But the fact is, ThinkGeek is going to be the one making the winning shirt(s)... so it might help to design a shirt that's easy for them to produce. They're not going to buy new machenery because Taco liked your picture.
So maybe Taco's monitor is messed up and #006666 looks like a shade of pink instead of dark green. Whatever, you would still know that coding #006666 into your image will generate Taco's favorite shade of pink...
I think the rule is going to be that if Taco can open your image on his computer you're in, if he can't open your image you're out. Since he's willing to accept Photoshop file types, it's rather safe to assume if Photoshop can open your image you're fine.
If your design is so specific that replacing your CMYK color with the closest RGB value ruins it, you're likely in the wrong contest...
By submitting your Entry you hereby warrant and represent that all information provided by you as part of the Entry is true, accurate and complete, and that you are the sole creator of the Design, the Design is entirely your original work of authorship and that the Entry was not created at your job, using your employer's equipment or on your employer's time, or in any other manner that would result in your employer claiming intellectual property rights in the Design.
So do your job now, and enter from home tonight...
Planes shouldn't be flying that close to a soft wall in the first place. There are invisible air traffic control "lanes" in the sky, and those paths keep planes away from no-fly-zones. Nobody accidently strays over The White House, a commecial airline flight would have to be quite off course for that to happen.
There are some changes that will never be reversed as a result of 9-11-01.
It used to be that the standard hijacking protocol called for the flight crew to welcome the hijacker into the cockpit. It was assumed that the hijacker would not know how how to fly the plane and also wanted to live, and therefore would need the help of the pilot to land safely. Moreover, the pilots were trained to take the hijacker anywhere within the plane's fuel range they wanted to go, because the situation would be best resolved with the plane landed safely no matter where that turned out to be. That plan worked pretty well before 9-11-01.
The idea of having a suidical pilot among the hijackers worked exactly 3 times on 9-11-01. On Flight 93, the plot failed because the passengers and crew had been informed of the previous hijackings and they changed the defense. Knowing that their lives were already lost, the passengers had no incentive to cooperate with the hijackers, and the "Let's Roll" offense was formed.
Now, the cockpit door is locked before the first non-crew member is permitted on the plane. Nobody's getting into the cockpit during the flight anymore. Anybody trying to defeat the cockpit door lock will be seen, and will be attacked by the flight crew and/or air marshals... You've seen the stories on what they do to passengers who just try to stand up within the last 30 minutes of a Washington, D.C.-bound flight now...
It's kinda sad, when I was a kid they used to open the door and let kids look into the cockpit while boarding the plane. That's no more and will never be again.
First, blind people typically do not live alone. The OCR challenge can be answered by any slighted person, so they just have to call someone over to the computer who can read the blured word for them. Since this only has to be done once per site, it's not like this is an everyday event.
Second, if there really is nobody around, couldn't some charity set up a screen-reading service where the blind person could send a screenshot of the screen to have a person look at the word and send back the ascii text they need?
Forget the yes/no questions you listed. If those were your database questions, a crack attempt will be able to just simply guess yes or no to everything, and get in about 1/3 of the time. You need to have a much lower failure rate than that.
Voice recognition of a computer generated voice would be nearly a 100% success rate, so that's not a security feature at all. Put that option on your site and who needs OCR if they can just claim to be blind?
Anybody who cannot see a garbled word graphic also cannot see a banner ad. For one of the sites I'm working on, that's enough to make them persona non grata on that site...
Yes, however a government that signs a treaty and then allows laws contradictory to that treaty to stay on its books looks very silly to outside obserbers, and effectively voids its treaty-making power because nobody trusts that regime anymore. Oh, yeah, and words like regime start getting thrown around within earshot of G.W. Bush and....
The USA stays out of this hot water by requiring the Senate be involved in any treaty making. Which means any treaty the USA signs has already been approved by 2 of the 3 authorities needed to make a law... and nobody up for election would ever be so dumb as to approve a treaty and then go against the matching enabling legislation. The only thing left in play is the need for a simple majorty of the House of Representatives, who usually doesn't have that big of a difference of opinion from the Senate.
Sorry, read the wrong line... 1/10th of a watt is the power of your typical consumer grade WiFi device, because that's usually enough to do want the user wants. Want more, buy a second one...
Yes, but Wolfman Jack's operation needed a license from the Mexican government... and there just happens to be agreements between Mexico, the USA and Canada to all use the same standards for over the air broadcast TV and Radio, and to cooperate in border areas so that Buffalo's TV allocations aren't on the same frequencies as Toronto's. The FCC could have putted Wolfman Jack out of business, if they wanted to, by simply licensing stations accross the West Coast with the same frequency.
