It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private.
If I stand in my front yard and shout into a megaphone, is it "reasonable" for me to believe that my words are private? Does it make a difference if I don't know what a megaphone is?
Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".
The difference is, nobody intentionally "broadcasts" their heat signature or has any choice in the matter. On the other hand, a wireless router's entire function is to broadcast a signal with the explicit intention that other devices out there will receive it. It's the entire nature of the product. Furthermore, all routers provide a variety of options for controlling connections as well as the nature of the broadcast. You can turn off the SSID advertising. You can enable MAC filters. You can turn on encryption. If a user is ignorant of the fact that a wireless router is a radio, well, maybe that should become a bit more informed before diving into new (to them) technology. What do they think makes it wireless in the first place? (And, yes, as politically incorrect as it may be, I firmly believe people should be responsible for their own actions.)
If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
If you operate a wifi router without employing any of its encryption/filtering options, then you "did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer". Anyone coming within range of your radio broadcast with pretty much any laptop/netbook made today can "casually" observe your broadcast.
If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open?
First, if it's an open wifi, then you didn't break into it. If you got a connection to it, it's because they advertised the connection as available and accepted you. If you then used the connection to commit a crime, that crime is what will concern the judge, NOT the connection you used.
Additionally, there are numerous people that intentionally leave their wifi open explicitly because they want to let their neighbors use it without needing to ask first. So, it would be completely reasonable to assume an open connection was just that. You know, OPEN.
This story would be different if Google had parked themselves in neighborhoods, capturing large streams of data and maybe going as far as breaking encryption, then I could completely understand and agree with the "outrage". But in this case, it seems all they did was capture openly broadcast packets in order to record the MAC address (i.e., the hardware address) to use as another data point for geolocation use. Apparently, the software they used by default kept all of the information gathered, which included the payload data (fragments of whatever traffic existed as the car drove by).
When they realized it, they could have simply deleted the data and likely nobody would have ever known the difference. This wasn't some nefarious plot that was discovered and revealed by someone outside of Google. This was Google outing themselves and leaving it up the individual governments to decide if they should destroy it, or what.
Google did nothing truly wrong. Most of this case is about massive numbers of people, some in government, sadly ignorant of technology they are using, running around screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
I remember reading a story in Car & Driver magazine back in the 80's in which they tested the effect marijuana consumption had on driving ability (and, no, I don't remember exactly how they managed to conduct the test, given the legal status of the substance). They found that initially, on small doses, driving ability actually increased, with more focus on the job of driving. However, as dosage increased, the subjects driving ability would eventually begin to drop off, eventually getting worse than their sober ability.
In other words, based on their test, a light buzz is actually good for driving, but getting really stoned isn't.
Personally, I find the people that can't survive without downing handfuls of Valiums (or equivalent) multiple times a day far more frightening as drivers than someone that smoked a joint.
(I knew someone, a coworker, about 35 years ago that was taking 6 blue Valiums about 4 times a day, prescribed by his doctor, just to stay "normal". I remember being told the blue ones were the larger dosage. He was moved to Thorazine shortly before I moved away and lost track of him.)
I wonder how many traffic accidents are the direct result of a driver's intoxication on a legally prescribed drug? Because I don't recall ever hearing about someone being tested for that, the way they will test for alcohol.
I have also heard that a big problem the law has with marijuana and driving is the fact we have no test that shows present intoxication. The current tests merely show that you consumed at some point in the (presumably) recent past (testing for the compounds that remain after your body has processed it). So, if marijuana use was legal in itself, you'd have no way of legally proving someone had driven intoxicated, since they could have legally consumed a few weeks before with no impact whatsoever on their driving. Not that I see this as a reason to continue this unconstitutional prohibition, but it does mean I can see why those in traffic enforcement might have concerns.
And if there's anyone questioning why I said unconstitutional prohibition, I point to the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century and the constitutional amendment that was required because the original constitution did NOT provide the authority. As that amendment was later repealed, and there have been no other amendments providing any similar authority, there is absolutely zero constitutional authority for any drug laws. And the asinine stretching of the "interstate commerce" clause has as much validity as claiming 2+2=5 because we want it to.
