However, he says he started with a list of sites that were blocked by another blocking system. Given that those sites were all on a blocked list, the chance of finding one that is blocked by someone is much higher than just picking a name at random.
He also thinks that asking people doing his Turk work where they live is a better indication of why they could or could not resolve while using Comcast than simply asking them what their DNS server setting is. It is likely that those who could resolve were not using Comcast DNS to start with, not that they had a different Comcast server.
According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
You may have just detected the very first time the news media used imprecise language when referring to something where most people could not care less about the specific number of something involved (only that it is "large"). I sense an award of some kind is headed your way.
I don't know what you think RC stands for, but in my part of the world it means 'radio controlled'. If something is radio controlled, that's a pretty clear indication that there is no man (or woman) aboard the aircraft controlling it. And gee, what does "unmanned" mean? It means, in effect, the controller of the aircraft has no skin in the game when it comes to operating the aircraft in a safe and reasonable manner. "Oh, my UAV is about to crash into that building I'm buzzing, I guess I'll have to buy another one", versus "I'm not going to buzz that building because if I make a mistake I could die."
Those drones flown in Afghanistan by operators in Nevada are just as "unmanned" (the "U" in UAV, don't you know?) as any other RC controlled craft.
I would mostly agree with this except that he was presumably doing this on university property at
a request of the university so even if he was buzzing people this is something that needs to be
taken up with the university not with the FAA or the police.
Nonsense. Land owners do not get to create private regulations for the use of the airspace over their property, nor can they waive federal regulations that already exist governing that airspace. It doesn't matter if the "land owner" is the state of Virginia or not.
If he is low enough to the ground to "buzz" people then in my opinion he
would fall into a vague "university airspace".
Please stop. You have no clue. There is no "vague university airspace". If you look at the sectional chart for the airspace around CHO (Charlottseville Airport) you see some dashed lines that either encompass the UVA heliport or come really damn close. That dashed line means the airspace is controlled from "the ground up". It is there to protect the safety of all flight, not just the flights of people who want to participate in the regulations.
Likewise if someone is flying over my house low
enough to "buzz" me at my house, then are in my "air space" aka "personal space".
You can no more authorize a pilot to violate the 500 foot rule so he can buzz your house than UVA could authorize this guy.
Just like you can't walk through my backyard without my permission you shouldn't be able to fly through my backyard without my permission or some sort of
relationship with me.
Well, you'll be happy to know that unless your backyard is huge and the pilot can remain further than "500 feet [ftom] any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure", AND you live in a sparsely populated area, flying through your backyard is already illegal. If you're in a more populated area, the rule becomes "1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet of the aircraft." But nowhere in the aviation regulations does it say you can waive that rule. It doesn't matter if the pilot has a "relationship" with you, nor can you give your permission.
A UPS driver gets temporary permission to walk through my yard and a
public sideway gives temporary permission to walk through my yard but otherwise it's mostly
considered my yard.
What law gives a UPS driver "temporary permission" to walk through your back yard? It's considered your back yard, not "mostly considered". UPS has no special privileges, there is no easement for UPS deliveries through people's back yards. Now, it is hard to get one arrested for trespassing until you've explicitly told one to leave (or posted the area explicitly) but that doesn't mean he has "temporary permission" to be there.
Hmm... A state legislature, within a day or 2 of the outcome of a verdict unfavorable to society writ large, can pass legislation fixing that,
Because knee-jerk reactionary legislation is easy to pass. Nobody wants to be seen as in favor of pervs taking upskirt photos. Think of the children!
but at the national level we have seemingly grid lock on every aspect of society except National Security or Defense.
Because the system was designed to be slow to change and require deliberation before action. The founders kinda had a clue that knee-jerk reactions to hot-button issues result in the poorest laws.
For those of you not paying attention, the US is utterly fucking rotten to the core!
The fact that the two-level legislative process is slow doesn't prove anything about being rotten. I'd rather have well thought out laws with concern for unintended side-effects than a book of doctrines and covenants made up on the fly by some guy who finds "golden plates" that nobody but his closest relatives ever saw.
