More importantly, there were no RJ11 jacks - your phone was hard-wired into the wall by the Telephone Man(tm).
Whenever that was, I'm pretty sure it pre-dated modems. Doesn't anyone remember these sorts of connectors which came before RJ11? I grew up in a house built in the 50s or 60s which was wired throughout with those sorts of connectors.
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit.
That's not quite true. The parts don't cooperate together for public benefit, they cooperate for the benefit of the owners of the parts (which, are mostly privately owned). The parts cooperate because, well, it is profitable for them to do so. For example, if my ISP suddenly decides to sever all links to the rest of the world then this ISP is drastically less useful to me so I will no longer pay for access to it.
For the most part, the only thing "public" about the Internet is the fact that the physical lines that make it up are run all over private and public property and are allowed to do so through government-granted rights of way.
People still have senses of humor in all of them. But we don't have the same sense of humor in the 27th grade that we did in the 2nd. Well, most of us anyway.
people think they have a right to bitch even LOUDER about how TiVo won't let you do whatever you want with the hardware
"people think they have a right"?? Since when do people NOT have the right to do whatever they want with something they own? Bitching is exactly what people should be doing when someone attempts to interfere with their rights to their own private property.
Coldfusion seems to do well enough with the millions of MySpace users...
Hahaha... I guess you haven't used it very much. I get "sorry, an error occurred, we're working on it" errors frequently and I don't even use it that much... just keeping in touch with 2 people or occasionally looking at someone's page.
This comment illustrates my point exactly. Dishonest people, who think they can rip other people off of their goods/services, but because there wasn't a sign,
There WAS a sign. It said "this network is open to the public". This sign was being broadcast multiple times a second on public frequencies (among other means).
This guy was not only taking up a parking spot meant for customers, but he was using bandwidth meant for customers.
If the bandwidth was meant for customers only then the coffee shop should have configured their equipment to express that the bandwidth was for customers only. Instead, possibly out of incompetence, they configured their equipment to express that the bandwidth was for anyone and everyone.
If the coffee shop puts a table out front with a sign on it that says "Free samples" and a shop employee accidentally puts really expensive coffee out there instead of what they wanted to give away, and someone takes it, is the person who took it a criminal? I sure hope not.
They're selling drugs to kids, and highschool students
I think that should be illegal.
and the uneducated poor who don't know any better.
Not the government's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be.
People who do drugs (especially the harder ones) don't have their rational faculties, people who sell drugs prey on this, which in my eyes is a form of "forcing needles into their veins".
You keep missing one of my most important points: The people who do drugs had their rational faculties when they decided to do the drugs. Anything that happens after that is ultimately a result of that rational, free decision.
If they take a drug and it turns them into a zombie which is capable of nothing but seeking out more of the drug and some dealer takes advantage of that - that's completely irrelelvant. That whole situation is ultimately derived from that rational decision that person made.
I agree with you on this one. Though I buy the more Millsian version, your freedom should be unlimited until it limits someone else's.
Sure, I can agree with THAT.
So because the idea is vital to a system we set up, it must be true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I'd recommend taking some cognative science, and social psychology classes, our idea of "free will" is in the process of being almost completely discredited.
It has been a few years, but I have actually. Free will "completely discredited"? Never heard that before.
Your putting artificial chemicals in your brain, that changes identity.
See above.
I generally don't support a "nanny-government", but I do think that the government does have the responsibility (as its very nature) to protect the members of society that allows it to exist.
I think the government should only protect the members of society as far as they cannot protect themselves (again, keep in mind my above point).
I really don't understand this point of view, whatsoever. Most of the people I know who "decided" to become worthless junkies didn't really decide anything at all.
They didn't? They didn't decide to take that first dose? Or the nth one? Well in that case we have a different problem. Someone is out there on the loose forcing needles into people vein's without their consent. I think the police should stop them immediately.
The idea that everything is a rational choice is a myth, which should have gone away long ago.
The idea that everything is a rational choice is vital to a free society where people have free will.
I would like you to venture about the local "bad area" of your town at 2am, and tell me how drug use doesn't hurt you afterward, especially when your in the ER with a stab wound because some junkie really wanted your wallet.