1. This is the first year of the induction ceremonies. Like every other hall of fame out there, people don't make the first year, or second year or other years. 2. Yes, we know some of the people who "should be inducted" didn't make the cut.
However, most people would expect inductions to start with the most significant people first. I believe the point people have been making here is that your list completely misses that mark. For example, the Xbox design team? I would think the developers of, say, the first successful console, first successful handheld, etc., would be first. You know, the people that actually created the industry? What, exactly, did the Xbox create? At least you didn't pick the hardware disaster that is the Xbox 360 (my grandson is on his third!).
I don't think anybody would really expect every worthy name on the first list. But they did expect every name on the first list to clearly be the most worthy. As a few have commented, your list reads more like a sponsors list.
properly find my local wireless network. Turns out something they had "upgraded" in their code had broken compatibility with my router's configuration (if your router's IP isn't also defined as the DNS for the Wii, it breaks) - of course, nowhere did the update's
I received my Wii for Christmas the year it was released. It's never been modded and has had every update ever offered. My wireless router doesn't do DNS or DHCP, it's only used as a wireless router. All DNS and DHCP functions are provided by my server. The Wii is set to auto, no specific address configured on it at all. I've never had a single issue with my Wii's connectivity (or anything else). And, yes, I still use it. Received a new game (Final Fantasy:Crystal Bearers) for Father's Day as a matter of fact.
Don't know what broke for you, maybe it was specific to the router model? I know my daughter's Wii had pretty much no internet connectivity originally, unless you turned off the Linksys cable modem/wireless router's firewall. Apparently, there were issues with the type of firewall it used. An update or two later, and it's now 100% (although they don't use theirs much anymore).
There is an option for "Always show the tab bar," but it's not checked by default, and I don't know why anybody would want to check it....
Personally, I always check it. For one, I don't like the bar coming and going. And it's easier to open a new tab, if the tab bar is already there. I really don't like interfaces where parts of it appear/disappear by themselves. Just like anytime I'm stuck using Windows, I'll turn off the "personalized menus". And the hiding of file extensions (never have understood why anyone would find that useful, much less why it's a default).
Discoverability is usually cited as one of the main strengths of GUI over CLI, yet hiding elements (making them harder to discover) is considered an improvement?
I'm right there with you. I've had XM for 4 years and loved it. Now... I'm on the verge of dumping it because of the infiltration of crap from Sirius.
I've never been an XM subscriber, but have listened to them since they became DirecTV's music channel provider. There is really only one channel I've ever listened to, and it thankfully seems unaffected by the transition. That would be the Deep Tracks channel, which still surprises me with some of the music they play. Tons of stuff I'd never dream of hearing on standard broadcast radio, at least not since I was a dj myself at a small station in southern Illinois back in the 70's. For example, as I started this reply I was listening to "Round and Round" by the Strawbs. I can't recall ever hearing anything by them on broadcast radio, except when I was playing it. I've even heard Hawkwind on Deep Tracks, of all things. I've actually considered getting XM solely because of this channel, alone.
If I wanted DJ's and shallow playlists I'd listen to terrestrial radio.
For me, terrestrial radio has pretty much always been a wasteland. I can count on one hand the number of DJs that have ever impressed me enough to remember their names, and that wasn't because of the music they played and more to do with their "comedy" (Steve Dahl, on WLUP Chicago, late 70's, being the best such example). As a DJ myself, my primary appeal was that I shut up and just played music, mostly because I didn't think of myself as being much of a DJ, didn't feel I had the "voice" for it (especially as I was on AM radio), and so I focused on just letting the music flow. Apparently, that worked for our audience, small as it was.
I do, however, find it very interesting that I can turn on XM's Deep Tracks on weekends and hear "DJs" like Bob Dylan and Tom Petty.:-)
I will be very dismayed if XM dies and I end up losing the Deep Tracks channel. Even with my CD collection of somewhere around 900 or so, I hear things on XM that I don't have and/or have never heard. And it is much, much simpler to turn the TV to channel 840 and let it roll than to sort through that CD collection to pick something, then screw with the DVD player to play it.
