Er, OK, irresistable language comment. Since there is only one Glasgow in Scotland (at least there was when I grew up there) and you were only born in one place (I hope) surely you should have used i.e. (id est, or that is) rather than e.g. (exempli gratia, or for example), e.g.:
I suggest you never visit Glasgow, Scotland, that is the place of my birth
Rather than
I suggest you never visit Glasgow, Scotland, for example the place of my birth
Equally, Timothy McVeigh didn't require aerial imagery to find the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The IRA probably didn't require aerial imagary for any of the many bombs they detonated. The Pentagon was probably fairly easy to find too. All three cases involve attacks on government facilities. In particular, the IRA were able to get a bomb into the Grand Hotel in Brighton when the the Conservative party, in government at the time, were in the building during their annual conference. I don't recall Norman Tebbit demanding the Ordinance Survey stop publishing the maps that might have been used in the acts that permanently disabled his wife. NRA dogma applies here. It's no use legislating against maps and aerial photographs that are widely used by honest, law abiding people. If terrorists wants to terrorise in a particular location they will find the necessary intelligence regardless of laws restricting it.
A couple of things really caught my attention in your post:
They don't need to "wrestle control" from the US, and, frankly, they're not going to be able to.
This is even simpler than it appears. It doesn't even require legislation imposed on all ISPs. If some UN organisation sets up its own root servers and legislative bodies like the EU and national governments implement a simpler requirement that trunk providers filter requests to the root servers and re-direct them to the "United Root" then the whole thing becomes moot, every country that cares will have cut themselves off from the ICANN roots and, given the weight of traffic from the "United World " (sarcasm implied) will end up turning the ICANN root into a dust-bowl maintained only as an act of defiance. Even easier to achieve if the "United Root" offers free parallel registrations to all comers. I neither agree or disagree with the idea I've suggested, I offer it only to suggest that it is trivial to subvert ICANN (and, therefore, the US government in this matter) and that the politicians making the statement have no understanding of the technology because, if they did, they'd just subvert ICANN in the trivial way I've described. The counter argument is the ESA GPS technology (Galileo I think). The US was able to negotiate substantial and somewhat humbling (IMO) concessions from the EU regarding its capabilities and operation.
All I have to say to the EU and UN is good luck. They can barely managed to manage themselves
I think that's very far from reality. While the UN is extremely broken at the policital level the EU plainly is not (EU constitution notwithstanding). At the service level the UN is not broken, IMO. Organisations like UNICEF have been more than successful, they have saved us all in a way by delivering the basic compassion of decent people to the weakest children in the world. It's a somewhat rose tinted description but the organisation (UNICEF) is not fundamentally broken and manages itself very effectively in delivering on its charter, as far as I can tell. Much has been made in the last year of the monetary power of the EU as a threat to the US and, if the EU nations ever cross the final barrier in their trust of each other, the EU will be capable of forming the most powerful military in the world. FWIW, I doubt the latter will happen and for the same reason that I doubt Britain (the people not the government) will easily relinquish the Pound for the Euro. However, I think the Boeing/Airbus spat and the endless farm subsidy arguments are evidence of the economic threat and, therefore, the world political threat the EU represents to US sepremecy in that realm. The EU is well organised, capable and managing itself very effectively, much to the danger of the US.
So, where's my quarter mil for saving cost and using some common sense
Given the number of peoples that can build a home or village and in some cases a city from dirt and water I vote we make the astronauts do some manual work for their Tang
Amen! Easy research (Google at al) makes it redundant if you want it to be. I just bought a new car and a new range for my kitchen. I never looked at a single ad and never considered anything I had seen or heard in ads. I went to consumer reports and a few other places and, from data and owner feedback, worked out what would suit my needs then went and bought it. For the smaller stuff, I go look in the store and buy what I like the price and taste of.
I was looking at this and a similar story in a few places today and all the headlines could have been written by Microsoft PR. Boy does the alternative movement need a single PR department that issues regular press releases (open source PR, that might be cool).
The problem I have with Symantec's headline and the regurgitation of it in the media is that Symantec actually said "Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer" (according to TFA). However, the headline fails to address the following point in the same article "the report also found that hackers are still focusing their efforts on IE".
