What you say is all too true - what they don't know they cannot misunderstand.
A couple a weeks ago I was down south (Arizona) and hit an INS checkpoint. All they did was wave me through, but I was a bit worried - I'd just come back from the International Wireless Communications Expo, and had three Motorola trunked radios, 2 Thales radios, and two IFR 2975 communications service monitors in my trunk (I work for IFR), and I dreaded having to explain that.
'Course, I'd have told them to call their communications center in Washington, DC. and ask for the manager. He'd have recognized my name....
When I say "radio", I mean it most literally - any radio transmission, be it land mobile comms, cellular, TV, broadcast FM, WAN - if it involve tossing photons through the air, it's radio.
But yes, that is exactly my point - this is not (as much) for wireline comms as for wireless.
This bill is intended for radio, and is to prevent you from having a scanner.
However, unless they change the current law, having an Amateur Radio Operator's license trumps this - being a ham I can have a scanner, due to hams' role in emergency communications.
However, this is just like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1987 - it may be illegal to eavesdrop on cellular communications, but it did'nt really stop anybody from doing it. Going from an insecure system (AMPS) to more secure systems (GSM, CDMA) did that.
However, the point of the/. post is valid - the law of unintended consequences comes to play - VPN, NAT, proxies all could be banned by wording that broad. Perhaps that is a good thing - overbroad wording might just get it thown out.
Yeah, and moderators on/. will grow a clue. Time to start adding comms gear to my armory.
There was something about the article that bothered me - perhaps it was just unclear reporting, or perhaps it wasn't.
According to the article, this guy is having to block off a flood of mail from spammers to his system. The way I read the article, this flood is not for Outblaze users, but just for relaying. Why the bleep does his mail server even accept this mail? Any modern sensible set up mail server should follow a ruleset like: if (sender is one of my users)
accept else if (recepient is one of my users)
accept else
bugger off spammer endif
Ideally, the mail server would log system that were trying to send mail that didn't pass that test and tell the router to drop packets from them for a few hours.
Bam! 90% of problem solved.
Having received spams relayed by Outblaze servers, I don't think that's what is happening. I think they are running open mail servers, and trying to keep the spammers from using them.
I could be wrong, but that's how I read the article.
OK, you were loading your friend's machine, and it was going slow. What would you have done if you didn't have your laptop?
"We'll let it run while I'm in class and deal with it later."
"We'll stop this and deal with it after class"
"We'll skip class and deal with this now."
"I'll skip class and run back to my place, where I can download these faster."
OK, so instead you went looking for an unsecured WAP. You knew you were wrong, and you did it anyway. Therefor, you have moral culpability for appropriating somebody else's bandwidth. Don't feel bad - Bill Gates does it too.
However, the person who's bandwidth you used also bears culpability in this matter. They were smart enough to get some form of fast connection and to get a WAP connected to it - they bear responsibility for securing it. If they don't know how, they should have hired someone who did. They have an "attractive nuisance" they need to secure.
The mere fact you wrote this to Slashdot shows me you know you are wrong, and are looking for somebody to provide you with justification. While I am sure many people will do so, I shall not be among them. "You done a bad thing, George." - not as bad as spitting in the elevator even, but a bad thing none the less.
You have to make choices in this life. Either do the right thing (and be inconvenienced thereby), or do the wrong thing (and be prepared for any negative consiquences). Either way, stand by your actions.
I don't think that will work. Remember, what you are correcting is the time of flight, not amplitude. To get TOF you need to be able to recover the pseudorandom sync code, which is encrypted.
A surveyor's GPS unit integrates the position data received over a very long time (minutes to hours). As a result, variations in reported position due to both dithering and due to ionospheric changes are averaged out.
However, to get an accurate fix while moving takes multi-band equipment.
I'm surprised we don't see more folks making dual mode GPS/GLONASS systems.
GLONASS, for those of you too lazy to Google it, is basically GPS-ski - it's the Russian answer to GPS. Same basic idea, but at a different frequency.
That's important. The biggest reason a military GPS receiver is still more accurate than a civilian rig is that the military rig uses 2 frequencies - the first is the frequency the civilian rigs use, the second is a military only frequency and is encrypted.