Seems they must be doing something right, even if I can't agree with the actions described in TFA, assuming that they are true.
First, if I had mod points today I'd be modding you up up up.
Second, I'll just point out that even in the Beeb article, it says:
The Department of Education meanwhile has asked for assurances that the children will be taught the full curriculum.
So the only issue is whether the children will have to answer questions on a test about the material, not whether it will be part of the state-mandated curriculum. Some folks are unhappy because they don't get to answer the questions and will get poorer scores. I'd imagine they'll do even better, because every question you don't have to answer is a question you can't misread or check the wrong answer box on, or any of the others ways of getting it wrong. And 100% of 48 is still 100%, even if everyone else has to answer all 50 questions right to get 100%.
And I expect that this school is probably not one of the modern wonders that teach only to the test, so I bet there are a lot of things they teach that don't appear on the standardized tests.
Since these girls are so good at science, I wonder if they're going to apply for H1B visas?
Amish Mafia. Levi is in it for the money, Caleb is a repressed bully acting out and "kicking the dog" after he got beat up, John is just sad (and a rott), but Merlin is crazy scary.
I still can't figure out why the cops don't just haul the whole bunch off to the clink. They've got the evidence on video. They can charge stupid kids who make cell phone videos of themselves speeding down the freeway, why can't they use professionally shot HD quality video showing someone extorting money from someone?
If it's a government record, it's a public record. That should always be the assumption.
Nonsense. Utter and complete crap. That would make every intrusive census form public. How about your tax returns? The government demands (and collects) a lot of information about us, and assuming it should all be public information is just ridiculous.
The assumption is that forms that become public records say so in no uncertain terms so that the private citizen filling one in can decide in advance if he wants that information made public.
In the case of concealed carry permits, there's lot of room for malfesance by the issuing authority.
So what? You think you deserve to have access to every bit of information the government has about someone on the off chance that someone in the government made a mistake on a form? You think you should have free access to the information people provide on CCH applications so you can do a better job monitoring the government's issuance of permits?
Of course a better solution is to not require a government permit for exercising your second amendment rights.
In a perfect world, the personal information the government collects about someone would never be a public record and the second amendment wouldn't be necessary. But to claim that everything should be a public record because the world isn't perfect is just ludicrous. "If we're going to have a Big Brother state, we might as well let everyone play along and see the information about everyone else...."
... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.
It's not even that. You say it later:
that information is no one's business.
There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public records, and then modified the process so current ones are not.
It is not impossible that anti-gun zealots may try to get background check data covered under public record laws and what used to be a "secret" between a gun buyer and his government would be public knowledge. It's nobody's business, and let's keep it that way.
Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun...
I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?
Well, yes you were. When you refer to people who want to point the finger at "those dems", that's a partisan statement.
and was not specifically talking about Oregon in this case,
While you weren't being specific, you replied to someone who was, and you're in a discussion that has the title "Oregon withholding..." so "some states" does include Oregon. I just told you that you should exclude Oregon from "some states" and your paranoia about this being sabotage by people who want to accuse "those dems" for the problem.
On the other hand there are also many cases where "those repubs" do the same thing you are saying about "those dems".
Not in Oregon. Dems in charge. Even if you were referring to Oregon only implicitly, I was explicit and limited to Oregon in my comment.
It fits there width wise, but even tech-stupid people would know that its not a snug fit,
Yes, it is a rather good fit. Width-wise it's spot on. And the nice little springy contacts from the RJ45 hold it in pretty well. It feels no looser than the normal USB socket.
The problem is, there ARE no "puzzle pieces" (keys) that don't match up when plugging in the wrong hole. And if your USB socket (or plug) has a loose internal connector bit you can actually put the plug in rotated 180 degrees. The contacts won't meet up, of course. I have a battery for USB that has this problem and I have to double check that the device I've plugged in is actually charging every time.
Using your logic I could say that my sweater fits on my legs because my legs fit in the arm holes
Yes, I think pretty much by definition if your legs fit the arm holes then the sweater can be said to fit on your legs.
