Kinda low tech, but post a target like this in your window.
No, no, a thousand times no.
Advertising that you have firearms in the household might deter some criminals, but not others.
Those others now know that there are firearms in the house which are valuable, and worth stealing in their own right. To accomplish this, the criminal can simply wait until nobody is home or, worse yet, come in with the express intent of making sure you cannot use your firearms--i.e. by killing you before you can.
You ever hear the saying "knowledge is power?" Why give the bad guys that kind of power before you need to?
If you live somewhere where crime is so bad and the police presence so low that the residents have to actively patrol the streets in groups, you need to move. Unless you intend to take back the streets Charles Bronson style, things probably won't improve even with the patrols.
Ideally, Neighborhood Watch consists exclusively of alert neighbors who know what to look for, and who to call when they see it. It sounds overly simple, but that's really all there is to it.
Against a really good criminal, guns will be useless too
You need to expand on this statement. Unless you're dealing with Chun from Remo Williams, the only way your gun will be useless is if you don't have the will to use it or you let the bad guy get too close and take it away from you (the latter usually follows from the former.)
Generally speaking, firearms are a good deterrent to crime and simply presenting the weapon is usually enough to defuse the issue before it becomes necessary to use it.
The best part of that is that even if the bad guy gets in a car to escape, he still won't outrun the cheetah. The downside is when you say "sick em, boy!" the cheetah might go after the closest kid instead of the bad guy...
I would also note that CNN is a considerable more credible news source than Yahoo news.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Yahoo is a news aggregator, and the story in question comes from the Associated Press. You can tell this by the huge orange "AP" logo next to the headline. The AP has plenty of credibility, and has been in the game for a little bit longer than CNN has--and by a little bit longer, I mean over 130 years longer.
It was the full NJ Supreme Court--a 7-0 decision--and not a single judge. I weep for our future when elections aren't decided by voters, but by the courts. Bush v. Gore was the start of a long slide down the slipery slope, I think.
No it won't, the local provider is required to provide 911 service on disconnected lines.
Can you provide a citation for this? While cellphones work this way, I can't imagine that landlines do. No power to the line, no dialtone, exactly how are you going to call 911?
You might be registered, but your post proves you're no Libertarian. "Government regulation is good if it helps us get into power" isn't a libertarian ideal.
I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot.
An even more disgusting example was in 2002, where Sen. Robert Toricelli, in the middle of a large scandal, decided--after his name was placed on the ballot--that he was going to drop out of the race. The democrats decided to change the name on the ballot (because no one wanted to vote for Toricelli) in violation of NJ state election law.
The NJ Supreme Court let them get away with it, on the basis that "the people have a right to have viable candidates from both parties on the ballot."
The phrase "both parties" is quite telling, don't you think?
If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
In the instance above, the police officer would pursue the vehicle, pull it over, and issue a citation to the driver. The police officer can then testify in traffic court that the accused is, in fact, the person driving at the time.
With a camera, there is never any positive ID of the driver--the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle who may not have been driving the vehicle at the time. Strictly speaking, there is evidence a crime was commited, but certainly no proof of who comitted it. Justice by default isn't justice.
look you jackass, i may have a rule that says you're not coming into my house with a gun. yeah, im taking your fucking rights away and you cant do anything about it. got a problem with it? too bad, you're still not coming into my house. too bad you're too thick to understand
In the fairly unlikely event that you're subject to a home invasion (i.e. armed robbers forcibly entering your home) what are you going to do? Say "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again?" An armed individual who doesn't respect your rights is GOING to enter your home with that gun. Period.
On a more serious note, with civilized people it is of course a different story. I normally carry a handgun, and I do have friends that ask that I not bring weapons into their homes. I respect their wishes, and leave it locked in the trunk when asked--though for the most part I prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
However, see my posting to another replier. The Q/A specifically exclude protection of a "hub" antenna (which describes a WiFi access point).
[inserted quote from post in question]
The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location.
