass, and is dangerous. There's no way for me as consumer to know which possibility it is.
You have to admit that, if I buy your product, I'm taking a gamble in terms of saftey. IMO testing is especially important for small/new companies, because they don't have an established reputation to rely on. I don't know you? I don't trust you. Proove to me that you give a @#$% about building a quality product. Every sticker on that box, is another name I already know, vouching for your product.
Now here's a general good tip on getting things tested:
Send someone to the lab where you're getting your product tested. If you don't do that, some labs will their time (and bill you for it).
Use IPSec. There are many tutorials for using IPSec in tunnel mode as a replacement for WEP. Google it. I wrote the 3rd or 4th one down - it isn't that hard, guys. Please don't use WEP, it really isn't smart.
Actually, the smart thing to do is to use both.
"You use WEP?!"
Well duh, that keeps unautorized users off your network. Yeah it's crackable, but IPSec does nothing for lower-layer security. IPSec was designed for a different purpose than WEP If you want a secure network, use both.
There is a HUGE difference between peace through strength, and continual war. I think you're missing the point:
Just as we need a police force to protect us from those who would otherwise do whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted, we need a military to protect us from threats abroad.
Yes, those threats do exist. Some people just have issues with reality.
Very well put.
Resolution for what? Sadam still being the legal leader of his country?
Legal how, because he kills severyone who opposes him?
And that was our business why?
Because of his tendency to invade other countries, gas people, etc.
Did he have WMD? Nope.
Actually, yes he did. We should know, since we helped him get them. If he didn't have chemical weapons, how the heck did he ACTUALLY USE THEM.
So, what was the problem? What did we have to get tough about? Nothing. It was all a pack of lies told to convince us that we were doing the right thing.
Removing a brutal dictator from office sure sounds like the right thing to me. Even if we don't get anything out of it (heaven forbid) we'll at least be helping out the people who actually live in that country.
right now in iraq and what we did in vietnam is acting like police... it is always a complete failure at the end with lots of casualties on both sides... NO police action was ever sucessful in the history of man... the romans learned it early on.
Bullshit. Somalia anyone? Bosnia? Serbia? Haiti? It's silly to make unilateral claims like that. There are times when police actions are a good idea and other times when they aren't.
Carpet bombing Iraq, now or in five years is not a solution, and doesn't win anything. It's the worst idea I've heard in a long time, and shows an amazing amount or disrespect for human life. Killing everyone in Iraq is not an option. At least for anyone who isn't Stalin, Hitler, Milosevic, Enver, Jemal, Talat or apparently, you.
I hope we stay there....for years. Maybe we're finally learing a bit from our past. Cuba for example. If we don't like the dictator in power, we shouldn't just take him out of power....we should make sure another one does not take his place.
(unless they are in a country that HAS no such laws, or doesn't honor extradition requests from foreign nations)
Wouldn't this be a great chance to use a few cruise missles? All we have to do is equate spammers with terrorists and I'm sure we can get dubya right on it. Or maybe we can tell the Israelis that they're members of Hamas....
Allright, I know making politcal staments was playing with fire, but won't someone please think of the spammers? Can't we convince someone to hunt them down for us?
Sorry, but there are no international agreements regarding unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz band is a privilege, not a right, and is permitted only in the US and a few other countries.
Use of air is a privilege? Damn, he really is screwed! Can we some some people together to send him some canned air?
(Note to the clueless:I'm being facetious.)
Now seriously, why is use of XXX band a privilege and not a right? The RF spectrum belongs to the public, therefore the public has a right to use at least some of it. It's the same way with roads. People will say "driving is a privilege, not a right" without even thinking. Do your taxes pay for those roads? Since you're paying for it don't you have some right to use it? Would you be okay with the federal, state, and local gov'ts each charging a $1,000/year "driver's fee"?
I'm not saying driving should be an unconditional right. Heck we don't have any of those anyways. I'm saying that you, as a member of the public have a right to benefit from public property, which you pay to maintain.
Computers are not needed for small kids. It is better for them to learn some math, or more important their language.
This is insightful?
Please.
Computers are a fact of life. Kids should be exposed to them early.
The comments about math and language are a nonsense argument. Kids shouldn't be taught one skill, or two skills. They should be taught a variety of skills. Computer use, and more importantly, understanding basic computer concepts are very important skills.
Mod down and Flame away, but I'll be brave... I've been doing audio production work for a couple years using Windows 2000, Nuendo, Amplitube, This incredible $139 gadget, using only this inexpensive audio card. I don't get blue screens of death, my hardware is fully supported, etc. I run a second HD with Red Hat 9 (and incidentally, the awesome Ximian Desktop), and I can't even get my sound card to work. I love Linux, but no serious musician will be using the penguin for audio production for at least a few more years.
!!!???!!!!
Because Linux doesn't work with your specfic sound card, "no serious musician blah blah".
You're not even trying to be fair. Linux supports a reasonable number of sound cards. Not a huge amount, but definately enough to get sound going. If you didn't even have the equipment to try sound editing on Linux, then your opinion isn't really worth jack.
No, you're not. Is your intent to get his gun because you'd like to have it and keep it? That's not theft, that's an attempt to reduce your personal danger. Self-defense, actually.
Actually, yes you are stealing. It's a very justifiable theft, but you are still taking someone else's property without their permission. It is also an act of self-defense.
You see, the thing is that you have rights, and he has rights. Sometimes those rights collide. He has a right to his property, but you have a right to personal safety. In this case society has deemed that your rights in the matter are more inportant than his, and you will not be prosecuted for violating his rights.
This does not mean that your violation of his rights did not occur, it means society has decided that it is forgivable.
Protection racket? Explain how you make *that* leap. Who are they "protecting"?
They are "protecting" the artists, of course.
Like I was really touting the benefits of Xeyes?
Please.
I'm referring to all the neat things you can do in something like KDE, that actually let you work better, not just have a prettier desktop.
So yes, it is hard to justify violating their rights. Using pejorative statements such as 'ill-begotten' is very misleading and does not an argument make. They are acting within the law, unlike a protection racket and you're just a cheap-skate who wants to set all the prices yourelf. If you really want everything for free, vote for whatever communist party is in your country. see how far that gets you.
The courts don't seem to argee with you. And the communist remark was childish, and shows a major lack of understanding of the situation. The RIAA is interfering with normal economic competition, and therefore capitalism.
(I was being sarcastic)
What they did was attempt to keep smaller music only stores in business.
This is hearsay. I would suggest their real reason was to maximize their profits.
However that is not true, if you adjust for inflation the price has come down.
So the "oligopoly price" of CDs has gone down. What's your point? It's still much higher than it should be in a free, competitve market. This is due to their illegal manipulation of prices.
If market forces we setting the price of CDs, they would have started out cheaper than cassetes and gone down from there. Even back then, they were cheaper to produce.