As much as I like to blame Oracle, the state may have added serious requirements at the last minute that complicated everything.
Uhhh, no. I don't think "have a button that you can click on to enroll online" was a last minute decision. That's what was lacking -- you could browse all kinds of things, you just couldn't sign up online.
You could download a 19 page form to fill in and send back so they could send you another form to fill out to enroll, so no worries mate! Nobody died (yet) from not being able to meet the mid-December deadline for signing up for insurance to start on Jan. 1. But the nurse I talked to earlier this year was very sad for some folks she was seeing. They had regularly scheduled appointments they were keeping but they hadn't been able to get insurance yet after the plan/company they liked and wanted to keep dropped them at the end of the year. The ACA and the failure of Cover Oregon was costing them a bundle of money.
And the receptionist reminded me that I was very lucky that my co-pay was only $5 instead of the $100 some people had.
Yay ACA!
Well some states purposely wanted to balloon the costs, or make the law look like a failure (hey look at what those dems cost us)
The President of the Oregon Senate and the Speaker of the House are both Democrats. The Governor is and has been a Democrat. Yeah, I sure see how the Oregon government has acted to make those dems look really bad. Oregon has been progressive in its health insurance systems for a long time. Of any state where you could express this kind of paranoia, Oregon is about the last one it would apply to.
On the other hand, a lot of the people in the rest of the state (Portland and Eugene are concentrations of "dems" who tend to drive the rest of the state who aren't) have seen first hand how much "those dems" cost us on a daily basis. But it's not from sabotage from "those repubs", it's "those dems" shooting themselves (and indirectly, us) in the foot. Or rather, pocketbook.
They just plug it in to the only place that it fits.
Au contraire, mon frere. The USB connector as found on the modern memory stick (A?) fits perfectly into an RJ45 network jack. My netbook has a USB port right next to the network port and I have, many times, plugged a USB stick into the network port by mistake. And it is usually a realization "why hasn't this thing recognized the stick?" that reminds me to look at what I'm doing.
The cause or the fault, I'm sure has many sources, but people are increasingly ignorant.
Oh, the horror! People ignore what they don't need to know. As the knowledge base of the world grows, there's more and more stuff people don't need to know. Thus they are becoming more ignorant. Film at 11.
Well, AC, I'm wondering why anyone would think that 100% of the population needs to know what HTML is, or that anyone would necessarily consider someone who doesn't know to be an unintelligent mouth-breather.
Somehow I imagine that in that 11% we can find some pretty good doctors, auto mechanics, electrical engineers, musicians, nurses, ATP-level pilots, or many other intelligent people who have neither need nor desire to do computer web page programming by hand. Except for people who do that, who really needs to know what HTML is? God knows, even the people who know what it is have been using something that is no longer a markup tool but a page layout tool, so even the people who use it don't really know what it is supposed to be.
I think I'd actually call a web designer who knows just enough about HTML to cry "my Dreamweaver/etc web page making tool didn't create the correct HTML" (i.e., knows a good buzzword to blame his failure on) is more unintelligent than all 11% of those who didn't care enough to know what it was in the first place. And yet, he'd get that question correct on the survey and thus be classed "intelligent".
I read the summary and thought "so what?". The only reason to read the discussion is to see how fast this factoid turned into insults and nonsense. Thanks for helping.
Why is the derivative of sin(x) equal to cos(x)? Because we use radians. If you measure angles in degrees or grads or whatever, it doesn't work out this way.
I'm sorry, what? If you plot the two functions and look at the slope (derivative) of one compared to the value of the other, the relationship will be the same whether you label the x axis as "degrees", "radians", "grads", or "blutarskis", as long as the conversion is a simple multiplicative factor (as is degrees to radians, etc.)
I.e., d/dx sin(nx) = cos(nx) because you can replace nx with y by assigning y = nx. Then you have d/dx sin(y) = cos(y) which we know is true.
Your visual "90 degree rotation" is the same as "pi/2 radians" is the same as "100 grads" (is the same as "e blutarskis").
