Amateur frequencies propagate around the entire world. You want each local government to supervise it? And how do you expect an amateur such as myself, operating out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to not interfere with another amateur in Washington D.C. who is subject to different rules? How useful would it be if you had to purchase a different set of FRS radios for each city you visit?
The FCC isn't just about regulating commercial telecom. It fulfills many other roles, such as manager of the HF spectrum. It licenses users of said spectrum. How good would it be if the mobile phone companies couldn't agree upon how to allocate frequencies for their cell phones, and ended up trashing each other. Or, commercial interests began trashing the spectrum, to the dismay of the red cross and others who can no longer communicate when a tornado rips up main street. Even if landline telephone companies no longer need regulation, an independent (though even the FCC seems to lack this trait) organization is needed to maintain and police other things, even if they are not regulation.
$5 for 10 seconds of punching numbers? How is 10 seconds "annoying beyond belief?" What about the people running Win IE doing your bookmark-based auth?
The government hasn't been scammed. If anything they've been unscammed. The government collected taxes way in excess of what they'd otherwise get if the package had been valued correctly.
Yes, but the other providers aren't archiving your messages
Google isn't archiving your messages permanently. The clause in the TOS you're referring to is only there because Google can't ensure immediate deletion. If they're backing up your gigabyte email account twice-daily, and rotating through 200 backup sets, it might take a while before every backup tape which had your message on it is purged.
Additionally, how are Hotmail and Yahoo going to have to 'work for it' when reading your mail? Hotmail and Yahoo have the same accessibility to your messages as Google will/does.
Since when do the service packs add real functionality?
And, if you want to count server OS's:
Cheetah (10.0) (Not sure if it had server with it) Puma (10.1) (Again, not sure, playing on the safe side) Jaguar (10.2) Jaguar Server Panther (10.3) Panther Server
And you want to count service packs anyways? Just from memory: 10.2.1-10.2.8 is 8 upgrades (all adding FUNCTIONALIY, albeit small steps) 10.3.1-10.3.3 (10.3.4 is seeded to developers right now).
Not that that is a bad thing but knowing the/. crowd, they'd probably try to install Linux on a liter of the fluid and make a Beowulf cluster out of it.
Using the heat produced to cook hot grits for Natalie Portman?
Mm hmm. Progress bars are the best you can do? (switch to another app while you're waiting, they'll stop being animated.) And about the beautiful interface: If that's true, WTF is with this huge skinning trend? (which I don't see the point of, personally)
If you read the article they layout problems with packet based protocols very clearly, namely the lack of assurance that a packet has been delivered. They are not re-inventing the wheel by any means...
But they are! While going on to bash the OSI layer, they complain about one of the basic things it provides. IP doesn't provide ports, guaranteed delivery, etc. That's for TCP and UDP to take care of.
Ad-hoc networks? Throw a little bit on top of Zeroconf/self-assigned addressing for routing and you've got your very own ad-hoc protocol.
RTFA. The phones being "upgraded" all use GSM in only one of AT&T's two GSM frequency bands. They want you to upgrade to phones that support both of the bands, for purposes of coverage. (if you can only use one of the bands, all the cell towers in the other band are off-limits to you.)
I love it when people post like this. BPL radiates hundreds of watts on spectrum used for worldwide communication. Hams use this same spectrum for that very communication. It doesn't matter if you're in a third world country or New York, any BPL system will junk the entire world's spectrum.
But that's not what's fun about this post. It has been shown that as little as 1 watt on an amateur frequency will knock out or severely degrade BPL in a 4 block radius. Hams can, and many do, transmit as many as 1500 watts. No 1mbps in my neighborhood.
I Disagree. If someone sniffs the knocks, they still have to authenticate to whatever application gets opened up. So, for a sniffer, this may not be very effective (at the worst case, it's no different than what you had before). But for a hacker across the net who wants to get at ssh, this effectively locks them out.
Where is the legal problem in google blocking sites? They have no obligation to provide their services, it doesn't seem like antitrust (google isn't forcing all search engines to block this site). Can these sites sue google when it goes out of business for not listing their site anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
Amateur frequencies propagate around the entire world. You want each local government to supervise it? And how do you expect an amateur such as myself, operating out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to not interfere with another amateur in Washington D.C. who is subject to different rules? How useful would it be if you had to purchase a different set of FRS radios for each city you visit?
Who will "own" public service spectrum, ie Amateur Radio, FRS, GMRS, etc?
