You have a point there. Renting ham radio operators have a trick, though. Get a piece of wood that fits in the slit of a slightly opened window (adding weatherstripping is recommended). Drill a hole in the wood and run the coax in through that, then keep the window closed with another piece of wood placed in the track.
Renters often put a flower pot or planter on their deck or balcony, put some concrete in the bottom of the planter, and "plant" their dish in that. No penetrating mounts, so it's legal. Of course, you still have the get-the-cable-inside conundrum, but it's still a clever idea.
Actaully, the FCC says you can put up a (small) satellite dish even if your local government, homeowners association, or landlord says you can't. The FCC, as a federal authority, supercedes the little guys. So if you really want UPN and CBS, install a dish.
"The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require it's implementation."
See, I don't get that. The FCC is allowed to make all sorts of rules about implementation. Take the FRS (Family Radio Service, AKA "UHF CB"). FRS radios can only put out 500mW, can only have 2.5KHz of deviation, and can only have a very small amount of frequency instability (something like 25Hz, I forget). Sounds like the FCC can require all the rules about implementation it wants.
In fact, the FCC's main job, aside from spectrum allocation and interference reduction, is to make rules about the implementation of radiocommunications devices.
That said, the Broadcast Flag is still evil, and I hope it dies a swift and painful death.
"they're cost efective _now_, if you can aford the capital outlay. Your bills go down, and it pays for itself."
True, they do pay for themselves. We evaluated spending last year's tax refund (a few grand, I never claim enough deductions) on putting a PV solar system on our house. After some number crunching, we found it would take 10 to 15 years for the system to pay for itself.
That's a whole lotta capital for a ROI way, way off in the future. Investing in mutual funds would be far more profitable, so that's what we did instead.
When it comes to saving on your power bill, what does work is converting almost every light in your house/apt to Compact Flourescent (CF). We did that and it paid off in only 1 year. I'll admit some brands of CF are pretty crappy but others are as good as incandescent, becoming bright instantly with no flicker, and having a warm yellowish hue. The trick is to buy bulbs rated one level higher than incandescent. I.e., replace a 60 watt incandescent with a CF rated for "75 watts".
YYMV, especially in a more sunny state, or one with higher electricity costs.
This is nothing new. As soon as WinXP was released, my firewall started logging a bunch of connections to Microsoft's subnets. They were all trying to phone home to sync clocks.
"No one cares about anyone else... don't try to save everyone else. It does no good. They'll just pull you down into the muck with them... Stop trying to fight it."
That's why you purchase a business grade account that does not have the AUP restricitons of the residential account. If necessary, form a corporation (takes two people, $50, and a trip to City Hall) and have your neighbors become members of your corp. You're no longer sharing internet access with a third party because you're all in the same corporation, thus, no AUP violation.
This is assuming you purchase the internet account in the name of the corp, not your own name, of course.
Were you not listening? The certification process for IFR instruments is horrendously long and expensive. *Flight certified* GPS units do NOT cost $100. Consumer-grade, mass-produced cheap flimsy GPS units cost $100. You want to take a ride on an airliner on a dark and stormy night, betting your LIFE and the lives of 150 other passengers on a $100 GPS unit from Wal-Mart?
Re:So they say they've found the missing matter...
on
Dark Matter Discovered
·
· Score: 1
"I'm on a socks subsription service btw"
I thought for sure that you were joking. But no, the website sure looks like this is for real!
Now I've seen *everything*.
ISPs don't even need to buy a cert. They can be their own CA (Certification Authority) and issue a cert to themselves. They can instruct their clients to trust their self-issued cert when prompted, and bob's your uncle.
Law-abiding citizens don't own guns so they can _kill people_, you know.
"And you are demonstrating with your rape-burn-kill comment that the world is divided into two groups, the Good Guys (you) and the Huns from Hell."
Correct. Those with the immediate opportunity, ability, and intent to do harm to others are the Huns from Hell. The other 99.999% of society is the Good Guys. There is no continuum. If you do not have the immediate opportunity, ability, and intent to do harm, then you're a Good Guy in my book. It's not like I'm declaring open season on pickpockets and check forgers.
"when you're armed and scared (or armed and brave, if you prefer), you're more of a danger to yourself and those around you, and so closer to the Huns."
I disagree, and I don't think you have any evidence to back up this claim. In fact, there is a multitude of law-abiding citizens showing that firearms are mainly dangerous only to the Huns from Hell. See http://www.nra-ila.com/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx and http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm#1990. If you ever meet someone who has used a firearm in self-defence, are you going to tell them that it would be better if they (the shooter) were dead and the attacker alive? Good luck!
"Everyone think _they_ have the maturity and good judgement you speak of. It seems to me at least half of them must be wrong."