So, your university wants to monetize the usage of the basic infrastructure in order to leverage your synergies by applying an undue burden of usage and accounting on the people to more accurately ensure they spend most of their time accounting for the 2 cents it cost to use the device?
Someone who damages a $500 centrifuge through abuse is costing everyone much more than $0.02. It is much better to stop such problems before they happen than to have to clean up afterwards. I mean, just imagine if we had been able to keep Eve from going swimming in the pond in Eden. Now we're stuck with never being able to get the smell off those fish.
Think about what you are asking here: you are trying to protect equipment from a bunch of jerks who don't follow the rules on how to properly take care of it, and are offering a solution that requires them to voluntarily log their actions.
I don't think he's offering a solution, he's speaking about his experience doing this kind of thing and rather politely saying in long words what this list summarizes when someone proposes a solution to spam.
You seem to be deliberately obfuscating the issue.
The "issue" as brought up by msauve was that the police were acting illegally because they didn't have a license for the "intentional transmitters" and would have needed to go to federal court to get a warrant to cover this use. I'm dealing with that issue, which is why I quoted it when I replied originally. Hughes has a license for testing, and federal courts cannot issue licenses like they issue warrants. The straw being grasped at is insufficient to carry the day because it is based on flawed assumptions and understanding of the FCC regulations.
If you want to be outraged, do so where outrage is appropriate. Using the "stingray" to track a stolen phone isn't it. Sticking a foot in the door to keep the occupant from closing it is a much more relevant outrageable act.
So then, would it be legal for me to put up a fake cell site?
If it was FCC licensed, I expect so. I expect the company that sells the mini-cells I linked to probably manages the licensing aspects. One of the questions on their contact form is "do you have a license?". That makes using the mini-cell legal. You could buy one.
I think not. if it illegal for me to do it, then it is illegal for the cops to do it, unless they get a warrant!
You are patently wrong. It is illegal for you because you have no FCC license for those frequencies. It is not illegal for the cops because they are acting under Hughes' FCC license. (And if you think a deep-pockets company like Hughes doesn't have a license to test the radios they manufacture, you're very wrong.)
As I've already pointed out, courts cannot issue FCC licenses because they don't have the authority. A warrant cannot provide what the courts have no authority to issue. A warrant can deal with searches, but the search came after the tracking and involved a different set of laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I just request the page using an email-to-web service.
BITFTP
He also thinks that asking people doing his Turk work where they live is a better indication of why they could or could not resolve while using Comcast than simply asking them what their DNS server setting is. It is likely that those who could resolve were not using Comcast DNS to start with, not that they had a different Comcast server.
According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
You may have just detected the very first time the news media used imprecise language when referring to something where most people could not care less about the specific number of something involved (only that it is "large"). I sense an award of some kind is headed your way.
RC is not unmanned.
I don't know what you think RC stands for, but in my part of the world it means 'radio controlled'. If something is radio controlled, that's a pretty clear indication that there is no man (or woman) aboard the aircraft controlling it. And gee, what does "unmanned" mean? It means, in effect, the controller of the aircraft has no skin in the game when it comes to operating the aircraft in a safe and reasonable manner. "Oh, my UAV is about to crash into that building I'm buzzing, I guess I'll have to buy another one", versus "I'm not going to buzz that building because if I make a mistake I could die."
Those drones flown in Afghanistan by operators in Nevada are just as "unmanned" (the "U" in UAV, don't you know?) as any other RC controlled craft.
I would mostly agree with this except that he was presumably doing this on university property at a request of the university so even if he was buzzing people this is something that needs to be taken up with the university not with the FAA or the police.
Nonsense. Land owners do not get to create private regulations for the use of the airspace over their property, nor can they waive federal regulations that already exist governing that airspace. It doesn't matter if the "land owner" is the state of Virginia or not.
If he is low enough to the ground to "buzz" people then in my opinion he would fall into a vague "university airspace".
Please stop. You have no clue. There is no "vague university airspace". If you look at the sectional chart for the airspace around CHO (Charlottseville Airport) you see some dashed lines that either encompass the UVA heliport or come really damn close. That dashed line means the airspace is controlled from "the ground up". It is there to protect the safety of all flight, not just the flights of people who want to participate in the regulations.