I see your point, and agree that based on the above the "choice of service provider" clause wouldn't apply because the tennant is actually attempting to be the service provider--its not about receiving a service, it's about transmitting.
OTOH, another poster pointed at a computer world article that states the FCC has ruled explicitly on the rights of property owners prohibiting tennants (in this case, airlines in airports) from installing their own WLAN. This would appear to make our discussion moot, and place the University squarely in the wrong, legally speaking.
Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.
Ah, but you yourself quoted that (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association)
The wireless APs being used by the University connect to their network--and not to the local cable network, which is what the users in question want. My reading of the above says this trumps the centralized antenna.
Does it really cost $1000 for hardware and installation if you do it 10,000 times?
Sure, you'll get a price break on the hardware, but the installation costs are still going to be extremely expensive. Labor costs generally don't go down as required hours to do the job go up--unless you're sending the job to India, anyway... Plus you need the infrastructure to tie the 10,000 access points together, the installation costs for that, etc.
Conspiracy theorists, now increasing in numbers, are not surprised, because the bank clients want accuracy and security while the Republican election clients don't
Neither do the Democrats.
God, this kills me--it's always a fucking "vast right-wing conspiracy" despite the fact that both parties do the same damn things.
California is buying Diebold election machines. I'm sure you'll point at Ahhnold as the reason for this, without taking into account that this has been going on since Davis was in the state house, and that the legislature is completely controlled by the Democrats. Are the Republicans using the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to speed the democrats to their doom here, or what? In Florida in 2000, we got to hear about how evil the republicans were because so many people were disenfranchised by an illegal butterfly ballot when the ballot in question was designed by an elected democrat in a heavily democrat district, which was a fact ignored by just about everybody involved. The stupid morons even reelected her!
This country is at the point where a truly frightening percentage of people will vote for anyone with the right letter next to their name, regardless of their actual positions, and also blame everything on the opposing party.
9/11? Bill Clinton's fault! Economy slowing down in 2000? George Bush's fault! Bad weather? $OPPOSITE_PARTY'S fault!
The two mainstream political parties and the people that support them are killing our nation. From gerrymandering to outright voter fraud, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working to make your vote worth less every year. But you go ahead and try to convince yourself that things will magically get better if we get rid of Bush.
Ah yes, Grave of the Fireflies. I've traumatized several people into never ever watching animation again with that film.
I've seen the opposite effect--utter shock that something as mundane as a "cartoon" could tell that kind of story, and an interest in more of the genre.
With regard to black box voting and fraud, I honestly couldn't agree more. The fact that anyone could accept that an electronic system with no audit trail is a good thing actually boggles the mind. Your note about the security of paper ballots is also well stated (though paper seems to increase the incidents that morons will claim they were disenfranchised because the concept was too difficult for them--see Florida, 2000.) Personally, I think a hybrid system is the best idea--you use the computer to make your selections, which the computer tallies. The computer then prints a paper ballot which you check for errors and drop in a good old fashioned ballot box. Now you have all the convenience and precision of machine voting mixed with the audit trail and security of paper voting. Electronic voting is coming, and I don't believe there's any stopping it. The best hope is to push for systems like the one proposed above.
As far as increasing voter turnout, I also agree with you. Personally, I'm happy that so many idiots are disinterested in the process--it makes my own vote count for that much more.
When I replaced my copper trunks with a PRI span, OLI for my sets with assigned DIDs was the first thing I played with. Anything that wasn't in my assigned DID blocks was rewritten with the prime number assigned to the PRI.
So, no--not anyone with a PRI can spoof CallerID. It only works if your provider is stupid enough to let you do so.
Well, people pass laws on who can own crypto, they try to pass laws saying legitimate p2p is a crime, they try to say the recording things like VCRs are illegally infringing items, decss can only be used for copyright infringement, etc.
Other than VCRs (and I don't recall any recent assaults on those devices) nothing mentioned above is a mature entrenched technology that every business with more than half a dozen employees uses. Again, our legislature is downright stupid but they're not that stupid. I'm sure somewhere along the line, some idiot congressman will introduce a bill that fits the great-grandparent's vision. The idea that another few hundred idiot congressman will go along with it is ludicrous.