That's immaterial. Their decision to use a drug may cause a chain of events leading to me getting stabbed, but there are an infinite number of decisions that person could have made that would result in me getting stabbed.
The absolute freedom ideology annoys me. Its idealistic, not based in reality.
Perhaps, but I think a free(er) society is worth striving for.
Drugs consistently cause people to hurt other people, and society as a whole (non productivity, crime, entrenched poverty), so how could you justify them.
Right there is the fundamental different between you and I and it sums up this whole thing I think. You think drugs cause these problems. I think the users cause these problems. You think problem is the drugs themselves. I think the problem is the concious choice certain people make to use them. Your solution is to remove drugs from society. My solution is to remove from society the people who make bad choices that result in harm to another person.
On a more philosophical level, why would you want to support anything that serves to dehumanize other people? Why drugs?
Well on a more philosphical level, I find it FAR more dehumanizing to support a nanny-government that dictates what free people can and cannot put into their body. That's what its all about really.
Overuse of many illicit drugs can lead to long lasting personality changes (effectively a drug induced mental disorder) - and how do you propose that society handle that?
I don't propose society handle that any differently than it currently does.
All society needs to do is continue handling things like theft and murder and other actions which involve nonconsenting victims.
You're also completely ignoring the problems with addiction.
Aside from alcohol (which is --surprise!-- a drug), how many of the non-drug-related crimes were aggravated/incited by a deep unquenchable chemical-induced craving and a non-stop desire to obtain the chemicals in question?
I think that's what most folks arguing this tend to miss. Sure, people can be cold sober and still commit crime - usually as the result of mental retardation, ignorance, stupidity, or an over-sized ego. OTOH, when an otherwise normal brain is soaked in a narcotic, burns through it, and suddenly that brain cries out for more? All bets are off.
That doesn't really matter. The person with that normal brain made the concious, voluntary decision to take a drug knowing full well what it may cause them to do.
Yes, when parents don't feed their children because they need drug money, its a victimless crime, no one other than the parent is hurt!
There is a victim here (the child) and neglect of one's children is already a crime.
When people cant think properly because they've taken too many drugs, or can't afford what they a mentally or physically dependant on, and rob/kill others for drug money, its a victimless crime. The people robbed/killed certainly weren't hurt.
There is a victim here (the person robbed/killed) and robbery and murder already are illegal.
People dealing drugs to others, even when the others haven't been shown how dangerous the drugs are, is a victimless crime. The people who recieved the drugs certainly weren't hurt!
Well first of all, the others HAVE been shown how dangerous the drugs are. I don't know what country you are in, but in the US the government spends a considerable amount of money educating people about the dangers of various drugs. There are all kinds of programs to educate children in school and advertisements in media.
And second, if I were to buy ANY drug from a legal, legitimate source (even hypothetically) and this source lies about the nature of the drug or sells me the wrong thing, they could be held responsible. Let's say I go to the phamacy to get a prescription filled for a simple allergy medication which has no side effects and they screw up and give me something that puts me unconcious within minutes. I take the medication and drive to work (the info for the meds say no side effects), I fall asleep while driving and kill/hurt a bunch of people. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine at least most of the blame here lies with the person who made the mistake of giving me the wrong medication, if not just chalked up as an unfortunate accident.
No, but the drugs do alter the way the brain works, and can induce such behavior in people who wouldn't do this otherwise.
Irrelevant. Assuming the person who took the drug is an adult and does not have a mnetal disorder, they had a perfectly well functioning brain at the time they made the decision to take the drug. The action of taking the drug harmed noone except the person who voluntarily took that drug and knew the risks. All of the other actions involved here which actually have victims were already illegal without anti-drug laws.
The only thing anti-drug laws accomplish is preventing consenting adults from doing as they wish with their own bodies. The crimes that might be prevented by keeping a few people from taking these drugs in the first place are probably completely offset by the criminal element of the illegal drug trade. And even if they aren't, I'll the freedom (as a general principle) over what little decrease in crime the anti-drug laws may cause.
The ratio of catastrophic house fires seems about 1:610,000, if not higher... so why even bother with smoke alarms, fire policies on your home insurance, stuff like that?