And as for the comments that have been made about DJs talking over the music or the presence of ads, I guess I'm lucky, because I can't recall noticing an instance of either. Except that it is the norm on terrestrial radio, when I can even find a station I can bear to listen to at all.
I'd also add, to those that have mentioned it, you don't have to be in Montana to have a limited terrestrial radio selection. I live 15 minutes outside the DC beltway in Maryland, but I work about 45 minutes to an hour southeast of here, in southern Maryland. Down in southern Maryland, there's like two local stations, both now owned by the same people, both of which suck, now and always. You can pick up stations from DC or Richmond, VA, depending on weather and what part of the county you're in, but they aren't reliable. And, even at that, in the 21 years I've been in this area, any station I've found I could put up with, changed format to some detestable crap within a year or so. So, even at home, well within the broadcast area for all of the DC area stations, there's simply nothing I really want to listen to for long. The best I can do is hope to find something I can put up with, so that I can also catch area news, weather and traffic during my commute.
A year or so ago, that was a station that called itself "The Arrow". They were classic rock, but did a nice job of breaking the mold and not playing the same old beat to death, overplayed songs that kill that format. That lasted a year, now they call themselves "The Globe" and, while claiming to "throw out the rules", have become a clone of every other "rock" station in the region. I spent most of the year after that change bouncing through the dial trying to find someth
As someone at least 10 years your senior, I can tell you now that the crux of the matter when it comes to badly written communications is down to lack of patience and lack of attention span.
Considering that it is also affecting supposed "journalism", I'm not sure. Reading news articles online, I've gotten so accustomed to seeing run together sentences, left out words, etc., that most of the time I automatically reread and parse out the intended meaning without ever consciously noticing it. I've even seen misspelled words in headlines on regularly scheduled TV network news broadcasts! And I do mean misspelled, not incorrect or out of place words or wrong homonyms. Apparently, nobody bothers to edit or proofread ANYTHING anymore.
Here in the UK, this explains why there is so much more knife crime at the moment - not because the youngsters are necessarily intrinsically more violent but because they have neither the time nor inclination to exercise some self-control and think about the consequences of their actions before drawing that knife from their boot.
I've been hearing about a growing problem with knife violence in the UK. Frankly, I think this speaks to the fallacy of gun control as much as anything else. Gun control addresses the tool used, rather than the actual problem (the asshole wielding it). Ban guns and what happens? Genuine criminals simply ignore the ban and continue to use guns, they don't acquire them via legal means anyway. And others inclined toward violence simply turn to the next available tool; in this case, a knife. I understand there's already some noise being made about restricting knifes in the UK. So, what's next? Ban knifes? And then people start hitting each other over the head with hammers. Ban hammers? They'll find yet another tool. You just end up with law-abiding citizens having no means of defending themselves (or being branded as criminals if/when they do) and criminals that are more brazen in their actions due to the knowledge that their targets are unarmed.
Controlling the tool is not the answer, and never will be. Society needs to address the actual problem--why does this person wish to commit violence and what led them there? Until that's addressed, it doesn't matter how many tools of violence are banned, violence will continue. You could ban all possible instruments of destruction and effectively bubblewrap the world, and people will still find ways to threaten and commit violence against others. With their bare hands, if necessary. THAT is the problem that needs solving.
Even HP(Agilent) switched their logic analyzers from HP/UX to windows some time ago.
I've been working with Agilent's replacement for the old HP8902 Measuring Receiver for the last year or so. Can't swear that it's running linux, however, it definitely doesn't look like Windows, and I do see some clues that lead me to believe it is linux. During the initial text mode portion of the bootup process, I can see *nix style path references, for one thing. That could mean a BSD or proprietary unix, but there is also a GPL notice along the way as well. And, when the graphics do start up, the first screen reminds me an old X Windows start up (X cursor, b/w patterned background).
Too bad I'm stuck developing Windows based software to utilize it....
Interesting. I'm still using SuSE 8.0 Pro, last two installs I did with it (desktop machine with KDE and development and multimedia tools) took 75M and 66M respectively from online update after the initial installation. And that's in the last couple of weeks...
