Fortunately, I don't use that WinXP box for much (
at least not for booting WinXP).
I take that to mean that you sometimes use it for a footrest or doorstop, since I don't know of much else you can use an XP box for without booting up XP;)
I see, I looked at the other one because the document was formatted better...
IANAL, but that still may not apply, since the packets themselves, which are the data you are sending though their service, still contain the origin and destination.
I see it this way. You have a big business, with more than once office building. Memos are passed around within an office in little envelopes. These envelopes have a "To" and "From" indicating the person it is to, and who it is from, and their respective departments. Once a day the little envelopes intended for people in other buildings are put in BIG envelopes which are mailed to the different buildings. All these big envelopes have on them are the business name, the address of the building that sent them, and the address of the building that they are for.
Are they hiding origin and destination information from the postal service?
Lets see, the first part of the bill deals with redefining access fraud. It defines it to be obtaining a service by giving fradulant information, or by charging it to another's account without express permission. This makes it illegal to make a long distance phone call from somebody elses house without asking them, among other things. It would also make signing on to AOL with somebody else's ID illegal. It has nothing to do with NAT or VPN or anything like that.
Part 2 is the interesting bit. It deals with unlawful devices, kinda like the DMCA
The bills class "Unlawful device" as any device
which is primarily designed, built, or used for, or is advertised as capible of, defeating or circumventing a service providers attemps "to protect any such communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission."
From what I can see, VPN does none of those things. You are authorized by the ISP to send and receive data. You are not re-transmitting data. Decryption. Well...that is tricky. Do the data from the other end belong to the ISP, or the person sending it? If the person sending it, then you are fine, because you have permission to decrypt this data. And I don't recall anything in my ISP's contract that says any information I send through their network becomes their property...although with lawyers you never know...
NAT, on the other hand, violates the part about re-transmitting data. Again, this is only a problem if the ISP owns or licences all data sent through their system. If not, then, by the nature of how TCP/IP works, the sender must grant implicit permission to retransmit, or the data would never make it past the first node.
So, depending on whether or not an ISP has ownership of all data transmitted through their system, this either will cause no problems, or will make the Internet itself illegal, because it WORKS by re-transmission of packets. Also, if the ISP owns the data, then it would be illegal to download a password protected.ZIP file, or connect to an SSL site.
One thing it DEFINATLY will make illegal is something I just saw on/. yesterday. Somebody has written a nifty little webpage that tunes into the radio in Miami and streams it to you. That is illegal due to the re-transmission limitations.
Another thing that would be illegal under this law is a cordless phone, also due to the re-transmission limitations. Your telephone service contract would need an additional clause that specifically permited you to use a cordless phone.
As a side note, here is what I get from my Cable ISP:
2 Dynamic IP addresses. +5$ a month for each additional one
Permission to use NAT
5 megabit downstream (I usually only get 3, but oh well;)
500 kilobit downstream (Although the network is choked, so rarely get more than 200)
No hard limits on bandwidth, although they send polite letters asking you to try and cut back if you use more than a few gigs of upstream bandwidth in a month.
7 e-mail addresses
Price: $37.50CDN per month, which is around $25USD
I think another problem people have with it is people who make unbelivable busy navigation bars with Flash. In my opinion, most navigation can and should be done with straight HTML, and maybe some javascripting to get the mouseover niftyness...
Of course, flash can make some NICE looking menus, and they will be smaller than having images for all of the different items. On the other hand, people make some AWFUL ones. Swirling and flashing things everywhere, buttons that radiate green waves when the mouse is over them, and SOUNDS! I hate hearing "Click-CHUNK!" every time I click a damn button! Or some poorly sampled sound any time I put the mouse over the button
I use Flash for a few things on a website I'm building. One is a calendar. Sure, I looked at doing it in a big HTML table with links for the days, but I think that it looks better. And it loads just as fast as an image would...
In conclusion, you are right, don't hate Flash because people CAN make awful sites with it, because people can make some good sites in it, and you can also do a fair bit that is harder to do using something else.
So, what you're saying is that if we gather all that information, then we CAN make a perfect model of planetary motion. Not saying what you say is false, you just have a weak argument for the case.