Bad analogy. There are practically no risks involved in using a smoke detector or buying an insurance policy.
If we do go all-cellular, I wonder if the legislation about telemarketers being unable to call cell phones would change. I'm praying it won't -- I've been enjoying the peace and quiet, quite frankly.
Speaking of this, does anyone know of a make/model of GSM cell phone where you can have it send the call to voicemail or just not ring OR vibrate if the caller ID is not in your speeddial/address list?
I can almost do this on my samsung phone by recording an empty ringtone, setting that as the default and then assinging people in the address book another, real ringtone... but then if I set the phone to vibrate (which it nearly always is for me) all numbers will ring.
My question: can there be evidence that God exists? Possible answers are yes, no, I cannot know, I do not know. My answer: yes, there is some procedure you need to follow to find out. Faith is a prerequisite. Not much different than the answer of science.
For the first 15-17 or so years of my life I followed the procedure to find out as proscribed by the roman catholic church. I even had faith (death of close family helped instill that in me). I never found any evidence, if evidence is a permanent thing requiring no faith to accept.
Also, the definition of faith is to have a belief in something without any evidence. It seems kind of circular to me to say that faith is a prerequisite to finding the evidence. That's saying one must first accept without evidence the thing one is trying to find evidence of. If one has the faith, finds the evidence, will one still have the evidence if the faith is lost?
Slashdot Mirror
How about a cell phone that will let you make certain numbers vibrate and the rest not ring or vibrate at all?
That's what I really want. I never use ringtones. My phone is always on vibrate.
Whenever that was, I'm pretty sure it pre-dated modems. Doesn't anyone remember these sorts of connectors which came before RJ11? I grew up in a house built in the 50s or 60s which was wired throughout with those sorts of connectors.
That's not quite true. The parts don't cooperate together for public benefit, they cooperate for the benefit of the owners of the parts (which, are mostly privately owned). The parts cooperate because, well, it is profitable for them to do so. For example, if my ISP suddenly decides to sever all links to the rest of the world then this ISP is drastically less useful to me so I will no longer pay for access to it.
For the most part, the only thing "public" about the Internet is the fact that the physical lines that make it up are run all over private and public property and are allowed to do so through government-granted rights of way.
People still have senses of humor in all of them. But we don't have the same sense of humor in the 27th grade that we did in the 2nd. Well, most of us anyway.
In what, second grade?
"people think they have a right"?? Since when do people NOT have the right to do whatever they want with something they own? Bitching is exactly what people should be doing when someone attempts to interfere with their rights to their own private property.
Its not that IPv4 can't meet various modern needs, its that IPv6 can meet them much better.
Some guesses: google, yahoo, slashdot, wikipedia, MSN...
Idunno about understaffed... think quality vs quantity. Many design aspects of that site are just downright stupid...
I'm comparing it to the web in general, not just any other CF web site out there.
Hahaha... I guess you haven't used it very much. I get "sorry, an error occurred, we're working on it" errors frequently and I don't even use it that much... just keeping in touch with 2 people or occasionally looking at someone's page.
There WAS a sign. It said "this network is open to the public". This sign was being broadcast multiple times a second on public frequencies (among other means).
If the bandwidth was meant for customers only then the coffee shop should have configured their equipment to express that the bandwidth was for customers only. Instead, possibly out of incompetence, they configured their equipment to express that the bandwidth was for anyone and everyone.
If the coffee shop puts a table out front with a sign on it that says "Free samples" and a shop employee accidentally puts really expensive coffee out there instead of what they wanted to give away, and someone takes it, is the person who took it a criminal? I sure hope not.
Sure, if you have a few people standing on your corner shouting "free car wash" to everyone who drives by.
I think that should be illegal.
Not the government's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be.
You keep missing one of my most important points: The people who do drugs had their rational faculties when they decided to do the drugs. Anything that happens after that is ultimately a result of that rational, free decision.
If they take a drug and it turns them into a zombie which is capable of nothing but seeking out more of the drug and some dealer takes advantage of that - that's completely irrelelvant. That whole situation is ultimately derived from that rational decision that person made.
Sure, I can agree with THAT.