What does DirecTV have to do with this? They aren't Comcast, and the apparent replacement for TechTV is still on DirecTV's standard lineup. Given this and what I've read about their treatment of cable internet customers, it sounds like Comcast is the one that's due a boycott. I've been a DirecTV customer for close to 5 years, never had a single problem with them, and find them to be one of the most responsive companies I've ever dealt with.
And you might want to complete the reading yourself. If you had, you would then know that the message *is* still contained within the retail version of Windows 3.1, in fact there was additional code added to the section that produced it. The only reason it didn't display, was because a control byte was set to 0. Which, of course, means all Microsoft had to do was change that one byte to restore display of the message. The code to produce it was still there.
Then your experience is 100% different from mine. I continually get *obvious* spam showing up in my inbox, while mail I've asked for, and that I've told Yahoo was NOT spam dozens of times, goes to the spam folder. My experience with Yahoo's system is that it seems extremely arbitrary and absolutely cannot be trusted without checking for yourself, unless you just don't mind losing the false positives that *will* go to the spam folder. And you still have to deal with the ones that end up in your inbox, anyway. Sometimes I wonder why I don't just turn it off and filter everything manually...it's barely better than that.
One should be careful of calling others morons, when you are, yourself, wrong.
No people, bytes/sec = bits/sec * 8 is absolutely an incorrect statement, in any context. And it has nothing to do with math class, and everything to do with basic computer science.
A bit is a Binary digIT. It is a single digit having only one of two values, either 0 or 1. It is the smallest possible element of computer data.
Commonly, in current computer systems, we group 8 of these bits together to form a byte. So, for every byte of data transmitted, there are 8 bits that have been transmitted. If you send 1 byte/sec, then you have sent 8 bits/sec.
Therefore, to compute the bits/sec from bytes/sec, you would need to multiply the bytes/sec by 8 (since 8 bits are sent for each byte, 8 times as many bits transferred as bytes).
So, the correct equations would be:
8 * (bytes/sec) = bits/sec
OR
bytes/sec = (bits/sec)/8.
And, for those wishing to further pick nits, I am ignoring any overhead for protocols, etc. This is more about the incorrect math everyone seems so confused about, than accounting for every bit. Consider this as applying only to data transferred.
Who needs Partition Magic? Many (most?) linux distros currently come with software capable of resizing NTFS partitions to make room for themselves. As for buying CD-R's (if ever there was a lame argument...), wouldn't most people that have a CDR be keeping CDR media on hand, anyway?
As for trying Mozilla...it runs on Windows too. In fact, that's what I'm using right at this moment...
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private.
If I stand in my front yard and shout into a megaphone, is it "reasonable" for me to believe that my words are private? Does it make a difference if I don't know what a megaphone is?
Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".
The difference is, nobody intentionally "broadcasts" their heat signature or has any choice in the matter. On the other hand, a wireless router's entire function is to broadcast a signal with the explicit intention that other devices out there will receive it. It's the entire nature of the product. Furthermore, all routers provide a variety of options for controlling connections as well as the nature of the broadcast. You can turn off the SSID advertising. You can enable MAC filters. You can turn on encryption. If a user is ignorant of the fact that a wireless router is a radio, well, maybe that should become a bit more informed before diving into new (to them) technology. What do they think makes it wireless in the first place? (And, yes, as politically incorrect as it may be, I firmly believe people should be responsible for their own actions.)
If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
If you operate a wifi router without employing any of its encryption/filtering options, then you "did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer". Anyone coming within range of your radio broadcast with pretty much any laptop/netbook made today can "casually" observe your broadcast.
If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open?
First, if it's an open wifi, then you didn't break into it. If you got a connection to it, it's because they advertised the connection as available and accepted you. If you then used the connection to commit a crime, that crime is what will concern the judge, NOT the connection you used. Additionally, there are numerous people that intentionally leave their wifi open explicitly because they want to let their neighbors use it without needing to ask first. So, it would be completely reasonable to assume an open connection was just that. You know, OPEN.
This story would be different if Google had parked themselves in neighborhoods, capturing large streams of data and maybe going as far as breaking encryption, then I could completely understand and agree with the "outrage". But in this case, it seems all they did was capture openly broadcast packets in order to record the MAC address (i.e., the hardware address) to use as another data point for geolocation use. Apparently, the software they used by default kept all of the information gathered, which included the payload data (fragments of whatever traffic existed as the car drove by).