Well, two points. One is that, due to the heisenberg uncertainty principal, you can not gather all of that information exactly
The second is that all of these "rules" are just approximations. For example, assuming you had all that information, and used a classical newtonian model, your answer would be slightly off because of special relativity. And, more than likely, if you used special relativity, your answer would still be off, because there are probably more complicated underlying rules;
If you use a newtonian model of a ball rolling down a slope in a vaccume (To get rid of air resistance), your answer is going to be pretty close to correct. If you take into account that gravity will change VERY slightly as its height changes, your answer will be slightly more correct, assuming you get a very good model of the gravitational field. If instead, you model the ball and slope at the atomic level, your answer will be even more correct, and take a HELL of a lot longer to come up with. If you model it at the sub-atomic level, well...you get the idea. There comes a point where we don't KNOW what lies beyond. All of these "Laws" are approximations that are good enough for what they are used for. Does it matter that your answer for how far the ball will roll is off by a quarter millimeter? Not in most cases.
No. What this technology does is allow for a smaller antenna. They are already pretty small on most cellphones. So it can make it shorter (AFAIK, most of the antenna is inside the body), but not thinner
On all the cells that I've seen, most of the thickness comes from the battery. So THIS is the/. article that would help releave that tension in your pants;)
They were words spoken privetly with Gustave Gilbert, during the Easter recess. As such, they are not a part of the trial transcripts. Gilbert put his notes, including this interview, in his book, called Nuremberg Diary
One last note on that quote. Some people think it is a fabrication, since there is a simliar, and fake, quote falsly attributed to Julius Caesar. It is not.
Actually, it says 0.05% per decade, so that would be 0.5% per century. And the wonders of compound interest may not apply, as the increase may be a linear trend, but approximated in terms of a percentage of current output. The article doesn't say.
Either way, it is an approximation, not some sort of rule. The sun's output fluctuates, with a period of about 11 years (According to the article) and apparently, for the last 3 cycles (Since the 70's) the peak has been trending upwards. IANAS (Statistician) but a 0.05% upwards trend with 3 datapoints doesn't seem significant...
Yes, I read that part, thank you. But that isn't the same direcionality as would be required for an emergency siren. First, according to the author, it still sounds like it is in his head, just moving around.
To use it as a siren, it would have to sound like it was coming from somewhere else. Also, if it was omnidirectional, the method described in the article wouldn't work. If it wasn't omnidirectional, it would mean that the ambulance would have to aim it at specific people. Doesn't sound useful.
"Imagine, he says, walking by a soda machine (say, one of the five million in Japan that will soon employ HSS), triggering a proximity detector, then hearing what you alone hear -- the plink of ice cubes and the invocation, ''Wouldn't a Coke taste great right about now?'' Or riding in the family car, as the kids blast Eminem in the back seat while you and the wife play Tony Bennett up front. Or living in a city where ambulance sirens don't wake the entire neighborhood at 4 a.m. Or hearing different and extremely targeted messages in every single aisle of a grocery store -- for instance, near the fresh produce, ''Hey, it's the heart of kiwi season!''"
The bit about different people in the car only hearing their own music is cool.
The annoying pop machines and, even worse, PRODUCE ISLES, are just awful. I mean, I can look away from an obnoxious billboard etc, but there is no way to stop this! Not even plugging your ears, since it is IN your head!
Also, using it for emergency sirens? One of the biggest problems with CURRENT emergency sirens is that it is VERY difficult for the human ear to tell which direction it is coming from, because of the specific frequencies used. If it projects the sound INTO your head, there will be no way in HELL to know where it is coming from.
Another problem with using it for sirens is that it is important to hear the siren well before the emergency vehicle reaches you. This system appears to be LOS, so how well will that work? It would only work if the ultrasonic sounds can penetrate through surrounding houses and so on, which would be FAR worse than current sirens, as the walls of your house wouldn't dampen it! And if it CAN'T penetrate through your walls, then I don't see how CARS wouldn't block it, too; It is VERY important that people inside of cars be able to hear the siren!
A sound argument, but I believe that, whether or not Office is OS doesn't matter that much, as the casual end user will simply download it anyways. Granted, downloading it NOW is illegal, but that doesn't stop a lot of people. I suppose that if it WAS legal, more people would, but how many more?
On the other hand, MS could keep a few modules proprietary, and the source wouldn't include the clipart and so on. So an OS version would perhaps have different features, or features which behave slightly differently. I would imagine that this, combined with the lack of documentation and support, wouldn't make the casual user go for the OS version anymore than they currently go for the warezed version. Perhaps less so, due to the missing features
<pedantic>
Maybe not...could be browing at +5 and then click on the "x replies below your current threshold"
Never said "ONLY browsing at +5"
</pedantic>
Sorry AC, but if you had RTFA, you would have realized that this is, as the subject would indicate, is the TRAILER for the DVD containing ALL of them. The third free one doesn't go up until April:D
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, those piValue's are there because sin takes an argument in RADIANS. If Math.sin used degrees instead, that lines would be
All it is doing is psedurandomly generating an ANGLE and taking the sine of it to determine the X component of the needle's direction vector.Your comment reminds me of the people who saw
in Fortran programs and assumed that meant that on September 9th, 1999, all the Fortran code would stop working!Oh crap, I mistyped the typo!...I think I'm going to go lie down for a bit :(
It only allocates the memory, it doesn't SPEND it :P
I see, I looked at the other one because the document was formatted better... IANAL, but that still may not apply, since the packets themselves, which are the data you are sending though their service, still contain the origin and destination.