Builtin wire tapping features? Sure, they'd vote for that. Logging every call the system makes and passing it on to the FBI? Yeah, I could see the majority of them voting for that, too. Restricting who can even own a goddamn phone system? Not gonna happen.
Where I vote, this IS the case. The voting machines are mechanical-light-up-name-who-you-vote-for with a crunchy sound(paper) once you vote. Once a vote's been done, it refuses to go firther until the person with a key clicks the key in the socket.
Same here--or at least they were in 2002. Not sure if we're doing the leap-off-the-cliff-because-everyone-else-is-doing- it touch screen voting this year.
At this place, they DO ask for ID's to make sure you do only get 1 vote.
Here they don't. I've been in other states where they're actually (according to the poll worker at the time) not allowed to ask for ID. She began to panic when I pulled out my driver's license and tried to show it to her.
I agree with you that they're just begging to be abused (and certainly are) but as I noted, they're a necessary evil. Just because you're bedridden or not in the country on election day doesn't mean you should lose your franchise.
...watch legislation arrive to clamp down on who can own PBX equipment, and what it can be used for.
I can't believe this got modded as insightful--because it's absurd. Just about any business not being run out of a garage (and some that are) all but requires a PBX or at least a Key system to function on a day to day basis. A bill such as you describe above wouldn't go anywhere even in our idiotic legislature.
Far more likely would be legislation requiring telcos to configure their switches so customers can't spoof numbers that aren't in DID blocks they own. Most already do this anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda low tech, but post a target like this in your window.
No, no, a thousand times no.
Advertising that you have firearms in the household might deter some criminals, but not others.
Those others now know that there are firearms in the house which are valuable, and worth stealing in their own right. To accomplish this, the criminal can simply wait until nobody is home or, worse yet, come in with the express intent of making sure you cannot use your firearms--i.e. by killing you before you can.
You ever hear the saying "knowledge is power?" Why give the bad guys that kind of power before you need to?
So get together and patrol the streets together.
If you live somewhere where crime is so bad and the police presence so low that the residents have to actively patrol the streets in groups, you need to move. Unless you intend to take back the streets Charles Bronson style, things probably won't improve even with the patrols.
Ideally, Neighborhood Watch consists exclusively of alert neighbors who know what to look for, and who to call when they see it. It sounds overly simple, but that's really all there is to it.
Against a really good criminal, guns will be useless too
You need to expand on this statement. Unless you're dealing with Chun from Remo Williams, the only way your gun will be useless is if you don't have the will to use it or you let the bad guy get too close and take it away from you (the latter usually follows from the former.)
Generally speaking, firearms are a good deterrent to crime and simply presenting the weapon is usually enough to defuse the issue before it becomes necessary to use it.
Or a Cheetah if you're a cat person.
The best part of that is that even if the bad guy gets in a car to escape, he still won't outrun the cheetah. The downside is when you say "sick em, boy!" the cheetah might go after the closest kid instead of the bad guy...
I would also note that CNN is a considerable more credible news source than Yahoo news.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Yahoo is a news aggregator, and the story in question comes from the Associated Press. You can tell this by the huge orange "AP" logo next to the headline. The AP has plenty of credibility, and has been in the game for a little bit longer than CNN has--and by a little bit longer, I mean over 130 years longer.
This is interesting. Is the Republican Party in IL *THAT* bad?
Two words: Alan Keyes.
That judge should be impeached
It was the full NJ Supreme Court--a 7-0 decision--and not a single judge. I weep for our future when elections aren't decided by voters, but by the courts. Bush v. Gore was the start of a long slide down the slipery slope, I think.
Thanks alot, that was a great explanation.
No it won't, the local provider is required to provide 911 service on disconnected lines.
Can you provide a citation for this? While cellphones work this way, I can't imagine that landlines do. No power to the line, no dialtone, exactly how are you going to call 911?