When they realized it, they could have simply deleted the data and likely nobody would have ever known the difference. This wasn't some nefarious plot that was discovered and revealed by someone outside of Google. This was Google outing themselves and leaving it up the individual governments to decide if they should destroy it, or what.
Google did nothing truly wrong. Most of this case is about massive numbers of people, some in government, sadly ignorant of technology they are using, running around screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
I remember reading a story in Car & Driver magazine back in the 80's in which they tested the effect marijuana consumption had on driving ability (and, no, I don't remember exactly how they managed to conduct the test, given the legal status of the substance). They found that initially, on small doses, driving ability actually increased, with more focus on the job of driving. However, as dosage increased, the subjects driving ability would eventually begin to drop off, eventually getting worse than their sober ability.
In other words, based on their test, a light buzz is actually good for driving, but getting really stoned isn't.
Personally, I find the people that can't survive without downing handfuls of Valiums (or equivalent) multiple times a day far more frightening as drivers than someone that smoked a joint.
(I knew someone, a coworker, about 35 years ago that was taking 6 blue Valiums about 4 times a day, prescribed by his doctor, just to stay "normal". I remember being told the blue ones were the larger dosage. He was moved to Thorazine shortly before I moved away and lost track of him.)
I wonder how many traffic accidents are the direct result of a driver's intoxication on a legally prescribed drug? Because I don't recall ever hearing about someone being tested for that, the way they will test for alcohol.
I have also heard that a big problem the law has with marijuana and driving is the fact we have no test that shows present intoxication. The current tests merely show that you consumed at some point in the (presumably) recent past (testing for the compounds that remain after your body has processed it). So, if marijuana use was legal in itself, you'd have no way of legally proving someone had driven intoxicated, since they could have legally consumed a few weeks before with no impact whatsoever on their driving. Not that I see this as a reason to continue this unconstitutional prohibition, but it does mean I can see why those in traffic enforcement might have concerns.
And if there's anyone questioning why I said unconstitutional prohibition, I point to the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century and the constitutional amendment that was required because the original constitution did NOT provide the authority. As that amendment was later repealed, and there have been no other amendments providing any similar authority, there is absolutely zero constitutional authority for any drug laws. And the asinine stretching of the "interstate commerce" clause has as much validity as claiming 2+2=5 because we want it to.
1. This is the first year of the induction ceremonies. Like every other hall of fame out there, people don't make the first year, or second year or other years. 2. Yes, we know some of the people who "should be inducted" didn't make the cut.
However, most people would expect inductions to start with the most significant people first. I believe the point people have been making here is that your list completely misses that mark. For example, the Xbox design team? I would think the developers of, say, the first successful console, first successful handheld, etc., would be first. You know, the people that actually created the industry? What, exactly, did the Xbox create? At least you didn't pick the hardware disaster that is the Xbox 360 (my grandson is on his third!).
I don't think anybody would really expect every worthy name on the first list. But they did expect every name on the first list to clearly be the most worthy. As a few have commented, your list reads more like a sponsors list.
properly find my local wireless network. Turns out something they had "upgraded" in their code had broken compatibility with my router's configuration (if your router's IP isn't also defined as the DNS for the Wii, it breaks) - of course, nowhere did the update's
I received my Wii for Christmas the year it was released. It's never been modded and has had every update ever offered. My wireless router doesn't do DNS or DHCP, it's only used as a wireless router. All DNS and DHCP functions are provided by my server. The Wii is set to auto, no specific address configured on it at all. I've never had a single issue with my Wii's connectivity (or anything else). And, yes, I still use it. Received a new game (Final Fantasy:Crystal Bearers) for Father's Day as a matter of fact.
Don't know what broke for you, maybe it was specific to the router model? I know my daughter's Wii had pretty much no internet connectivity originally, unless you turned off the Linksys cable modem/wireless router's firewall. Apparently, there were issues with the type of firewall it used. An update or two later, and it's now 100% (although they don't use theirs much anymore).