The reason this helps accuracy is that the ionosphere bends radio waves, including the GPS signal. Since the signal does not take a straight line path, it travels a bit farther. How much farther - aye, that's the rub. Unless you know what the ionosphere is doing you have no idea.
However, the amount of bend is propotional to frequency - if you use 2 different frequencies, you can determine the difference between them, and thus the amount of bending the ionosphere is adding.
Now, back to GLONASS - being on a different frequency, if you used it plus GPS, you could, in theory, get the same information about the behavior of the ionosphere, and reduce the error. (In practice you wouldn't get the same level of accuracy since the signals are not coming from the same birds, but...)
I've seen some chipsets in the trade journals that do both, but I've not seen any consumer units that do so.
And the.eu is starting to set up THEIR OWN system. I cannot say I blame them - I'd want my own system as well, were I them.
So, if we could only get a triple-threat system....
The article talks about using ZiO2 to make the transistors, and placing them in window glass in cars and such.
But Zi02 is NOT transparent to UV - hence why it is used as a sunblock. Now, if you try to make a transistor out of it, it might be transparent to (and therefor uneffected by) normal visible light, but if it is absorbing UV, that is going to play merry hell with the electron/hole pairs. I'd expect it to completely HOSE the biasing of the devices.
Also, they don't give any of the parametrics of the devices - the maximum switching frequency, the gain, the gain/bandwidth product, the on/off resistances. Are these like some of the plastic transistors that have been created - low frequency, low gain?
Don't get me wrong - even a low speed low gain device would still be great in an LCD - you could increase the fill factor (the amount of the display that is actually pixels), and make higher contrast and wider viewing angle displays. But some of the stuff in the linked article was a bit silly.
I have been in cases where I have been stopped at a red light and run it - divided road, I was in the right lane, another car was in the left lane, and an ambulance running hot was coming up behind. I checked the intersection, gunned it, ran the light, and immediately pulled over on the other side to make a hole for the ambulance. I conjecture the driver of the ambulance appreciated my efforts.
So there are the rare occasions that it is needful to run a light.
Also, Montana did have a speed limit, even during the "reasonable and prudent" days. If you were hauling along at 100MPH and passed a trooper, he was probably going to have a talk with you, unless the road was damn straight and you were in a vehicle that was competent for 100MPH - damn rare circumstances.
But yes, there were the idiots who couldn't understand what "reasonable and prudent" was, and when they got a ticket would fight it in court, saying "Unconstitutionally Vague! I want a Number!". So finally Montana had to change.
A pity. Back in 1997 I was on vaction in that area (heading from the Black Hills of South Dakota to Yellowstone). I maintained an average of 90MPH on I-90. Of course, I *was* being reasonable and prudent - the road was basically empty save for me, I was driving a 1997 Grand Marquis (think Police Intercept but plush), and if I couldn't see at least a minute down the road I slowed down. I was being "reasonable and prudent", and now due to stupid people I can no longer do that - a capsule view of our society today.
I swear - give me a time machine (I already have the scoped rifle), and I'd be considering looking up Dr. Spock for what his stupid ideas have done for society.
Ever since I went to EPCOT (Experimental Prototype City Of Tomorrow) at Disneyworld, I've called it EPCOY - Experimental Prototype City Of Yesterday, due to most of the exhibits being sorely out of date.
What I would like to see would be what I call "Yesterday's Tomorrows" - a series of dioramas showing how each decade viewed the world of 2000 - from 1900 through 1990. Each diorama would show a view like the standard Popular Science cover. First, you'd show the image lit normally. Then the lights would dim, and several items that didn't come to pass would be highlighted, along with a voice-over about why they didn't happen. Finally, the voice over would ask you to look for the item that was "out of place" - the thing that the folks DIDN'T see coming (i.e. personal computer, cell phone, gengineered food, whatever). Then that item would be spotlighted. Then you'd move on to the next era.
It sounds like the state variable has three values:
STATE_DEFAULT STATE_OPT_IN STATE_OPT_OUT.