I see it this way. You have a big business, with more than once office building. Memos are passed around within an office in little envelopes. These envelopes have a "To" and "From" indicating the person it is to, and who it is from, and their respective departments. Once a day the little envelopes intended for people in other buildings are put in BIG envelopes which are mailed to the different buildings. All these big envelopes have on them are the business name, the address of the building that sent them, and the address of the building that they are for.
Are they hiding origin and destination information from the postal service?
Lets see, the first part of the bill deals with redefining access fraud. It defines it to be obtaining a service by giving fradulant information, or by charging it to another's account without express permission. This makes it illegal to make a long distance phone call from somebody elses house without asking them, among other things. It would also make signing on to AOL with somebody else's ID illegal. It has nothing to do with NAT or VPN or anything like that.
Part 2 is the interesting bit. It deals with unlawful devices, kinda like the DMCA
The bills class "Unlawful device" as any device which is primarily designed, built, or used for, or is advertised as capible of, defeating or circumventing a service providers attemps "to protect any such communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission."
From what I can see, VPN does none of those things. You are authorized by the ISP to send and receive data. You are not re-transmitting data. Decryption. Well...that is tricky. Do the data from the other end belong to the ISP, or the person sending it? If the person sending it, then you are fine, because you have permission to decrypt this data. And I don't recall anything in my ISP's contract that says any information I send through their network becomes their property...although with lawyers you never know...
NAT, on the other hand, violates the part about re-transmitting data. Again, this is only a problem if the ISP owns or licences all data sent through their system. If not, then, by the nature of how TCP/IP works, the sender must grant implicit permission to retransmit, or the data would never make it past the first node.
So, depending on whether or not an ISP has ownership of all data transmitted through their system, this either will cause no problems, or will make the Internet itself illegal, because it WORKS by re-transmission of packets. Also, if the ISP owns the data, then it would be illegal to download a password protected .ZIP file, or connect to an SSL site.
One thing it DEFINATLY will make illegal is something I just saw on /. yesterday. Somebody has written a nifty little webpage that tunes into the radio in Miami and streams it to you. That is illegal due to the re-transmission limitations.
Another thing that would be illegal under this law is a cordless phone, also due to the re-transmission limitations. Your telephone service contract would need an additional clause that specifically permited you to use a cordless phone.
As a side note, here is what I get from my Cable ISP:
2 Dynamic IP addresses. +5$ a month for each additional one
Permission to use NAT
5 megabit downstream (I usually only get 3, but oh well ;)
500 kilobit downstream (Although the network is choked, so rarely get more than 200)
No hard limits on bandwidth, although they send polite letters asking you to try and cut back if you use more than a few gigs of upstream bandwidth in a month.
7 e-mail addresses
Price: $37.50CDN per month, which is around $25USD
I think another problem people have with it is people who make unbelivable busy navigation bars with Flash. In my opinion, most navigation can and should be done with straight HTML, and maybe some javascripting to get the mouseover niftyness...
Of course, flash can make some NICE looking menus, and they will be smaller than having images for all of the different items. On the other hand, people make some AWFUL ones. Swirling and flashing things everywhere, buttons that radiate green waves when the mouse is over them, and SOUNDS! I hate hearing "Click-CHUNK!" every time I click a damn button! Or some poorly sampled sound any time I put the mouse over the button
I use Flash for a few things on a website I'm building. One is a calendar. Sure, I looked at doing it in a big HTML table with links for the days, but I think that it looks better. And it loads just as fast as an image would...
In conclusion, you are right, don't hate Flash because people CAN make awful sites with it, because people can make some good sites in it, and you can also do a fair bit that is harder to do using something else.
Well, two points. One is that, due to the heisenberg uncertainty principal, you can not gather all of that information exactly
The second is that all of these "rules" are just approximations. For example, assuming you had all that information, and used a classical newtonian model, your answer would be slightly off because of special relativity. And, more than likely, if you used special relativity, your answer would still be off, because there are probably more complicated underlying rules;
If you use a newtonian model of a ball rolling down a slope in a vaccume (To get rid of air resistance), your answer is going to be pretty close to correct. If you take into account that gravity will change VERY slightly as its height changes, your answer will be slightly more correct, assuming you get a very good model of the gravitational field. If instead, you model the ball and slope at the atomic level, your answer will be even more correct, and take a HELL of a lot longer to come up with. If you model it at the sub-atomic level, well...you get the idea. There comes a point where we don't KNOW what lies beyond. All of these "Laws" are approximations that are good enough for what they are used for. Does it matter that your answer for how far the ball will roll is off by a quarter millimeter? Not in most cases.