Personally, I always check it. For one, I don't like the bar coming and going. And it's easier to open a new tab, if the tab bar is already there. I really don't like interfaces where parts of it appear/disappear by themselves. Just like anytime I'm stuck using Windows, I'll turn off the "personalized menus". And the hiding of file extensions (never have understood why anyone would find that useful, much less why it's a default).
Discoverability is usually cited as one of the main strengths of GUI over CLI, yet hiding elements (making them harder to discover) is considered an improvement?
I've never been an XM subscriber, but have listened to them since they became DirecTV's music channel provider. There is really only one channel I've ever listened to, and it thankfully seems unaffected by the transition. That would be the Deep Tracks channel, which still surprises me with some of the music they play. Tons of stuff I'd never dream of hearing on standard broadcast radio, at least not since I was a dj myself at a small station in southern Illinois back in the 70's. For example, as I started this reply I was listening to "Round and Round" by the Strawbs. I can't recall ever hearing anything by them on broadcast radio, except when I was playing it. I've even heard Hawkwind on Deep Tracks, of all things. I've actually considered getting XM solely because of this channel, alone.
For me, terrestrial radio has pretty much always been a wasteland. I can count on one hand the number of DJs that have ever impressed me enough to remember their names, and that wasn't because of the music they played and more to do with their "comedy" (Steve Dahl, on WLUP Chicago, late 70's, being the best such example). As a DJ myself, my primary appeal was that I shut up and just played music, mostly because I didn't think of myself as being much of a DJ, didn't feel I had the "voice" for it (especially as I was on AM radio), and so I focused on just letting the music flow. Apparently, that worked for our audience, small as it was.
:-)
I do, however, find it very interesting that I can turn on XM's Deep Tracks on weekends and hear "DJs" like Bob Dylan and Tom Petty.
I will be very dismayed if XM dies and I end up losing the Deep Tracks channel. Even with my CD collection of somewhere around 900 or so, I hear things on XM that I don't have and/or have never heard. And it is much, much simpler to turn the TV to channel 840 and let it roll than to sort through that CD collection to pick something, then screw with the DVD player to play it.
And as for the comments that have been made about DJs talking over the music or the presence of ads, I guess I'm lucky, because I can't recall noticing an instance of either. Except that it is the norm on terrestrial radio, when I can even find a station I can bear to listen to at all.
I'd also add, to those that have mentioned it, you don't have to be in Montana to have a limited terrestrial radio selection. I live 15 minutes outside the DC beltway in Maryland, but I work about 45 minutes to an hour southeast of here, in southern Maryland. Down in southern Maryland, there's like two local stations, both now owned by the same people, both of which suck, now and always. You can pick up stations from DC or Richmond, VA, depending on weather and what part of the county you're in, but they aren't reliable. And, even at that, in the 21 years I've been in this area, any station I've found I could put up with, changed format to some detestable crap within a year or so. So, even at home, well within the broadcast area for all of the DC area stations, there's simply nothing I really want to listen to for long. The best I can do is hope to find something I can put up with, so that I can also catch area news, weather and traffic during my commute.
A year or so ago, that was a station that called itself "The Arrow". They were classic rock, but did a nice job of breaking the mold and not playing the same old beat to death, overplayed songs that kill that format. That lasted a year, now they call themselves "The Globe" and, while claiming to "throw out the rules", have become a clone of every other "rock" station in the region. I spent most of the year after that change bouncing through the dial trying to find someth
Considering that it is also affecting supposed "journalism", I'm not sure. Reading news articles online, I've gotten so accustomed to seeing run together sentences, left out words, etc., that most of the time I automatically reread and parse out the intended meaning without ever consciously noticing it. I've even seen misspelled words in headlines on regularly scheduled TV network news broadcasts! And I do mean misspelled, not incorrect or out of place words or wrong homonyms. Apparently, nobody bothers to edit or proofread ANYTHING anymore.
I've been hearing about a growing problem with knife violence in the UK. Frankly, I think this speaks to the fallacy of gun control as much as anything else. Gun control addresses the tool used, rather than the actual problem (the asshole wielding it). Ban guns and what happens? Genuine criminals simply ignore the ban and continue to use guns, they don't acquire them via legal means anyway. And others inclined toward violence simply turn to the next available tool; in this case, a knife. I understand there's already some noise being made about restricting knifes in the UK. So, what's next? Ban knifes? And then people start hitting each other over the head with hammers. Ban hammers? They'll find yet another tool. You just end up with law-abiding citizens having no means of defending themselves (or being branded as criminals if/when they do) and criminals that are more brazen in their actions due to the knowledge that their targets are unarmed.