If we re-spin the headline it might read "Symantec claim IE more likely to be exploited than Mozilla browsers". That is at least as substantial an element of Symantec's report as the one used for the headline.
I note also that TFA states "However, it's not clear from the report how quickly Microsoft and Mozilla released patches for their respective vulnerabilities, or how many of the vulnerabilities were targeted by hackers, though Microsoft generally releases patches only on a monthly basis". So, equally, we could make the headline: "Microsoft patches lag security exploits by weeks".
NB: The point is not whether Mozilla is better than Microsoft, it's that the headline misrepresents the report by inappropriately favouring Microsoft's position.
As I understand it, US law now prohibits the limiting of insurance on pre-existing conditions where the insuree has had at least twelve months of coverage in the past 12 months. IOW, you can change jobs and not lose coverage but you have to wait a year after a period of unemployment. Obviously this is (AFAIK) the minimum legal requirement. The NPR News story I learned it from pointed out that many employers have better than minimums plans. However, none of that helps the GP poster if his plan has life maximums (as many do), or if you can describe a treatment as cosmetic. I joked with a doctor friend that an insurance company would pay for anti-depressants for life but not for the limited duration treatment for the acne that is making me depressed because the latter is "cosmetic". He said that this is exactly what would (does) happen.
Was it evasion or accident that caused you to not include Kylie Minogue and Rolf Harris. I'd like to add Eric Bogle but I guess he's a niche celebrity.
Interesting, I had just assumed the atmospheric gases on Mars happened to scatter a different colour of light. You can get pictures on earth that have a white sky when it is visibly blue by overexposing the sky to achieve adequate exposure of the ground. Obviously white isn't pink/red but, since landers are predominantly operated to photograph the surface, I wonder if any lander has been instructed to record a scene with exposure/filtering appropriate for the sky only. If not, I wonder what the colour would be, red may dominate only when the sky is over-exposed. Also, do they normally send filters on a Mars lander that would make it possible to record images with colours equivalent to those observed by the human eye. And, as a further diversion from the thread topic, I remember an earlier NASA lander that failed to survive the trip had a microphone on it. I was really looking forward to "hearing" Mars.
because the gases in the atmosphere block the other wavelengths
Er...pedantic and off topic but, as I understand it: Atmospheric gases scatter (sky) blue light but allow other wavelengths to pass (at least for a reasonable portion of the visible spectrum).
I think that speech recognition is pretty good for limited command sets. My US made car has a speech interface and it responds well, in a noisy environment, to my Scottish accent (and my wife's English accent). I was rather hoping it could be re-programmed to respond to "Computer engage self-destruct, 30 second countdown, authorisation Picard five delta omega". On the "author's" point about having only one metaphor, you can pretty much operate most of the non-driving controls by voice or manually. While it is very convenient to be able to say "Audio mute", it's a whole lot more convenient to rotate the volume control than to say "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up".
Hey, here's a review for you. I installed Longhorn Beta 1 in VMWare then installed the VMWare drivers. I still needed to reboot. OK, so I don't know that the VMWare installer doesn't just provoke a reboot for the joy of it or if it does try to install services that must start at boot (though I doubt either is the case). Surely by now Windows could unload a video driver and load a new one, unload a mouse driver and load a new one, etc. I just removed the mouse driver manually and Longhorn insisted on a reboot so it can't just be the VMWare tools installer. Linux (and even NetWare), for example, can unlink even kernel drivers at runtime without a reboot. The comparison may be somewhat unfair but you don't need to reboot Linux to change the display/input settings for the GUI. So, is that more relevant to the average user than how Longhorn's new sheen compares with Tiger's existing sheen. Consider that my first Longhorn Beta "bug" report...
OK, I agree that SNTP is not bad for a WAN link but a WAN link can be bad for SNTP. I read your OP as saying the former.
RFC1361 only implies the estimation of propagation delay whereas RFC2030 discusses it directly. The scheme looks to be capable of independently determining the outbound and inbound propagation time if more than one request is used. This should allow it to cope with an asymmetric round trip. That should prevent the host clock from going backwards as a result of network behaviour, though it will anyway if the host clock intrinsically running too fast. It's all academic really, there's nothing you've said that I disagree with, I just didn't get how SNTP could have a negative effect on a WAN, i.e. your OP was ambiguous to me (may not have been to anyone else).