Registered Libertarian.
You might be registered, but your post proves you're no Libertarian. "Government regulation is good if it helps us get into power" isn't a libertarian ideal.
I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot.
An even more disgusting example was in 2002, where Sen. Robert Toricelli, in the middle of a large scandal, decided--after his name was placed on the ballot--that he was going to drop out of the race. The democrats decided to change the name on the ballot (because no one wanted to vote for Toricelli) in violation of NJ state election law.
The NJ Supreme Court let them get away with it, on the basis that "the people have a right to have viable candidates from both parties on the ballot."
The phrase "both parties" is quite telling, don't you think?
If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
In the instance above, the police officer would pursue the vehicle, pull it over, and issue a citation to the driver. The police officer can then testify in traffic court that the accused is, in fact, the person driving at the time.
With a camera, there is never any positive ID of the driver--the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle who may not have been driving the vehicle at the time. Strictly speaking, there is evidence a crime was commited, but certainly no proof of who comitted it. Justice by default isn't justice.
look you jackass, i may have a rule that says you're not coming into my house with a gun. yeah, im taking your fucking rights away and you cant do anything about it. got a problem with it? too bad, you're still not coming into my house. too bad you're too thick to understand
In the fairly unlikely event that you're subject to a home invasion (i.e. armed robbers forcibly entering your home) what are you going to do? Say "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again?" An armed individual who doesn't respect your rights is GOING to enter your home with that gun. Period.
On a more serious note, with civilized people it is of course a different story. I normally carry a handgun, and I do have friends that ask that I not bring weapons into their homes. I respect their wishes, and leave it locked in the trunk when asked--though for the most part I prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
However, see my posting to another replier. The Q/A specifically exclude protection of a "hub" antenna (which describes a WiFi access point).
[inserted quote from post in question]
The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location.
I see your point, and agree that based on the above the "choice of service provider" clause wouldn't apply because the tennant is actually attempting to be the service provider--its not about receiving a service, it's about transmitting.
OTOH, another poster pointed at a computer world article that states the FCC has ruled explicitly on the rights of property owners prohibiting tennants (in this case, airlines in airports) from installing their own WLAN. This would appear to make our discussion moot, and place the University squarely in the wrong, legally speaking.
Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.
Ah, but you yourself quoted that (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association)
The wireless APs being used by the University connect to their network--and not to the local cable network, which is what the users in question want. My reading of the above says this trumps the centralized antenna.
Does it really cost $1000 for hardware and installation if you do it 10,000 times?
Sure, you'll get a price break on the hardware, but the installation costs are still going to be extremely expensive. Labor costs generally don't go down as required hours to do the job go up--unless you're sending the job to India, anyway... Plus you need the infrastructure to tie the 10,000 access points together, the installation costs for that, etc.
I'd say $1000/AP is a wildly optimistic figure.
Conspiracy theorists, now increasing in numbers, are not surprised, because the bank clients want accuracy and security while the Republican election clients don't
Neither do the Democrats.
God, this kills me--it's always a fucking "vast right-wing conspiracy" despite the fact that both parties do the same damn things.
California is buying Diebold election machines. I'm sure you'll point at Ahhnold as the reason for this, without taking into account that this has been going on since Davis was in the state house, and that the legislature is completely controlled by the Democrats. Are the Republicans using the Orbital Mind Control Lasers to speed the democrats to their doom here, or what? In Florida in 2000, we got to hear about how evil the republicans were because so many people were disenfranchised by an illegal butterfly ballot when the ballot in question was designed by an elected democrat in a heavily democrat district, which was a fact ignored by just about everybody involved. The stupid morons even reelected her!
This country is at the point where a truly frightening percentage of people will vote for anyone with the right letter next to their name, regardless of their actual positions, and also blame everything on the opposing party.
9/11? Bill Clinton's fault!
Economy slowing down in 2000? George Bush's fault!
Bad weather? $OPPOSITE_PARTY'S fault!
