Every time a new software version comes out, especially one like this with so many changes, you're bound to see compatibility issues with old software. Not to rattle up any of the Microsoft haters here, but personally I could see how the change could be welcomed as finally an resolution to the security problems that are always associated with Windows products. Then again, I'm not running any company where I would have to realize the costs of the updates.
Regardless of how many adults I know that play games, I am ultimately surprised in these results. The article doesn't mention what age groups they polled, and I would expect that they might have "forgotten" to poll some of the older members of society (who, as it turns out, also count as adults). Because while I would believe about 60-70% of people in their 20s playing games, I find it hard to believe any more than 10% of 45+ year olds playing and a decreasing percentage from there on up.
This is kinda like saying "You can only operate our walkie talkies inside our ballpark." Owning the land does not, and should not, give you the exclusive right to say other people can't broadcast their own radio signals from outside the area. WiFi base stations are FCC certified devices and are not specifically limited by where they can (or can't) operate as long as they dont interfere with other devices.
Would the ballpark try to claim that these "rogue" signals are interfering with their own signal? I get 7 wireless connections from my house at any given time, and only 1 is mine. Even if this were to be taken to court, the courts would never be able to say that signals can't overlap.
My mother was sitting there clicking one of those ads for about 15 minutes and closing out the new window every time it opened. The reason? It said "Click OK to close this window." I was commandeered into showing her that you have to click the little X button to close out the window. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm glad they're finally getting sued for taking advantage of the people that are, shall we say, less-than-knowledgeable internet users.
I recently read an article in MIT's Technology Review discussing something similar. It looks like NASA is working on something similar, and for a similar purpose, although different in implementation. Finally, agriculture is getting into advanced new electronics with great ideas backed by government.
If you notice in the image, the program is set to 2.4GHz (the frequency at which 802.11b wireless operates), but it looks like the frequency is changeable. What I find interesting is that it picks up the frequency on 2400MHz, when in fact, channel 1 of the 802.11b starts at 2412MHz (here for more info) and channels above that step up in frequency.
Scenario: my neighbor John has a linksys wireless router set to its default channel 6, and I set my wireless device(s) to channel 11. Since this cellphone detects (at least, assuming they were using channel 1) within 12 MHz, what are the chances I can test just the strength of MY network?
It seems as though the idea is good, but in an inner-city area, where wireless networks are more popular, it looks like it would be harder to really test your own network.
Sometimes, it's in the best interest of the public to have vulnerability information released directly when it is found out. It opens up the ability for hackers to create exploits before the manufacturers have a chance to find a way to stop it. Sure, releasing information on vulnerabilities for open source projects right away is usually a good idea, but that's due to the fact that with an open source project, the public has the ability to come up with a patch. In cases like these, perhaps it is best for the public to be left out until a proper solution or workaround has been developed by the vendors.
Slashdot Mirror
funny you should mention that, as it is, in fact, the other thing they do at "work"
Every time a new software version comes out, especially one like this with so many changes, you're bound to see compatibility issues with old software. Not to rattle up any of the Microsoft haters here, but personally I could see how the change could be welcomed as finally an resolution to the security problems that are always associated with Windows products. Then again, I'm not running any company where I would have to realize the costs of the updates.
Regardless of how many adults I know that play games, I am ultimately surprised in these results. The article doesn't mention what age groups they polled, and I would expect that they might have "forgotten" to poll some of the older members of society (who, as it turns out, also count as adults). Because while I would believe about 60-70% of people in their 20s playing games, I find it hard to believe any more than 10% of 45+ year olds playing and a decreasing percentage from there on up.
This is kinda like saying "You can only operate our walkie talkies inside our ballpark." Owning the land does not, and should not, give you the exclusive right to say other people can't broadcast their own radio signals from outside the area. WiFi base stations are FCC certified devices and are not specifically limited by where they can (or can't) operate as long as they dont interfere with other devices.
Would the ballpark try to claim that these "rogue" signals are interfering with their own signal? I get 7 wireless connections from my house at any given time, and only 1 is mine. Even if this were to be taken to court, the courts would never be able to say that signals can't overlap.
This just in: RIAA uses the DMCA to shut down all IPv6 services, claiming they have the potential to distribute illegal MP3s.
My mother was sitting there clicking one of those ads for about 15 minutes and closing out the new window every time it opened. The reason? It said "Click OK to close this window." I was commandeered into showing her that you have to click the little X button to close out the window. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm glad they're finally getting sued for taking advantage of the people that are, shall we say, less-than-knowledgeable internet users.
Finally! A creative new place to tell everybody where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were purchased!
I recently read an article in MIT's Technology Review discussing something similar. It looks like NASA is working on something similar, and for a similar purpose, although different in implementation. Finally, agriculture is getting into advanced new electronics with great ideas backed by government.
The notion is to try and bring the money and excitement of NASCAR and Formula One racing into space
Ok, maybe the money of NASCAR, but the excitement?! I mean, come on, who actually watches NASCAR? Nobody. The reason being, it's not exciting!
If you notice in the image, the program is set to 2.4GHz (the frequency at which 802.11b wireless operates), but it looks like the frequency is changeable. What I find interesting is that it picks up the frequency on 2400MHz, when in fact, channel 1 of the 802.11b starts at 2412MHz (here for more info) and channels above that step up in frequency. Scenario: my neighbor John has a linksys wireless router set to its default channel 6, and I set my wireless device(s) to channel 11. Since this cellphone detects (at least, assuming they were using channel 1) within 12 MHz, what are the chances I can test just the strength of MY network? It seems as though the idea is good, but in an inner-city area, where wireless networks are more popular, it looks like it would be harder to really test your own network.
Sometimes, it's in the best interest of the public to have vulnerability information released directly when it is found out. It opens up the ability for hackers to create exploits before the manufacturers have a chance to find a way to stop it. Sure, releasing information on vulnerabilities for open source projects right away is usually a good idea, but that's due to the fact that with an open source project, the public has the ability to come up with a patch. In cases like these, perhaps it is best for the public to be left out until a proper solution or workaround has been developed by the vendors.