Well, let's see. There are millions of law-abiding citizens who own firearms in the US. Since the US is currently experiencing a wave of previously quiet citizens suddenly going berzerk and shooting places up every day, I guess you are right.
"The difference is that fire extinguishers aren't used to start fires, whereas guns are used to start gunfights."
Just like cars are used to cause car accidents. Posession equals causality, gotcha.
"Anyway, I was commenting on your view of this faceless group called "criminals". They are people, and whether they are good or bad, they make choices."
Yep. And when they make a choice that threatens the well-being of law-abiding citizens, we should just let them rape, burn, and kill as they please? After all, they're just poor, misunderstood souls. It's not their fault. Poor babies.
"If you're mad enough at someone to bash their front teeth out (happens every weekend even in my little backwater town), you're presumably mad enough to shoot them."
Ahh, I see. Because you'd get mad enough to shoot somebody if you had a gun, you assume that others would too. Don't project your fears and weaknesses onto others. Some people are man enough to walk away from a fist- or gun-fight. Some people have the maturity and good judgement to only use deadly force as a last resort.
"In the war against terorism we can't afford formalities like "charging" people. The constitution is not a suicide pact. The arsonist may have been outside the country at some point in the last 50 years or possibly has a pen-pal abroad. Might even use Instant Messaging to communicate with contacts abroad. Or web sites like Slashdot. Or he might even have avoided all forms of contact with potential foreign agents, to avoid suspicion. With evidence like this against him, charging would just be endangering the freedoms of us all."
Yep, the loss of a few freedoms is a small price to pay in exchange for a little security. I suggest we begin with repealing the fifth and first amendments. And that pesky second amendment, too.
I must respectfully disagree. Oh wait, this is Slashdot... you idiot!
j/k. Anyway, the book made a lot more sense. The movie glossed over a lot of details and kind of dumbed down the plot for kids. I really appreciated the actual C code in the book, which demonstrated that the author actually knew C (or collaborated closely with a real C programmer). It sure beat the "Oh, this is UNIX" line spewed out while looking at some cheezed out 3-D display.
Then again, I read the book first, and that never has a positive influence on a moviegoer.
You missed a prime opportunity to use the euphemism "A$$"... too bad.
Re:Forbes web site is one big commercial
on
The Dot Com Super Bowl
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think the web developers at Forbes should win an award for the dumbest web interface ever. Every time I got halfway through reading the text, the site would send me to the next 'slide' and I had to hit 'Previous' and then 'Stop' so I had time to finish.
What kind of brain-dead MORON designs that kind of web interface? Do they really think users are incapable of clicking 'Next' by themselves? How did they think the users GOT to forbes.com!?
"The trouble with you pro-gun people is that you think of criminals as some sort of insane people that are out to get you"
That's like saying people who have a fire extinguisher or smoke detector think that everything is about to burst into flames; or those who keep a spare tire in their car think the roads are littered with sharp debris; or those who keep a first aid kit handy think that they might sustain a dreadful wound at any moment.
"People thinking like that are more likely to end up in the crime statistics themselves."
Wha? Are the above people more likely to catch something on fire, or get a flat, or get wounded because they are prepared with the tools to mitigate a disaster? Heck, if I'm worried about getting mugged or murdered or having my wife raped, I'm going to stay the heck away from situations where that might happen. From where I sit, I am LESS likely to be the victim of a crime.
"Quit being so sure you are one of the "good guys" in the next gunfight you will be involved in."
The only "gunfight" I will ever be involved in is when the life or health of me or my family is threatened by someone who has the desire, the ability, and the opportunity to do us harm. In such a circumstance, how would I not be "the good guy"? If you think that individual citizens should not defend themselves from deadly force, then by the same logic your country should not defend itself from the invasion of a hostile army?
"you are far more likely to commit a serious crime with a gun than without."
Do you think that a normal, law abiding citizen is suddenly going to turn criminal just because he has a gun? Sounds like a paranoid delusion to me.
"Do you think that everyone who distrusts the police is also pro-gun control?"
Heavens no, I just thought it was interesting that the pro-gun folks had been trying to get this point across for years, when suddenly somebody else realized the same principle in a tangential topic.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a point there. Renting ham radio operators have a trick, though. Get a piece of wood that fits in the slit of a slightly opened window (adding weatherstripping is recommended). Drill a hole in the wood and run the coax in through that, then keep the window closed with another piece of wood placed in the track.
Renters often put a flower pot or planter on their deck or balcony, put some concrete in the bottom of the planter, and "plant" their dish in that. No penetrating mounts, so it's legal. Of course, you still have the get-the-cable-inside conundrum, but it's still a clever idea.
"Or if the FCC takes the networks away."