BTW, such a stunt can't be repeated anymore. Mexico isn't giving out allocations that strong anymore, and you're now required to get approval from the FCC if you're going to submit an American-facing design such as XTRA which beams sportstalk into southern CA.
Just because you see full screen static on your TV set doesn't mean that the TV channel isn't being used, just that it's not useful in your area.
There are a few "vacant allocations" in existance, and if you look those up and send the FCC the right paperwork and pay the fee, you can own a TV station. The half million part comes in with the fact that TV broadcast towers are expensive things to build, and don't forget you'll actually be required to buy or produce programming to put on your TV station. But there's not 60 of those in every town, you'll be lucky to find 60 of those in the whole nation.
See, if you see a "full screen static" signal on channel 2, it doesn't mean that you can put a channel 2 tower where you are... if you did you'd reduce the coverage range for at least one channel 2, if not more. There's no useful channel 2 signal in Springfield, MA, but if there was a channel 2 dropped into that city it'd almost certainly interfere with WGBH-TV Boston and WCBS-TV New York. So, channel 2 sits unwatchable in that city by design.
We've already got a safety net for that. No single device on the 2.4 GHz band can have more than 1/10th of a Watt of ERP... Effective Radiated Power, which means that any refection-based gain from an antenna counts too... A standard consumer device plus a Pringles can if done right can accidently send you over the limit. (Think of it going 80 MPH on the highway... usually you don't get caught, but if you're the unlucky one they do catch, it's one big fine to pay.)
So no, an ISP can't exactly blanket a large area in WiFi, because they'd need far too many devices all over the place to make it all work.
What this guy wants to do isn't possible in the USA either. 2.4 GHz isn't unregulated here either... it's unlicenced, meaning that you don't have to file any paperwork or pay any fee to use it, but there's still regulations about it. Particularly, you can't have an ERP greater than 1/10 of a Watt from any single device. Yep, too strong a signal, and you're in violation of FCC rules and although it's unlikely they'll bother to look for you, you could be fined if the FCC's in town. (Read, somebody complains about your too-strong signal...)
So, you can do what T-Mobile is doing here and run an WISP at most major bookstore/cafe installations, but you can't exactly blanket the whole city with it. If you try, you'll need too many devices (and don't forget you've got to some how get power to them.)
2.4 GHz is allocated for within-the-site transmissions, with just a little spillover into the neighbor's yard. Don't try to make it something it's not.
But what has NASA done for us lately? The problem of getting a space shuttle in orbit is more or less solved... just what was the recent John Gleen mission about again, besides being a publicity stunt?
Now that the space race is over with both teams crossing the finish line, what's left for orbital manned flights to discover that we can't send a robot up to do?
Now people can view foreign programs, use their computer+tv at the same time, as well as a number of other things and the TV execs can't do much to morally sway users against it as it would have all the commercials intact.
Nope... the TV execs will already have a problem with this.
Think of it this way, a "brick" in Atlanta beams the NBC affiliate to a viewer in Boston... same NBC shows with the ads in tact? Nope. The Boston NBC station shows Boston aimed ads in the local spots, the Atlanta based station shows Atlanta aimed ads that are likely meaningless to the Boston viewer... and that'll have the Boston NBC affilate owner upset. This fight has happened already, see the DBS local-into-local rules...
Sending the BBC programs over to the USA is exactly the same problem, the BBC wants to be able to sell their shows to American TV companies, and there are some shows that the BBC has purchased the rights to air in the UK that they don't have the ability to sell the international rights too because somebody else owns those...
"The Industry" hates anything that lets a show from one "TV zone" travel into another...
In a variety of industries, especially the large houses, that actually have a plan,
Let's talk about the small houses instead. Think about the small business that has only 20. It'd be a bit disruptive to replace just one every quarter, and better to replace all 20 in one shot every 5 years.
A disproportionate number of companies who were on that kind of cycle replaced everything in 1999 because of a combination of Y2K fears and the fact that it was the hot thing to do at the time. As a result, some of those 5 year cycles got sync'ed up by that event, and those companies will be due for a total swap-out in 2004.
Right, so that's the difference between spam in this case. A small handful of e-mails that might be annoying doesn't count, it has to be a large volume...
Your server, your firewall rules. However, if a message properly formated (with a truthful header, and no destructive code of any kind) and it gets past your rule set, that's your fault. You can't let the message through, and then decide you didn't like what it said.
Moral of the story, block the home address of a fired employee if you know it...
Slashdot Mirror
But the fact is, ThinkGeek is going to be the one making the winning shirt(s)... so it might help to design a shirt that's easy for them to produce. They're not going to buy new machenery because Taco liked your picture.