It's arguable that this is evasive. It plainly declares a method to configure the "NTP" client in Windows but the (circumstancial) evidence is that it is a SNTP client. Assuming this is wrong and it really is a NTP client with only two configurable features (the NTP source and a poll interval plus phase correction on 2003) then it probably qualifies as "usable". FWIW, I don't see how NTP is better on a WAN link. I'm not really qualified to comment but I've written a few SNTP clients (shameless plug for one) and it seemed to me, when using the RFC to develop the app, that SNTP generated less traffic per cycle since it didn't care about delay, skew, dispersion and convergence or anything else beyond "what's the time". Is the cycle frequency going to be higher for SNTP or are we talking about many Windows hosts polling the same NTP source, something that you can do with many NTP clients (on any platform) anyway.
NB: The SNTP app I link to above isn't a client, it's a monitoring tool so it will generate excessive amounts of (S)NTP traffic - it's a test tool for a bug I found in a NTP service many years ago.
I run ntpd built for Win32 on one of my Windows hosts. I can't remember if I built it or just downloaded a pre-built binary. Try the links or download page at http://ntp.isc.org/ Strictly it isn't an answer to the question you asked (enable NTP) but it does solve the problem (install NTP).
In prioncipal, a bigger wire isn't necessarilly a better antenna. A tuned wire is the best antenna. A 2m radio probably doesn't work as well with a 50 foot antenna as it would with a 3 foot antenna. I have a little 2m/70cm handheld radio with a truly pathetic rubber-duckie antenna. I can sit in my basement and get out with only 5W (QRP anyway) to the entire valley I live in (maybe 80x40 miles) because I can reach a repeater, even from the basement. From the ground floor I get out with a perfect signal to even more of the local repeaters. There is a UHF IRLP repeater in the valley next to the one I live in. It's hooked up to an international net of VHF/UHF repeaters using VoIP. I regularly hear contacts from major US cities with Canada, the UK and Australia. You probably have many repeaters (including an IRLP or other networked one) in your area. You can check for repeater lists in your area using Google. Most of the operators I hear are using 5W handhelds. At that level you are unlikely to cause harmful interference to your neighbours but it usually isn't hard to resolve such issues anyway. Your home probably has many apertures that are large enough to permit VHF/UHF to pass with relatively little attenuation. If you really wanted a gain antenna you could get a pre-built one for a handheld that is nothing more than a tuned vertical whip (you could also build one with piano wire). Or, you could build a simple higher gain antenna. Since the discussion started with measuring tapes, a friend built a 2m Yagi from PVC pipe and a measuring tape. He gets out great to repeaters neither he or I can reach with our supplied antennas. The thing is lightweight and small enough that you could just rest it on a table and point it to what you wanted to reach. I built a half wave dipole from stripped coax and it's about three feet tall (best aligned vertically). Attach it to a three foot stick and you could rest it against a wall whenever you wanted to use it. Your circumstances should not prevent you from enjoying amateur radio with the same level of functionality as most of the people you'll contact.
Get your license, it requires very little effort or cost and the toys it lets you use can be pretty cool. There's lots of variety to amateur radio so I guess you go with whatever floats your boat. There are people doing EME (reflecting signals off the moon). Hearing a signal that has travelled almost half million miles may sound more impressive than a hundred miles. There are others that bounce signals off the ionisation trails of meteors. I was at a local amateur radio emergency services meeting earlier this week and we were broadcasting a TV signal from a camcorder. I have more prosaic interests: mainly HF but doing the public service stuff is also pretty good - you get great vantage points for events.
I've bought music (mostly CDs) at a much accelerated rate since I could play my collection without having to change CDs or records. I've also downloaded most of my pre-existing collection from peer to peer services. If I could, I'd buy much of my collection for a third time and some of it for the second. The labels will never publish some of my collection (a sincere thank you John Peel). What do I do to be able to enjoy a collection that makes me buy music. The more of my collection I can listen to the more I'll buy. Exclude me from some of it and I'll buy less. That's a fairly simple concept. Come on RIAA - force me to buy less music, you can't lose if you do...well there must be some reason for your policy.
