I bought a DI-624 to use at home since I already connect my laptop to a DI-624 at work using a Belkin 802.11b card. Originally, I was using a Belkin router but I tested the DI-624 and found it far superior to the Belkin product in terms of range and speed.
To make a long story short, the DI-624 I bought for home was a different hardware revision than at work, with completely different firmware. Out of the box the DI-624 will not support 802.11b as it is configured to 802.11g turbo mode, so the Belkin card would not connect. I changed the wireless settings to disable the Turbo G mode and it still would not connect.
Finally, in frustration I brought the DI-624 from work (with two antennas as opposed to the newer version I had with one) along with a 802.11g D-Link PC card. Of all the combinations, Belkin 802.11b PC card, the "b" and "c" revisions of the DI-624, and a D-Link 802.11g PC card the Belkin wireless card and the "b" revision D-Link router had the best range and speed followed closely by the D-Link 802.11g card.
In the end, I simply swapped the "b" and "c" D-Link routers around and used the "b" version at home and the "c" version at work with the D-Link 802.11g card. It seems the 802.11 "b" and "g" standards leave a lot of room for interpretation, given that myself and others I have spoken to have had many problems getting products from one company to connect to another.
A few years ago all the cell phone companies in Canada got together and created a unified text messaging centre, meaning that you can directly message between any of the carriers.
The companies must have realized that they could make more money delivering and sending messages to and from each other.
I am in much the same situation as yourself, fully patched, running Ad Aware and Spybot regularly with Javascript OFF.
I was researching information on the Roman Empire and was directed by Google to a great web site. About five minutes in I notice a small pop up window that when maximized displayed a blank window. The router, modem and network lights start to blink and the hard drive begins to churn. Ugh, I realize I am the victim of drive by spyware installation on of all things a web site on Ancient Rome. If I can't protect myself given all the above safeguards, how the hell is the average person going to?
It took an hour or two of work with Ad Aware, Spybot and Hijackthis to remove the five or six pieces of spyware shit that installed from an innocuous web site. I am well and truly tired of this bullshit, Firefox here I come...
I received email today phishing for logon info for Washington Mutual Bank. Curiously, with the Google toolbar installed and active the link lead to a page with the vulnerabilty where the spoofed address was pushed down into Google toolbar real estate, leaving the actual address visible in the address bar above.
Now, any savy Internet user is aware of phishing scams and I clicked on the link with nothing more than idle curiousity, but I have to wonder if any number of spyware toolbars would cause the same behaviour as the Google toolbar.
A Canadian Ipod owner here. I recently bought a refurbed 5 GB Ipod from Tiger Direct for C$200, which seems an excellent deal as the unit appears to be brand new in every respect and has worked flawlessy for the last month.
I originally bought the unit without knowing that Itunes would be on-line in Canada, what a bonus! I know several people that have Ipods even though we haven't had the Itunes music store this entire time and several retailers, among them Future Shop, regularly sell out of the Ipod Mini. With the added convenience of the Itunes music store, I predict it will get more difficult to find stock of Ipods.
I find it interesting that the cool factor of the Ipod is so great that many stores have sold out of a product that up till now, was only half usable. I orignally bought my unit because the price was so good and didn't know that Itunes was coming. This is simply fantastic news!
I've said it here before, but the various state elections commissions should not be headed by the Secretary of State or any other political official. It should be entirely independent and apolitical like we have in Canada. I do not understand how Americans tolerate such a blatently politicized system.
Yes, our system is not perfect and yes we still use paper ballots, but in the end it is about as fair as humanly possible (and we have verifiable paper ballots in case the recound rules take effect). To accept that partisian elements ultimately control the process for selecting their own representitives is crazy.
Another area where Canada differs from the U.S. concerns the prohibition of political contributions from corporations and unions. Again, not a perfect solution and one that would probably not fly in the U.S., but at least it's a step forward.
The educational exemption for use of copyrighted materials already exists. For example, if an instructor wished to discuss an article that appeared in a newspaper or magazine, the instructor could make as many copies as needed for the class without violating the copyright. The recommended changes would simply extend this exemption to cover material pubically available on the Internet, if I read this correctly.
It is a necessary and appropriate addition, in my opinion.
would have to pass the House, head to committee pass third reading and then to the Senate. If it even makes it to committee I would be surprised.
Also, notice no mention was made of outlawing technologies that could disable digital rights systems, something a previous Commons committee report on copyright strongly advised against.
both on my Telus ADSL connection and the LAN extension (provided by Bell) to Ontario that we have at work.
It also works on my friends Shaw cable internet, so I am not sure what netblocks they are restricting but three of the major Internet providers in Canada are not affected it seems.
is that politicians run the entire voting process, from registration down to the actual polling on election day. How can an election ever be considered fair when partisian elements control the process from the very top?