Likewise if someone is flying over my house low enough to "buzz" me at my house, then are in my "air space" aka "personal space".
You can no more authorize a pilot to violate the 500 foot rule so he can buzz your house than UVA could authorize this guy.
Just like you can't walk through my backyard without my permission you shouldn't be able to fly through my backyard without my permission or some sort of relationship with me.
Well, you'll be happy to know that unless your backyard is huge and the pilot can remain further than "500 feet [ftom] any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure", AND you live in a sparsely populated area, flying through your backyard is already illegal. If you're in a more populated area, the rule becomes "1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet of the aircraft." But nowhere in the aviation regulations does it say you can waive that rule. It doesn't matter if the pilot has a "relationship" with you, nor can you give your permission.
A UPS driver gets temporary permission to walk through my yard and a public sideway gives temporary permission to walk through my yard but otherwise it's mostly considered my yard.
What law gives a UPS driver "temporary permission" to walk through your back yard? It's considered your back yard, not "mostly considered". UPS has no special privileges, there is no easement for UPS deliveries through people's back yards. Now, it is hard to get one arrested for trespassing until you've explicitly told one to leave (or posted the area explicitly) but that doesn't mean he has "temporary permission" to be there.
Hmm... A state legislature, within a day or 2 of the outcome of a verdict unfavorable to society writ large, can pass legislation fixing that,
Because knee-jerk reactionary legislation is easy to pass. Nobody wants to be seen as in favor of pervs taking upskirt photos. Think of the children!
but at the national level we have seemingly grid lock on every aspect of society except National Security or Defense.
Because the system was designed to be slow to change and require deliberation before action. The founders kinda had a clue that knee-jerk reactions to hot-button issues result in the poorest laws.
For those of you not paying attention, the US is utterly fucking rotten to the core!
The fact that the two-level legislative process is slow doesn't prove anything about being rotten. I'd rather have well thought out laws with concern for unintended side-effects than a book of doctrines and covenants made up on the fly by some guy who finds "golden plates" that nobody but his closest relatives ever saw.
Seems they must be doing something right, even if I can't agree with the actions described in TFA, assuming that they are true.
First, if I had mod points today I'd be modding you up up up.
Second, I'll just point out that even in the Beeb article, it says:
So the only issue is whether the children will have to answer questions on a test about the material, not whether it will be part of the state-mandated curriculum. Some folks are unhappy because they don't get to answer the questions and will get poorer scores. I'd imagine they'll do even better, because every question you don't have to answer is a question you can't misread or check the wrong answer box on, or any of the others ways of getting it wrong. And 100% of 48 is still 100%, even if everyone else has to answer all 50 questions right to get 100%.
And I expect that this school is probably not one of the modern wonders that teach only to the test, so I bet there are a lot of things they teach that don't appear on the standardized tests.
Since these girls are so good at science, I wonder if they're going to apply for H1B visas?
I still can't figure out why the cops don't just haul the whole bunch off to the clink. They've got the evidence on video. They can charge stupid kids who make cell phone videos of themselves speeding down the freeway, why can't they use professionally shot HD quality video showing someone extorting money from someone?
If it's a government record, it's a public record. That should always be the assumption.
Nonsense. Utter and complete crap. That would make every intrusive census form public. How about your tax returns? The government demands (and collects) a lot of information about us, and assuming it should all be public information is just ridiculous.
The assumption is that forms that become public records say so in no uncertain terms so that the private citizen filling one in can decide in advance if he wants that information made public.
In the case of concealed carry permits, there's lot of room for malfesance by the issuing authority.
So what? You think you deserve to have access to every bit of information the government has about someone on the off chance that someone in the government made a mistake on a form? You think you should have free access to the information people provide on CCH applications so you can do a better job monitoring the government's issuance of permits?
Of course a better solution is to not require a government permit for exercising your second amendment rights.