If the government makes a list of publications that are to be filtered
The government of Utah is not making such a list. It is making a list of publications which contain adult material, and refuse to restrict access to their adult material to adults.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't intend for you to infer that I believed the state was making a list of publications that MUST be filtered. I was indicating what I believed to be an abstract example of a First Amendment violation as a means of contrasting such an example with the real world example of this law, where there might be a government composed list but the list may be used at the discretion of the citizen. The only substantial difference is the discretion of the citizen I believe.
The question then is whether or not the list only being usable at the choice of a citizen outweights the state being the arbiter of the content of the list.
My lawyer friend believes the former point would prevail. I respect his opinion but think it will come closer than that. He did tell me that the US Supreme Court has opined (I can't remember the exact jargon he used) that it would like to have such a law to test. He seemed to be implying that the Supreme Court had indicated it favoured laws of this kind and would be likely to uphold them (i.e. consider them to be constitutional). I wish I could remember the jargon he used because I'm sure the Supreme Court doesn't advertise what kind of laws it would like to see the states introduce.
It almost certainly can't fail to be arbitrary in nature. The means of composing the list may be based on a state employee or representative forming an opinion on which publications are included and which are not.
If this weren't/., I'd ask if you had read the text of the law.
Also not the interpretation I intended but you are correct that I didn't read the text of the law. I'm not suggesting that the state would "arbitrarily" add Noggin or Disney to the list. I'm suggesting that the state can't hope to list all sites that are eligible for listing since I think it can't hope to discover them all. Thus the list is somewhat arbitrary. This is where my friend says the state has liability. If the state can't identify all eligible sites and I depend on the list then when I am able to access an unlisted site the state may be liable for the failure to filter it.
A lawyer friend says it is not a First Amendment violation though the state may be taking on a liability issue if they are not listing some sites that are objectionable. The opt-in part of it is the critical matter of law in the opinion of my friend but he does agree that the state defining the list has the potential to be interpreted as a First Amendment violation. He would expect the former to outweight the latter in court.
FWIW, I'm most certainly not a lawyer and the following is only what I understand of the matter and should not be considered as anything other than opinion. You can't violate my First Amendment rights, I only have that right in my relationship with the government. If you were to make a list and show it to me you'd be OK because you aren't the government and the First Amendment doesn't, as I understand it, apply to relationships between private individuals and organisations. So, me, the news organisation and your cat have no recourse unless the list infringes on some other right (maybe it libels one of us). If the government makes a list of publications that are to be filtered then I think it violates the First Amendment as I understand it (assuming the publications don't fall under the classes that are considered too objectionable to be protected). This bill looks more grey than either of those because of the opt-in but it falls closer to the violation category IMO. If the law is judged to be in violation then I don't think it will resolve to anything about the opt-in part of it (though I'm sure that will be offered in defense of the law). I suspect it will come down to the list itself and how it is composed. It almost certainly can't fail to be arbitrary in nature. The means of composing the list may be based on a state employee or representative forming an opinion on which publications are included and which are not. I believe the First Amendment prohibits the government from having certain examples of such an opinion as a policy. If the list is arbitrary then I think the likelihood of it being in violation is higher. If site a.xxx is in the filter list and b.xxx even if both have exactly the same content. I suspect that a.xxx could argue that its rights are being violated simply because b.xxx is not on the list. FWIW, I'm in favour of the ACLU and of parents taking the responsibility for protecting their children but I don't really mind if this law is passed (I live in Utah but am not part of the dominant culture). For me the question of the law's effect on listed publication's First Amendment rights is of "intellectual" interest only.
Perhaps the First Amendment violation is not in what is required of the ISP but on the list the state declares must be able to be filtered. IOW, the state violates the First Amendment rights of the publisher by providing a list of publishers that ISPs must be able to filter.
I need technical support for Linux at least a couple of times a week. Right now I get it from Google. Most of my cases are things like how do I get a VNC server to work on my installation; how do I copy my Thunderbird profile from a Windows host and get it to work on Linux. If you look at the NetWare stuff on Novell's support site many of the documents fall into that kind of arena. I honestly don't know what the support would be like since I guess it depends on what users find they need support for but I imagine it could be much like the type of support requested of the manufacturers of "other" operating systems.