Actaully, the FCC says you can put up a (small) satellite dish even if your local government, homeowners association, or landlord says you can't. The FCC, as a federal authority, supercedes the little guys. So if you really want UPN and CBS, install a dish.
"The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require it's implementation."
See, I don't get that. The FCC is allowed to make all sorts of rules about implementation. Take the FRS (Family Radio Service, AKA "UHF CB"). FRS radios can only put out 500mW, can only have 2.5KHz of deviation, and can only have a very small amount of frequency instability (something like 25Hz, I forget). Sounds like the FCC can require all the rules about implementation it wants.
In fact, the FCC's main job, aside from spectrum allocation and interference reduction, is to make rules about the implementation of radiocommunications devices.
That said, the Broadcast Flag is still evil, and I hope it dies a swift and painful death.
Correct:
w w.enter.net/~wxdata/earth1.htm+earth+diameter+equa tor+poles&hl=en&client=firefox-a
1. The earth's diameter is slightly larger at the equator than at the poles.
2. The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,927 miles.
3. The diameter at the poles is 7,900 miles.
Hideous source website: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Ov9THqSyz04J:w
"they're cost efective _now_, if you can aford the capital outlay. Your bills go down, and it pays for itself."
True, they do pay for themselves. We evaluated spending last year's tax refund (a few grand, I never claim enough deductions) on putting a PV solar system on our house. After some number crunching, we found it would take 10 to 15 years for the system to pay for itself.
That's a whole lotta capital for a ROI way, way off in the future. Investing in mutual funds would be far more profitable, so that's what we did instead.
When it comes to saving on your power bill, what does work is converting almost every light in your house/apt to Compact Flourescent (CF). We did that and it paid off in only 1 year. I'll admit some brands of CF are pretty crappy but others are as good as incandescent, becoming bright instantly with no flicker, and having a warm yellowish hue. The trick is to buy bulbs rated one level higher than incandescent. I.e., replace a 60 watt incandescent with a CF rated for "75 watts".
YYMV, especially in a more sunny state, or one with higher electricity costs.
"HP's MFPs ... do indeed have an NTP client"
This is nothing new. As soon as WinXP was released, my firewall started logging a bunch of connections to Microsoft's subnets. They were all trying to phone home to sync clocks.
"No one cares about anyone else ... don't try to save everyone else. It does no good. They'll just pull you down into the muck with them ... Stop trying to fight it."
Hmmm, a little bitter and apathetic, aren't we?
True, but at least you're not violating the AUP that way. :)
That's why you purchase a business grade account that does not have the AUP restricitons of the residential account. If necessary, form a corporation (takes two people, $50, and a trip to City Hall) and have your neighbors become members of your corp. You're no longer sharing internet access with a third party because you're all in the same corporation, thus, no AUP violation.
This is assuming you purchase the internet account in the name of the corp, not your own name, of course.
"My G5 iMac is freaking loud under heavy CPU load, so not exactly the best advice there." You flunked 2nd grade, huh? "2. Make sure it's not a G5"
Given the direct TWOK quote in the article, I think that this would be a better movie reference than 2001/2010.
Were you not listening? The certification process for IFR instruments is horrendously long and expensive. *Flight certified* GPS units do NOT cost $100. Consumer-grade, mass-produced cheap flimsy GPS units cost $100. You want to take a ride on an airliner on a dark and stormy night, betting your LIFE and the lives of 150 other passengers on a $100 GPS unit from Wal-Mart?
"I'm on a socks subsription service btw" I thought for sure that you were joking. But no, the website sure looks like this is for real! Now I've seen *everything*.
"Just go self-signing and distribute the trusted root to the customer."
That's exactly what I meant, sorry if it didn't come out that way.
ISPs don't even need to buy a cert. They can be their own CA (Certification Authority) and issue a cert to themselves. They can instruct their clients to trust their self-issued cert when prompted, and bob's your uncle.
"Cars aren't _made_ to kill people, you know."
Law-abiding citizens don't own guns so they can _kill people_, you know.
"And you are demonstrating with your rape-burn-kill comment that the world is divided into two groups, the Good Guys (you) and the Huns from Hell."
Correct. Those with the immediate opportunity, ability, and intent to do harm to others are the Huns from Hell. The other 99.999% of society is the Good Guys. There is no continuum. If you do not have the immediate opportunity, ability, and intent to do harm, then you're a Good Guy in my book. It's not like I'm declaring open season on pickpockets and check forgers.
"when you're armed and scared (or armed and brave, if you prefer), you're more of a danger to yourself and those around you, and so closer to the Huns."
I disagree, and I don't think you have any evidence to back up this claim. In fact, there is a multitude of law-abiding citizens showing that firearms are mainly dangerous only to the Huns from Hell. See http://www.nra-ila.com/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx and http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm#1990. If you ever meet someone who has used a firearm in self-defence, are you going to tell them that it would be better if they (the shooter) were dead and the attacker alive? Good luck!