Controlling the tool is not the answer, and never will be. Society needs to address the actual problem--why does this person wish to commit violence and what led them there? Until that's addressed, it doesn't matter how many tools of violence are banned, violence will continue. You could ban all possible instruments of destruction and effectively bubblewrap the world, and people will still find ways to threaten and commit violence against others. With their bare hands, if necessary. THAT is the problem that needs solving.
I've been working with Agilent's replacement for the old HP8902 Measuring Receiver for the last year or so. Can't swear that it's running linux, however, it definitely doesn't look like Windows, and I do see some clues that lead me to believe it is linux. During the initial text mode portion of the bootup process, I can see *nix style path references, for one thing. That could mean a BSD or proprietary unix, but there is also a GPL notice along the way as well. And, when the graphics do start up, the first screen reminds me an old X Windows start up (X cursor, b/w patterned background).
Too bad I'm stuck developing Windows based software to utilize it....
Interesting. I'm still using SuSE 8.0 Pro, last two installs I did with it (desktop machine with KDE and development and multimedia tools) took 75M and 66M respectively from online update after the initial installation. And that's in the last couple of weeks...
What does DirecTV have to do with this? They aren't Comcast, and the apparent replacement for TechTV is still on DirecTV's standard lineup. Given this and what I've read about their treatment of cable internet customers, it sounds like Comcast is the one that's due a boycott. I've been a DirecTV customer for close to 5 years, never had a single problem with them, and find them to be one of the most responsive companies I've ever dealt with.
The RTL8139 is what's built into the motherboard in this PC. It died within the first year and is now disabled and replaced with a Netgear card.
And you might want to complete the reading yourself. If you had, you would then know that the message *is* still contained within the retail version of Windows 3.1, in fact there was additional code added to the section that produced it. The only reason it didn't display, was because a control byte was set to 0. Which, of course, means all Microsoft had to do was change that one byte to restore display of the message. The code to produce it was still there.
Then your experience is 100% different from mine. I continually get *obvious* spam showing up in my inbox, while mail I've asked for, and that I've told Yahoo was NOT spam dozens of times, goes to the spam folder. My experience with Yahoo's system is that it seems extremely arbitrary and absolutely cannot be trusted without checking for yourself, unless you just don't mind losing the false positives that *will* go to the spam folder. And you still have to deal with the ones that end up in your inbox, anyway. Sometimes I wonder why I don't just turn it off and filter everything manually...it's barely better than that.
One should be careful of calling others morons, when you are, yourself, wrong.
No people, bytes/sec = bits/sec * 8 is absolutely an incorrect statement, in any context. And it has nothing to do with math class, and everything to do with basic computer science.
A bit is a Binary digIT. It is a single digit having only one of two values, either 0 or 1. It is the smallest possible element of computer data.
Commonly, in current computer systems, we group 8 of these bits together to form a byte. So, for every byte of data transmitted, there are 8 bits that have been transmitted. If you send 1 byte/sec, then you have sent 8 bits/sec.
Therefore, to compute the bits/sec from bytes/sec, you would need to multiply the bytes/sec by 8 (since 8 bits are sent for each byte, 8 times as many bits transferred as bytes).
So, the correct equations would be:
8 * (bytes/sec) = bits/sec
OR
bytes/sec = (bits/sec)/8.
And, for those wishing to further pick nits, I am ignoring any overhead for protocols, etc. This is more about the incorrect math everyone seems so confused about, than accounting for every bit. Consider this as applying only to data transferred.
Who needs Partition Magic? Many (most?) linux distros currently come with software capable of resizing NTFS partitions to make room for themselves. As for buying CD-R's (if ever there was a lame argument...), wouldn't most people that have a CDR be keeping CDR media on hand, anyway? As for trying Mozilla...it runs on Windows too. In fact, that's what I'm using right at this moment...