It's just Linux with an alternative organisation of the install (particularly default elements). I haven't checked but it should include gcc. If it does then you should be able to download pretty much anything that can compile and run on Linux on a x86 (assuming it will run on the kernel in NLD and assuming you can resolve dependencies - should be the same as for any other Linux). It uses GNOME and I believe some of the fundamental desktop features are GNOME centric. So maybe anything that is KDE, etc dependent will not work.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, OK, irresistable language comment. Since there is only one Glasgow in Scotland (at least there was when I grew up there) and you were only born in one place (I hope) surely you should have used i.e. (id est, or that is) rather than e.g. (exempli gratia, or for example), e.g.:
Rather than
Equally, Timothy McVeigh didn't require aerial imagery to find the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The IRA probably didn't require aerial imagary for any of the many bombs they detonated. The Pentagon was probably fairly easy to find too. All three cases involve attacks on government facilities. In particular, the IRA were able to get a bomb into the Grand Hotel in Brighton when the the Conservative party, in government at the time, were in the building during their annual conference. I don't recall Norman Tebbit demanding the Ordinance Survey stop publishing the maps that might have been used in the acts that permanently disabled his wife. NRA dogma applies here. It's no use legislating against maps and aerial photographs that are widely used by honest, law abiding people. If terrorists wants to terrorise in a particular location they will find the necessary intelligence regardless of laws restricting it.
A couple of things really caught my attention in your post:
This is even simpler than it appears. It doesn't even require legislation imposed on all ISPs. If some UN organisation sets up its own root servers and legislative bodies like the EU and national governments implement a simpler requirement that trunk providers filter requests to the root servers and re-direct them to the "United Root" then the whole thing becomes moot, every country that cares will have cut themselves off from the ICANN roots and, given the weight of traffic from the "United World " (sarcasm implied) will end up turning the ICANN root into a dust-bowl maintained only as an act of defiance. Even easier to achieve if the "United Root" offers free parallel registrations to all comers. I neither agree or disagree with the idea I've suggested, I offer it only to suggest that it is trivial to subvert ICANN (and, therefore, the US government in this matter) and that the politicians making the statement have no understanding of the technology because, if they did, they'd just subvert ICANN in the trivial way I've described. The counter argument is the ESA GPS technology (Galileo I think). The US was able to negotiate substantial and somewhat humbling (IMO) concessions from the EU regarding its capabilities and operation.
I think that's very far from reality. While the UN is extremely broken at the policital level the EU plainly is not (EU constitution notwithstanding). At the service level the UN is not broken, IMO. Organisations like UNICEF have been more than successful, they have saved us all in a way by delivering the basic compassion of decent people to the weakest children in the world. It's a somewhat rose tinted description but the organisation (UNICEF) is not fundamentally broken and manages itself very effectively in delivering on its charter, as far as I can tell. Much has been made in the last year of the monetary power of the EU as a threat to the US and, if the EU nations ever cross the final barrier in their trust of each other, the EU will be capable of forming the most powerful military in the world. FWIW, I doubt the latter will happen and for the same reason that I doubt Britain (the people not the government) will easily relinquish the Pound for the Euro. However, I think the Boeing/Airbus spat and the endless farm subsidy arguments are evidence of the economic threat and, therefore, the world political threat the EU represents to US sepremecy in that realm. The EU is well organised, capable and managing itself very effectively, much to the danger of the US.
Isn't this a space pen versus pencil thing:
shovelwheelbarrow
So, where's my quarter mil for saving cost and using some common sense
Given the number of peoples that can build a home or village and in some cases a city from dirt and water I vote we make the astronauts do some manual work for their Tang
Amen! Easy research (Google at al) makes it redundant if you want it to be. I just bought a new car and a new range for my kitchen. I never looked at a single ad and never considered anything I had seen or heard in ads. I went to consumer reports and a few other places and, from data and owner feedback, worked out what would suit my needs then went and bought it. For the smaller stuff, I go look in the store and buy what I like the price and taste of.
I was looking at this and a similar story in a few places today and all the headlines could have been written by Microsoft PR. Boy does the alternative movement need a single PR department that issues regular press releases (open source PR, that might be cool).
The problem I have with Symantec's headline and the regurgitation of it in the media is that Symantec actually said "Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer" (according to TFA). However, the headline fails to address the following point in the same article "the report also found that hackers are still focusing their efforts on IE".