We have an independent agency here in Canada called, appropriately enough, Elections Canada. Their sole purpose is to organize and execute the federal election process (each province maintains a similar independent agency to monitor provincial elections). The system has been refined over many years to eliminate any partisan influence to the point that even the returning officer in each polling station cannot vote in the election to ensure impartiality. The point being that our Attorney General, or whoever, would never have the ability to grab a stack of registration forms and toss them in the trash, it just doesn't work that way.
Ever since the microscope was focused on the election system in the U.S. since the Floridian Fiasco I am still shocked to see how blatantly political it is. The system we use in Canada is not perfect, no system is, (in fact it is quite antiquated as we still use paper and pen for all elections) but when the chief electorial officer has a stake in the outcome of an election it just beggars belief that anyone would accept that the election to follow would be as fair as possible.
What many in the world consider to be the heart of democracy deserves better than this.
When the hell are we going to learn that Sony says one thing and does another? The PS2 will push 100 bajillion polys a second and have more power than a super computer, and so on. Why do we believe this shit?
Can't they be at least a little more honest? Especially about hardware problems with the PS2, of which I don't own anymore since the last two failed. They really are their own worst enemy and have completely lost credibility with me.
How can an EULA, which I would hardly class as a contract, take away statutory or court established rights? Can I sign away my right to free speech? Right to counsel? How far does that go and what takes precedence, law or contract?
The bedrock of science is that an idea or hypothesis is falsifiable. That is, one does not assume the outcome in the phrasing of the question.
Scentific creationism violates this principle because the root of creationism is the belief in the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Once the answer has been assumed, what is the point of the question?
Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?" The answer is not assumed, as in creationism.
At any time scientists may develop theories that question or even contradict evolution based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and refinement or refutation of the original observation. We haven't found compelling evidence to do so, but there is nothing in science that says evolution is the end all be all. Science is self correcting in that any evidence along the chain of discovery that refutes the original observations will cause the process to begin again. This process is conspicously absent from scientific creationism, which seems wholy concerned with finding evidence to invalidate evolution and boolster creationism, however tenuous.
It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.
In Canada, voter enumerators come to your door to register you months before an election, both Provincial and Federal (although there was no enumeration before our last Federal election).
If you miss the door to door enumneration you can still register to vote on election day at your polling place, even if your homeless, as long you show proper ID or have someone familiar with you swear an affidavit of your identity.
Another thing I find odd is disenfranchinsing prior felons. Some states prohibit people from voting if they were previously incarcerated. Not only is that odd, but downright anti-democratic in my opinion. This would most certainly be unconstitional in Canada considering that persons in prison won the right to vote around a year ago, after Parliament specificly tried to legislate otherwise and it went to the Supreme Court.
The only reason that John Gilmore is pursuing this in court is the "regulations" that require ID before boarding a plane are, in fact, secret. So secret that the FAA is not allowed to even say if such regulations exist, even though law requires that all FAA regulations must be made public. See the problem? The FAA must publish all regulations and the regulation that requires ID does not exist, therefore according to law, the regulation does not exist. That is what he is trying to prove in court.
If you have read previous articles you would have known that he was previously permitted on planes without showing ID simply by asking the airline to point out the regulation that requires them to ask for ID. Since the regulation is secret (however that is possible), there is no way of knowing whether the regulation exists or not.
All the provinces in Canada have a movie review board that is empowered with determining a rating on all publically released movies. What one province will rate PG another might give 14A (think PG14, it's a Canadian thing).
Quebec and Canada in general, seem to have a more liberal ratings policy than their American counterparts. I had the same reaction when I was out for a movie in Texas and saw several movies rated "R" that were 14A back home in BC. Another difference that comes to mind is while the Canadian ratings system is mandated by provincal law, the American ratings system was a compromise created by the MPAA to stave off government censorship (if memory serves).
Something else to note is while in the U.S. the MPAA rating carries over onto the video release, the Canadian distributors apply a "Canadian Home Video" (or somesuch) rating that reflects the liberal Canadian ratings during the theatrical release. No province that I know of classifies home movies other than adult, thus the "Canadian Home Video" rating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a DI-624 to use at home since I already connect my laptop to a DI-624 at work using a Belkin 802.11b card. Originally, I was using a Belkin router but I tested the DI-624 and found it far superior to the Belkin product in terms of range and speed.
To make a long story short, the DI-624 I bought for home was a different hardware revision than at work, with completely different firmware. Out of the box the DI-624 will not support 802.11b as it is configured to 802.11g turbo mode, so the Belkin card would not connect. I changed the wireless settings to disable the Turbo G mode and it still would not connect.