The FCC isn't just about regulating commercial telecom. It fulfills many other roles, such as manager of the HF spectrum. It licenses users of said spectrum. How good would it be if the mobile phone companies couldn't agree upon how to allocate frequencies for their cell phones, and ended up trashing each other. Or, commercial interests began trashing the spectrum, to the dismay of the red cross and others who can no longer communicate when a tornado rips up main street. Even if landline telephone companies no longer need regulation, an independent (though even the FCC seems to lack this trait) organization is needed to maintain and police other things, even if they are not regulation.
Put it on CafePress and i'll buy one, too.
$5 for 10 seconds of punching numbers? How is 10 seconds "annoying beyond belief?" What about the people running Win IE doing your bookmark-based auth?
Because...
Low-earth Orbit
The government hasn't been scammed. If anything they've been unscammed. The government collected taxes way in excess of what they'd otherwise get if the package had been valued correctly.
Yes, but the other providers aren't archiving your messages Google isn't archiving your messages permanently. The clause in the TOS you're referring to is only there because Google can't ensure immediate deletion. If they're backing up your gigabyte email account twice-daily, and rotating through 200 backup sets, it might take a while before every backup tape which had your message on it is purged.
Additionally, how are Hotmail and Yahoo going to have to 'work for it' when reading your mail? Hotmail and Yahoo have the same accessibility to your messages as Google will/does.
It's not illegal to download a fake file, and if the RIAA wants to sue you for it, what are they going to claim as damages?
how do you spell it
Ansari?
Since when do the service packs add real functionality?
And, if you want to count server OS's:
Cheetah (10.0) (Not sure if it had server with it)
Puma (10.1) (Again, not sure, playing on the safe side)
Jaguar (10.2)
Jaguar Server
Panther (10.3)
Panther Server
And you want to count service packs anyways?
Just from memory:
10.2.1-10.2.8 is 8 upgrades (all adding FUNCTIONALIY, albeit small steps)
10.3.1-10.3.3 (10.3.4 is seeded to developers right now).
You count.
I agree with you about the free software part, but why does SF.net host it? Seems like something they'd object to.
Not that that is a bad thing but knowing the /. crowd, they'd probably try to install Linux on a liter of the fluid and make a Beowulf cluster out of it.
Using the heat produced to cook hot grits for Natalie Portman?
Mm hmm. Progress bars are the best you can do? (switch to another app while you're waiting, they'll stop being animated.) And about the beautiful interface: If that's true, WTF is with this huge skinning trend? (which I don't see the point of, personally)
Let's hear some real complaints.
But you have to hit waypoints. The vehicle would have to be able to launch itself, land, move to the waypoint, launch again, etc...
From grandparent:
quantum computer
Try again next time...
I got one with 6 '' laid out in a 3x2 grid. Apparently the correct answer was "monkey."
If you read the article they layout problems with packet based protocols very clearly, namely the lack of assurance that a packet has been delivered. They are not re-inventing the wheel by any means...
But they are! While going on to bash the OSI layer, they complain about one of the basic things it provides. IP doesn't provide ports, guaranteed delivery, etc. That's for TCP and UDP to take care of.
Ad-hoc networks? Throw a little bit on top of Zeroconf/self-assigned addressing for routing and you've got your very own ad-hoc protocol.
RTFA. The phones being "upgraded" all use GSM in only one of AT&T's two GSM frequency bands. They want you to upgrade to phones that support both of the bands, for purposes of coverage. (if you can only use one of the bands, all the cell towers in the other band are off-limits to you.)
I love it when people post like this. BPL radiates hundreds of watts on spectrum used for worldwide communication. Hams use this same spectrum for that very communication. It doesn't matter if you're in a third world country or New York, any BPL system will junk the entire world's spectrum.
But that's not what's fun about this post. It has been shown that as little as 1 watt on an amateur frequency will knock out or severely degrade BPL in a 4 block radius. Hams can, and many do, transmit as many as 1500 watts. No 1mbps in my neighborhood.
IIS? What exactly does Microsoft's Web server have to do with this?
Crash and burn?
sniff the port knocks
I Disagree. If someone sniffs the knocks, they still have to authenticate to whatever application gets opened up. So, for a sniffer, this may not be very effective (at the worst case, it's no different than what you had before). But for a hacker across the net who wants to get at ssh, this effectively locks them out.
IAAONAL (O = obviously)
Where is the legal problem in google blocking sites? They have no obligation to provide their services, it doesn't seem like antitrust (google isn't forcing all search engines to block this site). Can these sites sue google when it goes out of business for not listing their site anymore?
Woot, my first freak. Thanks, been waiting a while for one.