In a perfect world, the personal information the government collects about someone would never be a public record and the second amendment wouldn't be necessary. But to claim that everything should be a public record because the world isn't perfect is just ludicrous. "If we're going to have a Big Brother state, we might as well let everyone play along and see the information about everyone else...."
... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.
It's not even that. You say it later:
that information is no one's business.
There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public records, and then modified the process so current ones are not.
It is not impossible that anti-gun zealots may try to get background check data covered under public record laws and what used to be a "secret" between a gun buyer and his government would be public knowledge. It's nobody's business, and let's keep it that way.
They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.
Doesn't it scare the horse and make it pull the buggy into the ditch?
Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun ...
I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?
I was not being partisan in my statement,
Well, yes you were. When you refer to people who want to point the finger at "those dems", that's a partisan statement.
and was not specifically talking about Oregon in this case,
While you weren't being specific, you replied to someone who was, and you're in a discussion that has the title "Oregon withholding ..." so "some states" does include Oregon. I just told you that you should exclude Oregon from "some states" and your paranoia about this being sabotage by people who want to accuse "those dems" for the problem.
On the other hand there are also many cases where "those repubs" do the same thing you are saying about "those dems".
Not in Oregon. Dems in charge. Even if you were referring to Oregon only implicitly, I was explicit and limited to Oregon in my comment.
It fits there width wise, but even tech-stupid people would know that its not a snug fit,
Yes, it is a rather good fit. Width-wise it's spot on. And the nice little springy contacts from the RJ45 hold it in pretty well. It feels no looser than the normal USB socket.
The problem is, there ARE no "puzzle pieces" (keys) that don't match up when plugging in the wrong hole. And if your USB socket (or plug) has a loose internal connector bit you can actually put the plug in rotated 180 degrees. The contacts won't meet up, of course. I have a battery for USB that has this problem and I have to double check that the device I've plugged in is actually charging every time.
Using your logic I could say that my sweater fits on my legs because my legs fit in the arm holes
Yes, I think pretty much by definition if your legs fit the arm holes then the sweater can be said to fit on your legs.
As much as I like to blame Oracle, the state may have added serious requirements at the last minute that complicated everything.
Uhhh, no. I don't think "have a button that you can click on to enroll online" was a last minute decision. That's what was lacking -- you could browse all kinds of things, you just couldn't sign up online.
You could download a 19 page form to fill in and send back so they could send you another form to fill out to enroll, so no worries mate! Nobody died (yet) from not being able to meet the mid-December deadline for signing up for insurance to start on Jan. 1. But the nurse I talked to earlier this year was very sad for some folks she was seeing. They had regularly scheduled appointments they were keeping but they hadn't been able to get insurance yet after the plan/company they liked and wanted to keep dropped them at the end of the year. The ACA and the failure of Cover Oregon was costing them a bundle of money.
And the receptionist reminded me that I was very lucky that my co-pay was only $5 instead of the $100 some people had. Yay ACA!
Well some states purposely wanted to balloon the costs, or make the law look like a failure (hey look at what those dems cost us)
The President of the Oregon Senate and the Speaker of the House are both Democrats. The Governor is and has been a Democrat. Yeah, I sure see how the Oregon government has acted to make those dems look really bad. Oregon has been progressive in its health insurance systems for a long time. Of any state where you could express this kind of paranoia, Oregon is about the last one it would apply to.
On the other hand, a lot of the people in the rest of the state (Portland and Eugene are concentrations of "dems" who tend to drive the rest of the state who aren't) have seen first hand how much "those dems" cost us on a daily basis. But it's not from sabotage from "those repubs", it's "those dems" shooting themselves (and indirectly, us) in the foot. Or rather, pocketbook.
They just plug it in to the only place that it fits.
Au contraire, mon frere. The USB connector as found on the modern memory stick (A?) fits perfectly into an RJ45 network jack. My netbook has a USB port right next to the network port and I have, many times, plugged a USB stick into the network port by mistake. And it is usually a realization "why hasn't this thing recognized the stick?" that reminds me to look at what I'm doing.
The cause or the fault, I'm sure has many sources, but people are increasingly ignorant.