Finally, in frustration I brought the DI-624 from work (with two antennas as opposed to the newer version I had with one) along with a 802.11g D-Link PC card. Of all the combinations, Belkin 802.11b PC card, the "b" and "c" revisions of the DI-624, and a D-Link 802.11g PC card the Belkin wireless card and the "b" revision D-Link router had the best range and speed followed closely by the D-Link 802.11g card.
In the end, I simply swapped the "b" and "c" D-Link routers around and used the "b" version at home and the "c" version at work with the D-Link 802.11g card. It seems the 802.11 "b" and "g" standards leave a lot of room for interpretation, given that myself and others I have spoken to have had many problems getting products from one company to connect to another.
A few years ago all the cell phone companies in Canada got together and created a unified text messaging centre, meaning that you can directly message between any of the carriers.
The companies must have realized that they could make more money delivering and sending messages to and from each other.
All I can say, is well, um, uh, I don't remember what I was going to say.
Damn.
I am in much the same situation as yourself, fully patched, running Ad Aware and Spybot regularly with Javascript OFF.
I was researching information on the Roman Empire and was directed by Google to a great web site. About five minutes in I notice a small pop up window that when maximized displayed a blank window. The router, modem and network lights start to blink and the hard drive begins to churn. Ugh, I realize I am the victim of drive by spyware installation on of all things a web site on Ancient Rome. If I can't protect myself given all the above safeguards, how the hell is the average person going to?
It took an hour or two of work with Ad Aware, Spybot and Hijackthis to remove the five or six pieces of spyware shit that installed from an innocuous web site. I am well and truly tired of this bullshit, Firefox here I come...
I received email today phishing for logon info for Washington Mutual Bank. Curiously, with the Google toolbar installed and active the link lead to a page with the vulnerabilty where the spoofed address was pushed down into Google toolbar real estate, leaving the actual address visible in the address bar above.
Now, any savy Internet user is aware of phishing scams and I clicked on the link with nothing more than idle curiousity, but I have to wonder if any number of spyware toolbars would cause the same behaviour as the Google toolbar.
???
A Canadian Ipod owner here. I recently bought a refurbed 5 GB Ipod from Tiger Direct for C$200, which seems an excellent deal as the unit appears to be brand new in every respect and has worked flawlessy for the last month.
I originally bought the unit without knowing that Itunes would be on-line in Canada, what a bonus! I know several people that have Ipods even though we haven't had the Itunes music store this entire time and several retailers, among them Future Shop, regularly sell out of the Ipod Mini. With the added convenience of the Itunes music store, I predict it will get more difficult to find stock of Ipods.
I find it interesting that the cool factor of the Ipod is so great that many stores have sold out of a product that up till now, was only half usable. I orignally bought my unit because the price was so good and didn't know that Itunes was coming. This is simply fantastic news!
I've said it here before, but the various state elections commissions should not be headed by the Secretary of State or any other political official. It should be entirely independent and apolitical like we have in Canada. I do not understand how Americans tolerate such a blatently politicized system.
Yes, our system is not perfect and yes we still use paper ballots, but in the end it is about as fair as humanly possible (and we have verifiable paper ballots in case the recound rules take effect). To accept that partisian elements ultimately control the process for selecting their own representitives is crazy.
Another area where Canada differs from the U.S. concerns the prohibition of political contributions from corporations and unions. Again, not a perfect solution and one that would probably not fly in the U.S., but at least it's a step forward.
That made ME laugh.
I am a suburban mother stuck in a high income man's body that's an early adopter. What does that make me? It's so confusing...
Have to go drop off the kids on my way to my Wall Street job in my brand new hovercar.
Later.
The educational exemption for use of copyrighted materials already exists. For example, if an instructor wished to discuss an article that appeared in a newspaper or magazine, the instructor could make as many copies as needed for the class without violating the copyright. The recommended changes would simply extend this exemption to cover material pubically available on the Internet, if I read this correctly.
It is a necessary and appropriate addition, in my opinion.
would have to pass the House, head to committee pass third reading and then to the Senate. If it even makes it to committee I would be surprised.
Also, notice no mention was made of outlawing technologies that could disable digital rights systems, something a previous Commons committee report on copyright strongly advised against.
Tell them you'd glady pay 7000 Euros for good quality child porn.
both on my Telus ADSL connection and the LAN extension (provided by Bell) to Ontario that we have at work.
It also works on my friends Shaw cable internet, so I am not sure what netblocks they are restricting but three of the major Internet providers in Canada are not affected it seems.
is that politicians run the entire voting process, from registration down to the actual polling on election day. How can an election ever be considered fair when partisian elements control the process from the very top?