I suggest you look up the word "opt" as used in this context:
opt v : select as an alternative; choose instead; prefer as an alternative; "I always choose the fish over the meat courses in this restaurant"; "She opted for the job on the East coast" syn: choose, prefer
Until I, the potential spammee, take action, then I have NOT opted, therefore I cannot have opted in.
If the initial state is treated as "opt-in", then the system is not a true opt-in system, rather it is an opt-out system masquerading as opt-in.
Furthurmore, I suggest you also look up the words "humour" and "joke", as you seem equally unaware of their definitions as you are unaware of the definition of "opt".
As one of the senior engineers where I work, I not only design code, but I look over resumeés that we get in to evaluate technical competence.
I can tell you this - after a headhunter firm gets done with your resumeé, it will look like hammered shit with a side order of pus.
When I've created a resumeé, I laser printed it on high rag content, off white bond with matching envelopes. It was laid out logically, with a proper cover letter. I followed every rule of style, every trick of layout to make my resumeé stand out.
What I've seen from the headhunters were low-rez fuzzy pixelated faxes that looked like the original was laid out by a blind spastic monkey with no comprehension of the English language.
We would pull in a somewhat promising candidate and I'd say "Well, on your resumeé it says you have experience in C++ - " "WHAT? I'm a COBOL programmer - let me see that".
I'd far rather talk to somebody who showed the initiative to send us his resumeé directly than somebody who just sent his CV to a headhunter.
(And yes, I have recommended to my boss that we not use those headhunter firms again.)
Slashdot Mirror
What you say is all too true - what they don't know they cannot misunderstand.
A couple a weeks ago I was down south (Arizona) and hit an INS checkpoint. All they did was wave me through, but I was a bit worried - I'd just come back from the International Wireless Communications Expo, and had three Motorola trunked radios, 2 Thales radios, and two IFR 2975 communications service monitors in my trunk (I work for IFR), and I dreaded having to explain that.
'Course, I'd have told them to call their communications center in Washington, DC. and ask for the manager. He'd have recognized my name....
When I say "radio", I mean it most literally - any radio transmission, be it land mobile comms, cellular, TV, broadcast FM, WAN - if it involve tossing photons through the air, it's radio.
But yes, that is exactly my point - this is not (as much) for wireline comms as for wireless.
This bill is intended for radio, and is to prevent you from having a scanner.
/. post is valid - the law of unintended consequences comes to play - VPN, NAT, proxies all could be banned by wording that broad. Perhaps that is a good thing - overbroad wording might just get it thown out.
/. will grow a clue. Time to start adding comms gear to my armory.
However, unless they change the current law, having an Amateur Radio Operator's license trumps this - being a ham I can have a scanner, due to hams' role in emergency communications.
However, this is just like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1987 - it may be illegal to eavesdrop on cellular communications, but it did'nt really stop anybody from doing it. Going from an insecure system (AMPS) to more secure systems (GSM, CDMA) did that.
However, the point of the
Yeah, and moderators on
The downside to adding this to cars is that stupid people will think:
"Hey, I kin see jus' fine, so's I'll drive jus' lik it were daytime, and"
WHOOMP - as they plow into the cow the system didn't know about.
There's more to driving than knowing where the road is, there's also knowing whats ON the road.
(Heard from the enemy in the first combat use of this idea)
KICK! KICK! FUXORING CHEATERS! They are using a "see through walls" hack! KICK THEM!
There was something about the article that bothered me - perhaps it was just unclear reporting, or perhaps it wasn't.
According to the article, this guy is having to block off a flood of mail from spammers to his system. The way I read the article, this flood is not for Outblaze users, but just for relaying. Why the bleep does his mail server even accept this mail? Any modern sensible set up mail server should follow a ruleset like:
if (sender is one of my users)
accept
else if (recepient is one of my users)
accept
else
bugger off spammer
endif
Ideally, the mail server would log system that were trying to send mail that didn't pass that test and tell the router to drop packets from them for a few hours.
Bam! 90% of problem solved.
Having received spams relayed by Outblaze servers, I don't think that's what is happening. I think they are running open mail servers, and trying to keep the spammers from using them.
I could be wrong, but that's how I read the article.
OK, so instead you went looking for an unsecured WAP. You knew you were wrong, and you did it anyway. Therefor, you have moral culpability for appropriating somebody else's bandwidth. Don't feel bad - Bill Gates does it too.