So maybe Taco's monitor is messed up and #006666 looks like a shade of pink instead of dark green. Whatever, you would still know that coding #006666 into your image will generate Taco's favorite shade of pink...
I think the rule is going to be that if Taco can open your image on his computer you're in, if he can't open your image you're out. Since he's willing to accept Photoshop file types, it's rather safe to assume if Photoshop can open your image you're fine.
If your design is so specific that replacing your CMYK color with the closest RGB value ruins it, you're likely in the wrong contest...
From the official rules:
By submitting your Entry you hereby warrant and represent that all information provided by you as part of the Entry is true, accurate and complete, and that you are the sole creator of the Design, the Design is entirely your original work of authorship and that the Entry was not created at your job, using your employer's equipment or on your employer's time, or in any other manner that would result in your employer claiming intellectual property rights in the Design.
So do your job now, and enter from home tonight...
Planes shouldn't be flying that close to a soft wall in the first place. There are invisible air traffic control "lanes" in the sky, and those paths keep planes away from no-fly-zones. Nobody accidently strays over The White House, a commecial airline flight would have to be quite off course for that to happen.
There are some changes that will never be reversed as a result of 9-11-01.
It used to be that the standard hijacking protocol called for the flight crew to welcome the hijacker into the cockpit. It was assumed that the hijacker would not know how how to fly the plane and also wanted to live, and therefore would need the help of the pilot to land safely. Moreover, the pilots were trained to take the hijacker anywhere within the plane's fuel range they wanted to go, because the situation would be best resolved with the plane landed safely no matter where that turned out to be. That plan worked pretty well before 9-11-01.
The idea of having a suidical pilot among the hijackers worked exactly 3 times on 9-11-01. On Flight 93, the plot failed because the passengers and crew had been informed of the previous hijackings and they changed the defense. Knowing that their lives were already lost, the passengers had no incentive to cooperate with the hijackers, and the "Let's Roll" offense was formed.
Now, the cockpit door is locked before the first non-crew member is permitted on the plane. Nobody's getting into the cockpit during the flight anymore. Anybody trying to defeat the cockpit door lock will be seen, and will be attacked by the flight crew and/or air marshals... You've seen the stories on what they do to passengers who just try to stand up within the last 30 minutes of a Washington, D.C.-bound flight now...
It's kinda sad, when I was a kid they used to open the door and let kids look into the cockpit while boarding the plane. That's no more and will never be again.
First, blind people typically do not live alone. The OCR challenge can be answered by any slighted person, so they just have to call someone over to the computer who can read the blured word for them. Since this only has to be done once per site, it's not like this is an everyday event.
Second, if there really is nobody around, couldn't some charity set up a screen-reading service where the blind person could send a screenshot of the screen to have a person look at the word and send back the ascii text they need?
Forget the yes/no questions you listed. If those were your database questions, a crack attempt will be able to just simply guess yes or no to everything, and get in about 1/3 of the time. You need to have a much lower failure rate than that.
Because the cat will eventually catch the mouse. The image-word challege has yet to be cracked...
Voice recognition of a computer generated voice would be nearly a 100% success rate, so that's not a security feature at all. Put that option on your site and who needs OCR if they can just claim to be blind?
Anybody who cannot see a garbled word graphic also cannot see a banner ad. For one of the sites I'm working on, that's enough to make them persona non grata on that site...
If you need help, here's somebody who I know is in the business who you should contact: George W. Bush 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Nw Washington, DC 20500
Yes, however a government that signs a treaty and then allows laws contradictory to that treaty to stay on its books looks very silly to outside obserbers, and effectively voids its treaty-making power because nobody trusts that regime anymore. Oh, yeah, and words like regime start getting thrown around within earshot of G.W. Bush and....
The USA stays out of this hot water by requiring the Senate be involved in any treaty making. Which means any treaty the USA signs has already been approved by 2 of the 3 authorities needed to make a law... and nobody up for election would ever be so dumb as to approve a treaty and then go against the matching enabling legislation. The only thing left in play is the need for a simple majorty of the House of Representatives, who usually doesn't have that big of a difference of opinion from the Senate.
You're right... decimal point error... the correct limit is 1.0 Watts
Sorry, read the wrong line... 1/10th of a watt is the power of your typical consumer grade WiFi device, because that's usually enough to do want the user wants. Want more, buy a second one...
Yes, but Wolfman Jack's operation needed a license from the Mexican government... and there just happens to be agreements between Mexico, the USA and Canada to all use the same standards for over the air broadcast TV and Radio, and to cooperate in border areas so that Buffalo's TV allocations aren't on the same frequencies as Toronto's. The FCC could have putted Wolfman Jack out of business, if they wanted to, by simply licensing stations accross the West Coast with the same frequency.