We have an independent agency here in Canada called, appropriately enough, Elections Canada. Their sole purpose is to organize and execute the federal election process (each province maintains a similar independent agency to monitor provincial elections). The system has been refined over many years to eliminate any partisan influence to the point that even the returning officer in each polling station cannot vote in the election to ensure impartiality. The point being that our Attorney General, or whoever, would never have the ability to grab a stack of registration forms and toss them in the trash, it just doesn't work that way.
Ever since the microscope was focused on the election system in the U.S. since the Floridian Fiasco I am still shocked to see how blatantly political it is. The system we use in Canada is not perfect, no system is, (in fact it is quite antiquated as we still use paper and pen for all elections) but when the chief electorial officer has a stake in the outcome of an election it just beggars belief that anyone would accept that the election to follow would be as fair as possible.
What many in the world consider to be the heart of democracy deserves better than this.
Are we surprised? Nope.
When the hell are we going to learn that Sony says one thing and does another? The PS2 will push 100 bajillion polys a second and have more power than a super computer, and so on. Why do we believe this shit?
Can't they be at least a little more honest? Especially about hardware problems with the PS2, of which I don't own anymore since the last two failed. They really are their own worst enemy and have completely lost credibility with me.
End of rant.
Only an examplary law student would begin his comment with a disclaimer. You are well on your way to a sucessful law career. :)
How can an EULA, which I would hardly class as a contract, take away statutory or court established rights? Can I sign away my right to free speech? Right to counsel? How far does that go and what takes precedence, law or contract?
Would a lawyer please explain?
The bedrock of science is that an idea or hypothesis is falsifiable. That is, one does not assume the outcome in the phrasing of the question.
Scentific creationism violates this principle because the root of creationism is the belief in the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Once the answer has been assumed, what is the point of the question?
Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?" The answer is not assumed, as in creationism.
At any time scientists may develop theories that question or even contradict evolution based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and refinement or refutation of the original observation. We haven't found compelling evidence to do so, but there is nothing in science that says evolution is the end all be all. Science is self correcting in that any evidence along the chain of discovery that refutes the original observations will cause the process to begin again. This process is conspicously absent from scientific creationism, which seems wholy concerned with finding evidence to invalidate evolution and boolster creationism, however tenuous.
It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.
It's Kraft Dinner and the movie is Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer
In Canada, voter enumerators come to your door to register you months before an election, both Provincial and Federal (although there was no enumeration before our last Federal election).
If you miss the door to door enumneration you can still register to vote on election day at your polling place, even if your homeless, as long you show proper ID or have someone familiar with you swear an affidavit of your identity.
Another thing I find odd is disenfranchinsing prior felons. Some states prohibit people from voting if they were previously incarcerated. Not only is that odd, but downright anti-democratic in my opinion. This would most certainly be unconstitional in Canada considering that persons in prison won the right to vote around a year ago, after Parliament specificly tried to legislate otherwise and it went to the Supreme Court.
There really is no excuse not to vote.
The only reason that John Gilmore is pursuing this in court is the "regulations" that require ID before boarding a plane are, in fact, secret. So secret that the FAA is not allowed to even say if such regulations exist, even though law requires that all FAA regulations must be made public. See the problem? The FAA must publish all regulations and the regulation that requires ID does not exist, therefore according to law, the regulation does not exist. That is what he is trying to prove in court.
If you have read previous articles you would have known that he was previously permitted on planes without showing ID simply by asking the airline to point out the regulation that requires them to ask for ID. Since the regulation is secret (however that is possible), there is no way of knowing whether the regulation exists or not.
no one would be willing to pay for a subscription to Sports Illustrated if they can get the scores for free off the Internet.
There's more to these health journals than just the reports themselves, which provide commentary and editorial content above and beyond reports.
"Jar Jar: The Anal Rape Chronicles"
"Jar Jar: Meesa Fucking Ideeot!"
and the problem is...?
With a VCR (now PVR on my digital satellite system) I have built up a library of movies over two decades. Oh heavens, here comes the MPAA!
Maybe INDUCE will REDUCE this.
All the provinces in Canada have a movie review board that is empowered with determining a rating on all publically released movies. What one province will rate PG another might give 14A (think PG14, it's a Canadian thing).
Quebec and Canada in general, seem to have a more liberal ratings policy than their American counterparts. I had the same reaction when I was out for a movie in Texas and saw several movies rated "R" that were 14A back home in BC. Another difference that comes to mind is while the Canadian ratings system is mandated by provincal law, the American ratings system was a compromise created by the MPAA to stave off government censorship (if memory serves).
Something else to note is while in the U.S. the MPAA rating carries over onto the video release, the Canadian distributors apply a "Canadian Home Video" (or somesuch) rating that reflects the liberal Canadian ratings during the theatrical release. No province that I know of classifies home movies other than adult, thus the "Canadian Home Video" rating system.