If we re-spin the headline it might read "Symantec claim IE more likely to be exploited than Mozilla browsers". That is at least as substantial an element of Symantec's report as the one used for the headline.
I note also that TFA states "However, it's not clear from the report how quickly Microsoft and Mozilla released patches for their respective vulnerabilities, or how many of the vulnerabilities were targeted by hackers, though Microsoft generally releases patches only on a monthly basis". So, equally, we could make the headline: "Microsoft patches lag security exploits by weeks".
NB: The point is not whether Mozilla is better than Microsoft, it's that the headline misrepresents the report by inappropriately favouring Microsoft's position.
As I understand it, US law now prohibits the limiting of insurance on pre-existing conditions where the insuree has had at least twelve months of coverage in the past 12 months. IOW, you can change jobs and not lose coverage but you have to wait a year after a period of unemployment. Obviously this is (AFAIK) the minimum legal requirement. The NPR News story I learned it from pointed out that many employers have better than minimums plans. However, none of that helps the GP poster if his plan has life maximums (as many do), or if you can describe a treatment as cosmetic. I joked with a doctor friend that an insurance company would pay for anti-depressants for life but not for the limited duration treatment for the acne that is making me depressed because the latter is "cosmetic". He said that this is exactly what would (does) happen.
"...but therein lies the basis of all wit" - Wilde (as far as I can tell). I know of a few other endings that are less well attributed.
Was it evasion or accident that caused you to not include Kylie Minogue and Rolf Harris. I'd like to add Eric Bogle but I guess he's a niche celebrity.
Interesting, I had just assumed the atmospheric gases on Mars happened to scatter a different colour of light. You can get pictures on earth that have a white sky when it is visibly blue by overexposing the sky to achieve adequate exposure of the ground. Obviously white isn't pink/red but, since landers are predominantly operated to photograph the surface, I wonder if any lander has been instructed to record a scene with exposure/filtering appropriate for the sky only. If not, I wonder what the colour would be, red may dominate only when the sky is over-exposed. Also, do they normally send filters on a Mars lander that would make it possible to record images with colours equivalent to those observed by the human eye. And, as a further diversion from the thread topic, I remember an earlier NASA lander that failed to survive the trip had a microphone on it. I was really looking forward to "hearing" Mars.
Er...pedantic and off topic but, as I understand it: Atmospheric gases scatter (sky) blue light but allow other wavelengths to pass (at least for a reasonable portion of the visible spectrum).
I think that speech recognition is pretty good for limited command sets. My US made car has a speech interface and it responds well, in a noisy environment, to my Scottish accent (and my wife's English accent). I was rather hoping it could be re-programmed to respond to "Computer engage self-destruct, 30 second countdown, authorisation Picard five delta omega". On the "author's" point about having only one metaphor, you can pretty much operate most of the non-driving controls by voice or manually. While it is very convenient to be able to say "Audio mute", it's a whole lot more convenient to rotate the volume control than to say "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up"; "Audio volume up".
Hey, here's a review for you. I installed Longhorn Beta 1 in VMWare then installed the VMWare drivers. I still needed to reboot. OK, so I don't know that the VMWare installer doesn't just provoke a reboot for the joy of it or if it does try to install services that must start at boot (though I doubt either is the case). Surely by now Windows could unload a video driver and load a new one, unload a mouse driver and load a new one, etc. I just removed the mouse driver manually and Longhorn insisted on a reboot so it can't just be the VMWare tools installer. Linux (and even NetWare), for example, can unlink even kernel drivers at runtime without a reboot. The comparison may be somewhat unfair but you don't need to reboot Linux to change the display/input settings for the GUI. So, is that more relevant to the average user than how Longhorn's new sheen compares with Tiger's existing sheen. Consider that my first Longhorn Beta "bug" report...
OK, I agree that SNTP is not bad for a WAN link but a WAN link can be bad for SNTP. I read your OP as saying the former.
RFC1361 only implies the estimation of propagation delay whereas RFC2030 discusses it directly. The scheme looks to be capable of independently determining the outbound and inbound propagation time if more than one request is used. This should allow it to cope with an asymmetric round trip. That should prevent the host clock from going backwards as a result of network behaviour, though it will anyway if the host clock intrinsically running too fast. It's all academic really, there's nothing you've said that I disagree with, I just didn't get how SNTP could have a negative effect on a WAN, i.e. your OP was ambiguous to me (may not have been to anyone else).