However, the person who's bandwidth you used also bears culpability in this matter. They were smart enough to get some form of fast connection and to get a WAP connected to it - they bear responsibility for securing it. If they don't know how, they should have hired someone who did. They have an "attractive nuisance" they need to secure.
The mere fact you wrote this to Slashdot shows me you know you are wrong, and are looking for somebody to provide you with justification. While I am sure many people will do so, I shall not be among them. "You done a bad thing, George." - not as bad as spitting in the elevator even, but a bad thing none the less.
You have to make choices in this life. Either do the right thing (and be inconvenienced thereby), or do the wrong thing (and be prepared for any negative consiquences). Either way, stand by your actions.
I don't think that will work. Remember, what you are correcting is the time of flight, not amplitude. To get TOF you need to be able to recover the pseudorandom sync code, which is encrypted.
A surveyor's GPS unit integrates the position data received over a very long time (minutes to hours). As a result, variations in reported position due to both dithering and due to ionospheric changes are averaged out.
However, to get an accurate fix while moving takes multi-band equipment.
I'm surprised we don't see more folks making dual mode GPS/GLONASS systems.
.eu is starting to set up THEIR OWN system. I cannot say I blame them - I'd want my own system as well, were I them.
GLONASS, for those of you too lazy to Google it, is basically GPS-ski - it's the Russian answer to GPS. Same basic idea, but at a different frequency.
That's important. The biggest reason a military GPS receiver is still more accurate than a civilian rig is that the military rig uses 2 frequencies - the first is the frequency the civilian rigs use, the second is a military only frequency and is encrypted.
The reason this helps accuracy is that the ionosphere bends radio waves, including the GPS signal. Since the signal does not take a straight line path, it travels a bit farther. How much farther - aye, that's the rub. Unless you know what the ionosphere is doing you have no idea.
However, the amount of bend is propotional to frequency - if you use 2 different frequencies, you can determine the difference between them, and thus the amount of bending the ionosphere is adding.
Now, back to GLONASS - being on a different frequency, if you used it plus GPS, you could, in theory, get the same information about the behavior of the ionosphere, and reduce the error. (In practice you wouldn't get the same level of accuracy since the signals are not coming from the same birds, but...)
I've seen some chipsets in the trade journals that do both, but I've not seen any consumer units that do so.
And the
So, if we could only get a triple-threat system....
The article talks about using ZiO2 to make the transistors, and placing them in window glass in cars and such.
But Zi02 is NOT transparent to UV - hence why it is used as a sunblock. Now, if you try to make a transistor out of it, it might be transparent to (and therefor uneffected by) normal visible light, but if it is absorbing UV, that is going to play merry hell with the electron/hole pairs. I'd expect it to completely HOSE the biasing of the devices.
Also, they don't give any of the parametrics of the devices - the maximum switching frequency, the gain, the gain/bandwidth product, the on/off resistances. Are these like some of the plastic transistors that have been created - low frequency, low gain?
Don't get me wrong - even a low speed low gain device would still be great in an LCD - you could increase the fill factor (the amount of the display that is actually pixels), and make higher contrast and wider viewing angle displays. But some of the stuff in the linked article was a bit silly.
I have been in cases where I have been stopped at a red light and run it - divided road, I was in the right lane, another car was in the left lane, and an ambulance running hot was coming up behind. I checked the intersection, gunned it, ran the light, and immediately pulled over on the other side to make a hole for the ambulance. I conjecture the driver of the ambulance appreciated my efforts.
So there are the rare occasions that it is needful to run a light.
Also, Montana did have a speed limit, even during the "reasonable and prudent" days. If you were hauling along at 100MPH and passed a trooper, he was probably going to have a talk with you, unless the road was damn straight and you were in a vehicle that was competent for 100MPH - damn rare circumstances.
But yes, there were the idiots who couldn't understand what "reasonable and prudent" was, and when they got a ticket would fight it in court, saying "Unconstitutionally Vague! I want a Number!". So finally Montana had to change.