BTW, such a stunt can't be repeated anymore. Mexico isn't giving out allocations that strong anymore, and you're now required to get approval from the FCC if you're going to submit an American-facing design such as XTRA which beams sportstalk into southern CA.
Just because you see full screen static on your TV set doesn't mean that the TV channel isn't being used, just that it's not useful in your area.
There are a few "vacant allocations" in existance, and if you look those up and send the FCC the right paperwork and pay the fee, you can own a TV station. The half million part comes in with the fact that TV broadcast towers are expensive things to build, and don't forget you'll actually be required to buy or produce programming to put on your TV station. But there's not 60 of those in every town, you'll be lucky to find 60 of those in the whole nation.
See, if you see a "full screen static" signal on channel 2, it doesn't mean that you can put a channel 2 tower where you are... if you did you'd reduce the coverage range for at least one channel 2, if not more. There's no useful channel 2 signal in Springfield, MA, but if there was a channel 2 dropped into that city it'd almost certainly interfere with WGBH-TV Boston and WCBS-TV New York. So, channel 2 sits unwatchable in that city by design.
We've already got a safety net for that. No single device on the 2.4 GHz band can have more than 1/10th of a Watt of ERP... Effective Radiated Power, which means that any refection-based gain from an antenna counts too... A standard consumer device plus a Pringles can if done right can accidently send you over the limit. (Think of it going 80 MPH on the highway... usually you don't get caught, but if you're the unlucky one they do catch, it's one big fine to pay.)
So no, an ISP can't exactly blanket a large area in WiFi, because they'd need far too many devices all over the place to make it all work.
What this guy wants to do isn't possible in the USA either. 2.4 GHz isn't unregulated here either... it's unlicenced, meaning that you don't have to file any paperwork or pay any fee to use it, but there's still regulations about it. Particularly, you can't have an ERP greater than 1/10 of a Watt from any single device. Yep, too strong a signal, and you're in violation of FCC rules and although it's unlikely they'll bother to look for you, you could be fined if the FCC's in town. (Read, somebody complains about your too-strong signal...)
So, you can do what T-Mobile is doing here and run an WISP at most major bookstore/cafe installations, but you can't exactly blanket the whole city with it. If you try, you'll need too many devices (and don't forget you've got to some how get power to them.)
2.4 GHz is allocated for within-the-site transmissions, with just a little spillover into the neighbor's yard. Don't try to make it something it's not.
But what has NASA done for us lately? The problem of getting a space shuttle in orbit is more or less solved... just what was the recent John Gleen mission about again, besides being a publicity stunt?
Now that the space race is over with both teams crossing the finish line, what's left for orbital manned flights to discover that we can't send a robot up to do?
ReallyDumb.com Privacy Policy:
We reserve the right to transfer any and all personal information we have collected about you to anybody we feel like it for any reason whatsoever.
Yep, that's a privacy policy that's pretty easy to stick to...
Now people can view foreign programs, use their computer+tv at the same time, as well as a number of other things and the TV execs can't do much to morally sway users against it as it would have all the commercials intact.
Nope... the TV execs will already have a problem with this.
Think of it this way, a "brick" in Atlanta beams the NBC affiliate to a viewer in Boston... same NBC shows with the ads in tact? Nope. The Boston NBC station shows Boston aimed ads in the local spots, the Atlanta based station shows Atlanta aimed ads that are likely meaningless to the Boston viewer... and that'll have the Boston NBC affilate owner upset. This fight has happened already, see the DBS local-into-local rules...
Sending the BBC programs over to the USA is exactly the same problem, the BBC wants to be able to sell their shows to American TV companies, and there are some shows that the BBC has purchased the rights to air in the UK that they don't have the ability to sell the international rights too because somebody else owns those...
"The Industry" hates anything that lets a show from one "TV zone" travel into another...
In a variety of industries, especially the large houses, that actually have a plan,
Let's talk about the small houses instead. Think about the small business that has only 20. It'd be a bit disruptive to replace just one every quarter, and better to replace all 20 in one shot every 5 years.
A disproportionate number of companies who were on that kind of cycle replaced everything in 1999 because of a combination of Y2K fears and the fact that it was the hot thing to do at the time. As a result, some of those 5 year cycles got sync'ed up by that event, and those companies will be due for a total swap-out in 2004.
Right, so that's the difference between spam in this case. A small handful of e-mails that might be annoying doesn't count, it has to be a large volume...
Your server, your firewall rules. However, if a message properly formated (with a truthful header, and no destructive code of any kind) and it gets past your rule set, that's your fault. You can't let the message through, and then decide you didn't like what it said.
Moral of the story, block the home address of a fired employee if you know it...