It's arguable that this is evasive. It plainly declares a method to configure the "NTP" client in Windows but the (circumstancial) evidence is that it is a SNTP client. Assuming this is wrong and it really is a NTP client with only two configurable features (the NTP source and a poll interval plus phase correction on 2003) then it probably qualifies as "usable". FWIW, I don't see how NTP is better on a WAN link. I'm not really qualified to comment but I've written a few SNTP clients (shameless plug for one) and it seemed to me, when using the RFC to develop the app, that SNTP generated less traffic per cycle since it didn't care about delay, skew, dispersion and convergence or anything else beyond "what's the time". Is the cycle frequency going to be higher for SNTP or are we talking about many Windows hosts polling the same NTP source, something that you can do with many NTP clients (on any platform) anyway.
NB: The SNTP app I link to above isn't a client, it's a monitoring tool so it will generate excessive amounts of (S)NTP traffic - it's a test tool for a bug I found in a NTP service many years ago.
I run ntpd built for Win32 on one of my Windows hosts. I can't remember if I built it or just downloaded a pre-built binary. Try the links or download page at http://ntp.isc.org/ Strictly it isn't an answer to the question you asked (enable NTP) but it does solve the problem (install NTP).
In prioncipal, a bigger wire isn't necessarilly a better antenna. A tuned wire is the best antenna. A 2m radio probably doesn't work as well with a 50 foot antenna as it would with a 3 foot antenna. I have a little 2m/70cm handheld radio with a truly pathetic rubber-duckie antenna. I can sit in my basement and get out with only 5W (QRP anyway) to the entire valley I live in (maybe 80x40 miles) because I can reach a repeater, even from the basement. From the ground floor I get out with a perfect signal to even more of the local repeaters. There is a UHF IRLP repeater in the valley next to the one I live in. It's hooked up to an international net of VHF/UHF repeaters using VoIP. I regularly hear contacts from major US cities with Canada, the UK and Australia. You probably have many repeaters (including an IRLP or other networked one) in your area. You can check for repeater lists in your area using Google. Most of the operators I hear are using 5W handhelds. At that level you are unlikely to cause harmful interference to your neighbours but it usually isn't hard to resolve such issues anyway. Your home probably has many apertures that are large enough to permit VHF/UHF to pass with relatively little attenuation. If you really wanted a gain antenna you could get a pre-built one for a handheld that is nothing more than a tuned vertical whip (you could also build one with piano wire). Or, you could build a simple higher gain antenna. Since the discussion started with measuring tapes, a friend built a 2m Yagi from PVC pipe and a measuring tape. He gets out great to repeaters neither he or I can reach with our supplied antennas. The thing is lightweight and small enough that you could just rest it on a table and point it to what you wanted to reach. I built a half wave dipole from stripped coax and it's about three feet tall (best aligned vertically). Attach it to a three foot stick and you could rest it against a wall whenever you wanted to use it. Your circumstances should not prevent you from enjoying amateur radio with the same level of functionality as most of the people you'll contact.
Get your license, it requires very little effort or cost and the toys it lets you use can be pretty cool. There's lots of variety to amateur radio so I guess you go with whatever floats your boat. There are people doing EME (reflecting signals off the moon). Hearing a signal that has travelled almost half million miles may sound more impressive than a hundred miles. There are others that bounce signals off the ionisation trails of meteors. I was at a local amateur radio emergency services meeting earlier this week and we were broadcasting a TV signal from a camcorder. I have more prosaic interests: mainly HF but doing the public service stuff is also pretty good - you get great vantage points for events.
I've bought music (mostly CDs) at a much accelerated rate since I could play my collection without having to change CDs or records. I've also downloaded most of my pre-existing collection from peer to peer services. If I could, I'd buy much of my collection for a third time and some of it for the second. The labels will never publish some of my collection (a sincere thank you John Peel). What do I do to be able to enjoy a collection that makes me buy music. The more of my collection I can listen to the more I'll buy. Exclude me from some of it and I'll buy less. That's a fairly simple concept. Come on RIAA - force me to buy less music, you can't lose if you do...well there must be some reason for your policy.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't intend for you to infer that I believed the state was making a list of publications that MUST be filtered. I was indicating what I believed to be an abstract example of a First Amendment violation as a means of contrasting such an example with the real world example of this law, where there might be a government composed list but the list may be used at the discretion of the citizen. The only substantial difference is the discretion of the citizen I believe.