The two mainstream political parties and the people that support them are killing our nation. From gerrymandering to outright voter fraud, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working to make your vote worth less every year. But you go ahead and try to convince yourself that things will magically get better if we get rid of Bush.
Ah yes, Grave of the Fireflies. I've traumatized several people into never ever watching animation again with that film.
I've seen the opposite effect--utter shock that something as mundane as a "cartoon" could tell that kind of story, and an interest in more of the genre.
If the author provides a "time limited" or "evaluation" version, but only provides source code upon purchase, then he's in a gray area.
No gray area. If you distribute GPL software, you're required to make source available. Whether or not you're charging someone is irrelevant.
There's no exception for "time limited" software.
Your points are also well taken.
With regard to black box voting and fraud, I honestly couldn't agree more. The fact that anyone could accept that an electronic system with no audit trail is a good thing actually boggles the mind. Your note about the security of paper ballots is also well stated (though paper seems to increase the incidents that morons will claim they were disenfranchised because the concept was too difficult for them--see Florida, 2000.) Personally, I think a hybrid system is the best idea--you use the computer to make your selections, which the computer tallies. The computer then prints a paper ballot which you check for errors and drop in a good old fashioned ballot box. Now you have all the convenience and precision of machine voting mixed with the audit trail and security of paper voting. Electronic voting is coming, and I don't believe there's any stopping it. The best hope is to push for systems like the one proposed above.
As far as increasing voter turnout, I also agree with you. Personally, I'm happy that so many idiots are disinterested in the process--it makes my own vote count for that much more.
Anyone with an ISDN PRI can spoof Caller ID
When I replaced my copper trunks with a PRI span, OLI for my sets with assigned DIDs was the first thing I played with. Anything that wasn't in my assigned DID blocks was rewritten with the prime number assigned to the PRI.
So, no--not anyone with a PRI can spoof CallerID. It only works if your provider is stupid enough to let you do so.
Well, people pass laws on who can own crypto, they try to pass laws saying legitimate p2p is a crime, they try to say the recording things like VCRs are illegally infringing items, decss can only be used for copyright infringement, etc.
Other than VCRs (and I don't recall any recent assaults on those devices) nothing mentioned above is a mature entrenched technology that every business with more than half a dozen employees uses. Again, our legislature is downright stupid but they're not that stupid. I'm sure somewhere along the line, some idiot congressman will introduce a bill that fits the great-grandparent's vision. The idea that another few hundred idiot congressman will go along with it is ludicrous.
Builtin wire tapping features? Sure, they'd vote for that. Logging every call the system makes and passing it on to the FBI? Yeah, I could see the majority of them voting for that, too. Restricting who can even own a goddamn phone system? Not gonna happen.
Where I vote, this IS the case. The voting machines are mechanical-light-up-name-who-you-vote-for with a crunchy sound(paper) once you vote. Once a vote's been done, it refuses to go firther until the person with a key clicks the key in the socket.
- it touch screen voting this year.
Same here--or at least they were in 2002. Not sure if we're doing the leap-off-the-cliff-because-everyone-else-is-doing
At this place, they DO ask for ID's to make sure you do only get 1 vote.
Here they don't. I've been in other states where they're actually (according to the poll worker at the time) not allowed to ask for ID. She began to panic when I pulled out my driver's license and tried to show it to her.
And how do you keep absentee ballots anonymous?
If they are not, they can be sold or blackmailed.
I don't have an answer to that.
I agree with you that they're just begging to be abused (and certainly are) but as I noted, they're a necessary evil. Just because you're bedridden or not in the country on election day doesn't mean you should lose your franchise.
I can't believe this got modded as insightful--because it's absurd. Just about any business not being run out of a garage (and some that are) all but requires a PBX or at least a Key system to function on a day to day basis. A bill such as you describe above wouldn't go anywhere even in our idiotic legislature.
Far more likely would be legislation requiring telcos to configure their switches so customers can't spoof numbers that aren't in DID blocks they own. Most already do this anyway.