It has been a few years, but I have actually. Free will "completely discredited"? Never heard that before.
See above.
I think the government should only protect the members of society as far as they cannot protect themselves (again, keep in mind my above point).
They didn't? They didn't decide to take that first dose? Or the nth one? Well in that case we have a different problem. Someone is out there on the loose forcing needles into people vein's without their consent. I think the police should stop them immediately.
The idea that everything is a rational choice is vital to a free society where people have free will.
That's immaterial. Their decision to use a drug may cause a chain of events leading to me getting stabbed, but there are an infinite number of decisions that person could have made that would result in me getting stabbed.
Perhaps, but I think a free(er) society is worth striving for.
Right there is the fundamental different between you and I and it sums up this whole thing I think. You think drugs cause these problems. I think the users cause these problems. You think problem is the drugs themselves. I think the problem is the concious choice certain people make to use them. Your solution is to remove drugs from society. My solution is to remove from society the people who make bad choices that result in harm to another person.
Well on a more philosphical level, I find it FAR more dehumanizing to support a nanny-government that dictates what free people can and cannot put into their body. That's what its all about really.
I don't propose society handle that any differently than it currently does.
All society needs to do is continue handling things like theft and murder and other actions which involve nonconsenting victims.
See above.
That doesn't really matter. The person with that normal brain made the concious, voluntary decision to take a drug knowing full well what it may cause them to do.
There is a victim here (the child) and neglect of one's children is already a crime.
There is a victim here (the person robbed/killed) and robbery and murder already are illegal.
Well first of all, the others HAVE been shown how dangerous the drugs are. I don't know what country you are in, but in the US the government spends a considerable amount of money educating people about the dangers of various drugs. There are all kinds of programs to educate children in school and advertisements in media.
And second, if I were to buy ANY drug from a legal, legitimate source (even hypothetically) and this source lies about the nature of the drug or sells me the wrong thing, they could be held responsible. Let's say I go to the phamacy to get a prescription filled for a simple allergy medication which has no side effects and they screw up and give me something that puts me unconcious within minutes. I take the medication and drive to work (the info for the meds say no side effects), I fall asleep while driving and kill/hurt a bunch of people. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine at least most of the blame here lies with the person who made the mistake of giving me the wrong medication, if not just chalked up as an unfortunate accident.
Irrelevant. Assuming the person who took the drug is an adult and does not have a mnetal disorder, they had a perfectly well functioning brain at the time they made the decision to take the drug. The action of taking the drug harmed noone except the person who voluntarily took that drug and knew the risks. All of the other actions involved here which actually have victims were already illegal without anti-drug laws.
The only thing anti-drug laws accomplish is preventing consenting adults from doing as they wish with their own bodies. The crimes that might be prevented by keeping a few people from taking these drugs in the first place are probably completely offset by the criminal element of the illegal drug trade. And even if they aren't, I'll the freedom (as a general principle) over what little decrease in crime the anti-drug laws may cause.
Bad analogy. There are practically no risks involved in using a smoke detector or buying an insurance policy.
Speaking of this, does anyone know of a make/model of GSM cell phone where you can have it send the call to voicemail or just not ring OR vibrate if the caller ID is not in your speeddial/address list?
I can almost do this on my samsung phone by recording an empty ringtone, setting that as the default and then assinging people in the address book another, real ringtone... but then if I set the phone to vibrate (which it nearly always is for me) all numbers will ring.
Nice, but Postgres support for the database would be nicer...
For the first 15-17 or so years of my life I followed the procedure to find out as proscribed by the roman catholic church. I even had faith (death of close family helped instill that in me). I never found any evidence, if evidence is a permanent thing requiring no faith to accept.
Also, the definition of faith is to have a belief in something without any evidence. It seems kind of circular to me to say that faith is a prerequisite to finding the evidence. That's saying one must first accept without evidence the thing one is trying to find evidence of. If one has the faith, finds the evidence, will one still have the evidence if the faith is lost?
This has nothing to do with networks at all. The patent is about making sure a hard disk can only talk to a certain host.
Its just another attempt to prevent people form using their own hardware how they want to.
What's so insecure about IPv6?