"Everyone think _they_ have the maturity and good judgement you speak of. It seems to me at least half of them must be wrong."
Well, let's see. There are millions of law-abiding citizens who own firearms in the US. Since the US is currently experiencing a wave of previously quiet citizens suddenly going berzerk and shooting places up every day, I guess you are right.
"The difference is that fire extinguishers aren't used to start fires, whereas guns are used to start gunfights."
Just like cars are used to cause car accidents. Posession equals causality, gotcha.
"Anyway, I was commenting on your view of this faceless group called "criminals". They are people, and whether they are good or bad, they make choices."
Yep. And when they make a choice that threatens the well-being of law-abiding citizens, we should just let them rape, burn, and kill as they please? After all, they're just poor, misunderstood souls. It's not their fault. Poor babies.
"If you're mad enough at someone to bash their front teeth out (happens every weekend even in my little backwater town), you're presumably mad enough to shoot them."
Ahh, I see. Because you'd get mad enough to shoot somebody if you had a gun, you assume that others would too. Don't project your fears and weaknesses onto others. Some people are man enough to walk away from a fist- or gun-fight. Some people have the maturity and good judgement to only use deadly force as a last resort.
"In the war against terorism we can't afford formalities like "charging" people. The constitution is not a suicide pact. The arsonist may have been outside the country at some point in the last 50 years or possibly has a pen-pal abroad. Might even use Instant Messaging to communicate with contacts abroad. Or web sites like Slashdot. Or he might even have avoided all forms of contact with potential foreign agents, to avoid suspicion. With evidence like this against him, charging would just be endangering the freedoms of us all."
Yep, the loss of a few freedoms is a small price to pay in exchange for a little security. I suggest we begin with repealing the fifth and first amendments. And that pesky second amendment, too.
"the book was a pile of crap"
I must respectfully disagree. Oh wait, this is Slashdot... you idiot!
j/k. Anyway, the book made a lot more sense. The movie glossed over a lot of details and kind of dumbed down the plot for kids. I really appreciated the actual C code in the book, which demonstrated that the author actually knew C (or collaborated closely with a real C programmer). It sure beat the "Oh, this is UNIX" line spewed out while looking at some cheezed out 3-D display.
Then again, I read the book first, and that never has a positive influence on a moviegoer.
"Philosopher's Stoned"
Huh. What's that about, rampant drug use in a Liberal Arts college?
"Dune (ok, maybe that's a -5 Troll, but I liked it)"
Depends on if you're referring to the steaming pile of excrement that the Sci-Fi channel made, or the brilliant masterpiece by David Lynch.
Still, neither comes close to the book.
You missed a prime opportunity to use the euphemism "A$$"... too bad.
I think the web developers at Forbes should win an award for the dumbest web interface ever. Every time I got halfway through reading the text, the site would send me to the next 'slide' and I had to hit 'Previous' and then 'Stop' so I had time to finish.
What kind of brain-dead MORON designs that kind of web interface? Do they really think users are incapable of clicking 'Next' by themselves? How did they think the users GOT to forbes.com!?
"The trouble with you pro-gun people is that you think of criminals as some sort of insane people that are out to get you"
That's like saying people who have a fire extinguisher or smoke detector think that everything is about to burst into flames; or those who keep a spare tire in their car think the roads are littered with sharp debris; or those who keep a first aid kit handy think that they might sustain a dreadful wound at any moment.
"People thinking like that are more likely to end up in the crime statistics themselves."
Wha? Are the above people more likely to catch something on fire, or get a flat, or get wounded because they are prepared with the tools to mitigate a disaster? Heck, if I'm worried about getting mugged or murdered or having my wife raped, I'm going to stay the heck away from situations where that might happen. From where I sit, I am LESS likely to be the victim of a crime.
"Quit being so sure you are one of the "good guys" in the next gunfight you will be involved in."
The only "gunfight" I will ever be involved in is when the life or health of me or my family is threatened by someone who has the desire, the ability, and the opportunity to do us harm. In such a circumstance, how would I not be "the good guy"? If you think that individual citizens should not defend themselves from deadly force, then by the same logic your country should not defend itself from the invasion of a hostile army?
"you are far more likely to commit a serious crime with a gun than without."
Do you think that a normal, law abiding citizen is suddenly going to turn criminal just because he has a gun? Sounds like a paranoid delusion to me.
"Do you think that everyone who distrusts the police is also pro-gun control?"
Heavens no, I just thought it was interesting that the pro-gun folks had been trying to get this point across for years, when suddenly somebody else realized the same principle in a tangential topic.