No. What this technology does is allow for a smaller antenna. They are already pretty small on most cellphones. So it can make it shorter (AFAIK, most of the antenna is inside the body), but not thinner
On all the cells that I've seen, most of the thickness comes from the battery. So THIS is the /. article that would help releave that tension in your pants ;)
You can search for words that are normally ignored by quoting them, just like you can rm files with spaces in their names by escaping them :D
Search for "There" Results 1 - 10 of about 212,000,000 :P
First match was There.com
You can also use +There instead of "There". Saves a character
The above result was from Google, but most search engines I've used work this way.
At least there are laws against dupes^H^H^H^Houble jeopardy ;)
They were words spoken privetly with Gustave Gilbert, during the Easter recess. As such, they are not a part of the trial transcripts. Gilbert put his notes, including this interview, in his book, called Nuremberg Diary
One last note on that quote. Some people think it is a fabrication, since there is a simliar, and fake, quote falsly attributed to Julius Caesar. It is not.
Well, technically those are RPG's (MMORPG's, to be exact) There are differences :P
And yes, I want another space quest, damnit!
Actually, it says 0.05% per decade, so that would be 0.5% per century. And the wonders of compound interest may not apply, as the increase may be a linear trend, but approximated in terms of a percentage of current output. The article doesn't say.
Either way, it is an approximation, not some sort of rule. The sun's output fluctuates, with a period of about 11 years (According to the article) and apparently, for the last 3 cycles (Since the 70's) the peak has been trending upwards. IANAS (Statistician) but a 0.05% upwards trend with 3 datapoints doesn't seem significant...
Excuse me, but your are violating my patent! You see, it covers making a comment about patenting the abuse of the patent process.
Please cease and desist, or pay my licence fee of $75 usd. Thank youYes, I read that part, thank you. But that isn't the same direcionality as would be required for an emergency siren. First, according to the author, it still sounds like it is in his head, just moving around.
To use it as a siren, it would have to sound like it was coming from somewhere else. Also, if it was omnidirectional, the method described in the article wouldn't work. If it wasn't omnidirectional, it would mean that the ambulance would have to aim it at specific people. Doesn't sound useful.
The bit about different people in the car only hearing their own music is cool. The annoying pop machines and, even worse, PRODUCE ISLES, are just awful. I mean, I can look away from an obnoxious billboard etc, but there is no way to stop this! Not even plugging your ears, since it is IN your head!
Also, using it for emergency sirens? One of the biggest problems with CURRENT emergency sirens is that it is VERY difficult for the human ear to tell which direction it is coming from, because of the specific frequencies used. If it projects the sound INTO your head, there will be no way in HELL to know where it is coming from.
Another problem with using it for sirens is that it is important to hear the siren well before the emergency vehicle reaches you. This system appears to be LOS, so how well will that work? It would only work if the ultrasonic sounds can penetrate through surrounding houses and so on, which would be FAR worse than current sirens, as the walls of your house wouldn't dampen it! And if it CAN'T penetrate through your walls, then I don't see how CARS wouldn't block it, too; It is VERY important that people inside of cars be able to hear the siren!
A sound argument, but I believe that, whether or not Office is OS doesn't matter that much, as the casual end user will simply download it anyways. Granted, downloading it NOW is illegal, but that doesn't stop a lot of people. I suppose that if it WAS legal, more people would, but how many more?
On the other hand, MS could keep a few modules proprietary, and the source wouldn't include the clipart and so on. So an OS version would perhaps have different features, or features which behave slightly differently. I would imagine that this, combined with the lack of documentation and support, wouldn't make the casual user go for the OS version anymore than they currently go for the warezed version. Perhaps less so, due to the missing features
That's not true! There would still be Anime and cool gadgets! Not to mention Soviet Russia, "all your base", and Beowulf clusters
Oh yes, and still all the OS news, scientific news, and so on....I guess :D
MS...sorry, I mean...M$ bashing isn't what /. is all about, it's just the funnest part ;)
Maybe not...could be browing at +5 and then click on the "x replies below your current threshold" Never said "ONLY browsing at +5"
</pedantic>
I've X-rayed my cat, and can find no evidence of this money. Perhaps you are mistaken? Or were you refering to another kitty?