Oh, the horror! People ignore what they don't need to know. As the knowledge base of the world grows, there's more and more stuff people don't need to know. Thus they are becoming more ignorant. Film at 11.
Well, it might be asking a bit much to know SEO. But USB? Even my dad, a Luddite if there ever was one, knows what USB is.
Yep. Upper SideBand. Great for long distance communications.
People use USB. Daily.
Yep again. The bands are packed. They also use FM. And a few other modes.
I think I'd actually call a web designer who knows just enough about HTML to cry "my Dreamweaver/etc web page making tool didn't create the correct HTML" (i.e., knows a good buzzword to blame his failure on) is more unintelligent than all 11% of those who didn't care enough to know what it was in the first place. And yet, he'd get that question correct on the survey and thus be classed "intelligent".
I read the summary and thought "so what?". The only reason to read the discussion is to see how fast this factoid turned into insults and nonsense. Thanks for helping.
Why is the derivative of sin(x) equal to cos(x)? Because we use radians. If you measure angles in degrees or grads or whatever, it doesn't work out this way.
I'm sorry, what? If you plot the two functions and look at the slope (derivative) of one compared to the value of the other, the relationship will be the same whether you label the x axis as "degrees", "radians", "grads", or "blutarskis", as long as the conversion is a simple multiplicative factor (as is degrees to radians, etc.)
I.e., d/dx sin(nx) = cos(nx) because you can replace nx with y by assigning y = nx. Then you have d/dx sin(y) = cos(y) which we know is true.
Your visual "90 degree rotation" is the same as "pi/2 radians" is the same as "100 grads" (is the same as "e blutarskis").
So, your university wants to monetize the usage of the basic infrastructure in order to leverage your synergies by applying an undue burden of usage and accounting on the people to more accurately ensure they spend most of their time accounting for the 2 cents it cost to use the device?
Someone who damages a $500 centrifuge through abuse is costing everyone much more than $0.02. It is much better to stop such problems before they happen than to have to clean up afterwards. I mean, just imagine if we had been able to keep Eve from going swimming in the pond in Eden. Now we're stuck with never being able to get the smell off those fish.
So you're going to make me waste an hour
The only person making you waste an hour is you.
Think about what you are asking here: you are trying to protect equipment from a bunch of jerks who don't follow the rules on how to properly take care of it, and are offering a solution that requires them to voluntarily log their actions.
I don't think he's offering a solution, he's speaking about his experience doing this kind of thing and rather politely saying in long words what this list summarizes when someone proposes a solution to spam.
What does it matter who *owns* the device?
Because that's who has the license.
You seem to be deliberately obfuscating the issue.
The "issue" as brought up by msauve was that the police were acting illegally because they didn't have a license for the "intentional transmitters" and would have needed to go to federal court to get a warrant to cover this use. I'm dealing with that issue, which is why I quoted it when I replied originally. Hughes has a license for testing, and federal courts cannot issue licenses like they issue warrants. The straw being grasped at is insufficient to carry the day because it is based on flawed assumptions and understanding of the FCC regulations.
If you want to be outraged, do so where outrage is appropriate. Using the "stingray" to track a stolen phone isn't it. Sticking a foot in the door to keep the occupant from closing it is a much more relevant outrageable act.
So then, would it be legal for me to put up a fake cell site?
If it was FCC licensed, I expect so. I expect the company that sells the mini-cells I linked to probably manages the licensing aspects. One of the questions on their contact form is "do you have a license?". That makes using the mini-cell legal. You could buy one.
I think not. if it illegal for me to do it, then it is illegal for the cops to do it, unless they get a warrant!
You are patently wrong. It is illegal for you because you have no FCC license for those frequencies. It is not illegal for the cops because they are acting under Hughes' FCC license. (And if you think a deep-pockets company like Hughes doesn't have a license to test the radios they manufacture, you're very wrong.)
As I've already pointed out, courts cannot issue FCC licenses because they don't have the authority. A warrant cannot provide what the courts have no authority to issue. A warrant can deal with searches, but the search came after the tracking and involved a different set of laws.