A pity. Back in 1997 I was on vaction in that area (heading from the Black Hills of South Dakota to Yellowstone). I maintained an average of 90MPH on I-90. Of course, I *was* being reasonable and prudent - the road was basically empty save for me, I was driving a 1997 Grand Marquis (think Police Intercept but plush), and if I couldn't see at least a minute down the road I slowed down. I was being "reasonable and prudent", and now due to stupid people I can no longer do that - a capsule view of our society today.
I swear - give me a time machine (I already have the scoped rifle), and I'd be considering looking up Dr. Spock for what his stupid ideas have done for society.
This would:
In short, this could be a good thing for Free Software.
Or not.
Don't worry - I'm almost done with my new Drafting Dan, and if anything goes bad, I'll just go back again and prevent it.
SCO away.
And on the border of Oregon and Washington State, the tanks are massing for an invasion of Oregon.
The Govenor of Washington was heard to refer to this operation as "Operation Make Bill Richer"...
I have my max number of banner ads set to 0 (block all banner ads and damned be the cost!)
Is the code written as
if count >= 10 || count == 0
or just as
if count >= 10
Logically, it should be the first, but I'll bet it is the second.
Ever since I went to EPCOT (Experimental Prototype City Of Tomorrow) at Disneyworld, I've called it EPCOY - Experimental Prototype City Of Yesterday, due to most of the exhibits being sorely out of date.
What I would like to see would be what I call "Yesterday's Tomorrows" - a series of dioramas showing how each decade viewed the world of 2000 - from 1900 through 1990. Each diorama would show a view like the standard Popular Science cover. First, you'd show the image lit normally. Then the lights would dim, and several items that didn't come to pass would be highlighted, along with a voice-over about why they didn't happen. Finally, the voice over would ask you to look for the item that was "out of place" - the thing that the folks DIDN'T see coming (i.e. personal computer, cell phone, gengineered food, whatever). Then that item would be spotlighted. Then you'd move on to the next era.
tag is "Begin unordered list".
I think you wanted the <u> tag - begin underline.
It wouldn't have worked anyway - Slash doesn't allow the underline tag.
STATE_DEFAULT
STATE_OPT_IN
STATE_OPT_OUT.
I suggest you look up the word "opt" as used in this context:
Until I, the potential spammee, take action, then I have NOT opted, therefore I cannot have opted in.
If the initial state is treated as "opt-in", then the system is not a true opt-in system, rather it is an opt-out system masquerading as opt-in.
Furthurmore, I suggest you also look up the words "humour" and "joke", as you seem equally unaware of their definitions as you are unaware of the definition of "opt".
Unsolicited advertising means advertising you did not ask for.
But to opt in means you have asked for it.
But if you have asked for it, it is not unsolicited.
LOGIC ERROR: Norman, co-ordinate
OK, how about XFS? Or is that a hack, or too "beta" for you? I'm sure SGI would love to hear your opinion on it.
Or JFS - or is IBM too amateurish for you?
Read the fine post - he said he needed this for the BIOS setup, not for main system settings, for which he is using SSH.
Since you cannot (yet) SSH into your BIOS, nor use VNC to access the BIOS, you solution is trivially rejected by what is in the story.
However, I do agree with you - just take a portable monitory in with you when you need it.
As one of the senior engineers where I work, I not only design code, but I look over resumeés that we get in to evaluate technical competence.
I can tell you this - after a headhunter firm gets done with your resumeé, it will look like hammered shit with a side order of pus.
When I've created a resumeé, I laser printed it on high rag content, off white bond with matching envelopes. It was laid out logically, with a proper cover letter. I followed every rule of style, every trick of layout to make my resumeé stand out.
What I've seen from the headhunters were low-rez fuzzy pixelated faxes that looked like the original was laid out by a blind spastic monkey with no comprehension of the English language.
We would pull in a somewhat promising candidate and I'd say "Well, on your resumeé it says you have experience in C++ - " "WHAT? I'm a COBOL programmer - let me see that".
I'd far rather talk to somebody who showed the initiative to send us his resumeé directly than somebody who just sent his CV to a headhunter.
(And yes, I have recommended to my boss that we not use those headhunter firms again.)
See my question for a possible explaination as to Tree Of Live Firus.