The question then is whether or not the list only being usable at the choice of a citizen outweights the state being the arbiter of the content of the list.
My lawyer friend believes the former point would prevail. I respect his opinion but think it will come closer than that. He did tell me that the US Supreme Court has opined (I can't remember the exact jargon he used) that it would like to have such a law to test. He seemed to be implying that the Supreme Court had indicated it favoured laws of this kind and would be likely to uphold them (i.e. consider them to be constitutional). I wish I could remember the jargon he used because I'm sure the Supreme Court doesn't advertise what kind of laws it would like to see the states introduce.
Also not the interpretation I intended but you are correct that I didn't read the text of the law. I'm not suggesting that the state would "arbitrarily" add Noggin or Disney to the list. I'm suggesting that the state can't hope to list all sites that are eligible for listing since I think it can't hope to discover them all. Thus the list is somewhat arbitrary. This is where my friend says the state has liability. If the state can't identify all eligible sites and I depend on the list then when I am able to access an unlisted site the state may be liable for the failure to filter it.
A lawyer friend says it is not a First Amendment violation though the state may be taking on a liability issue if they are not listing some sites that are objectionable. The opt-in part of it is the critical matter of law in the opinion of my friend but he does agree that the state defining the list has the potential to be interpreted as a First Amendment violation. He would expect the former to outweight the latter in court.
FWIW, I'm most certainly not a lawyer and the following is only what I understand of the matter and should not be considered as anything other than opinion. You can't violate my First Amendment rights, I only have that right in my relationship with the government. If you were to make a list and show it to me you'd be OK because you aren't the government and the First Amendment doesn't, as I understand it, apply to relationships between private individuals and organisations. So, me, the news organisation and your cat have no recourse unless the list infringes on some other right (maybe it libels one of us). If the government makes a list of publications that are to be filtered then I think it violates the First Amendment as I understand it (assuming the publications don't fall under the classes that are considered too objectionable to be protected). This bill looks more grey than either of those because of the opt-in but it falls closer to the violation category IMO. If the law is judged to be in violation then I don't think it will resolve to anything about the opt-in part of it (though I'm sure that will be offered in defense of the law). I suspect it will come down to the list itself and how it is composed. It almost certainly can't fail to be arbitrary in nature. The means of composing the list may be based on a state employee or representative forming an opinion on which publications are included and which are not. I believe the First Amendment prohibits the government from having certain examples of such an opinion as a policy. If the list is arbitrary then I think the likelihood of it being in violation is higher. If site a.xxx is in the filter list and b.xxx even if both have exactly the same content. I suspect that a.xxx could argue that its rights are being violated simply because b.xxx is not on the list. FWIW, I'm in favour of the ACLU and of parents taking the responsibility for protecting their children but I don't really mind if this law is passed (I live in Utah but am not part of the dominant culture). For me the question of the law's effect on listed publication's First Amendment rights is of "intellectual" interest only.
Perhaps the First Amendment violation is not in what is required of the ISP but on the list the state declares must be able to be filtered. IOW, the state violates the First Amendment rights of the publisher by providing a list of publishers that ISPs must be able to filter.
I need technical support for Linux at least a couple of times a week. Right now I get it from Google. Most of my cases are things like how do I get a VNC server to work on my installation; how do I copy my Thunderbird profile from a Windows host and get it to work on Linux. If you look at the NetWare stuff on Novell's support site many of the documents fall into that kind of arena. I honestly don't know what the support would be like since I guess it depends on what users find they need support for but I imagine it could be much like the type of support requested of the manufacturers of "other" operating systems.
It's just Linux with an alternative organisation of the install (particularly default elements). I haven't checked but it should include gcc. If it does then you should be able to download pretty much anything that can compile and run on Linux on a x86 (assuming it will run on the kernel in NLD and assuming you can resolve dependencies - should be the same as for any other Linux). It uses GNOME and I believe some of the fundamental desktop features are GNOME centric. So maybe anything that is KDE, etc dependent will not work.