So provided that the "containment" effort took place only on Marriott's property (not a public space), I'm having trouble seeing how Marriott is legally in the wrong.
So a renter has no rights at all? If I rent a space, it's "mine". So Marriott loses the airspace when they rent it out. Also, that's an interesting idea in the whitepaper, considering how the FCC doesn't recognize a difference between public and private space. It's been made clear that a "jammer" in a private theater, with ample warnings and no leakage, would still be illegal. Just because you own the land under the air, doesn't mean you own the airspace.
Post in here that you have a problem in Windows, and the fanbois will descend like locusts to call you a dumfuk and that it isn't Windows, but 100 percent your fault.
Nope, there was never a Windows 97. There was a Windows 95 pirated version with an edited splash screen, and there was a Windows 98 version released in 97 (Win98 alpha), but Microsoft never released or badged anything as Windows 97, and no version ever identified as that internally.
With a convention center, you put them all on the ceiling. Put the AP in a shielded box, and the external antenna in a 5-sided cube of RF insulation, only pointing down. You get no AP/AP interference and the omnis on the clients don't flood everyone too much. You'll get more client-to-client interference than anything else, and not much can be done about that, other than RF absorbing materials used at ground level.
They aren't talented. Get 10,000 people in a convention center. How do you give them wireless? You can't just put in APs. Even 10,000 APs won't work (one per person). The problem isn't the RF (well, not always), but is L-2. When you have 10,000 people on the same L2 network, and every link on that L2 network is half-duplex, what's the usable capacity of the network? Rounds to zero.
These "talented" people should have known that. So you need some number of APs (I'd aim for about 1000, with minimal overlap and no interference), and each one (or groups of 10) on the same L2 network. If you want L3 transparency, you'll need expensive APs that can tunnel L3 to other APs for seamless L3 roaming across separate L2 networks.
I know it works. I've done it. You just have to identify the problems and solve them. Given that they've done it annually and it doesn't work, the problem isn't that it's wireless, it's that the "talented" people aren't.
I would re-do the star system. Currently, the stars are based on "available" services, regardless of cost. The new ratings should be weighted so that "included" services count more than "available, but extra cost" ones.
I've only held events in hotels that included Internet for "free" (with the price of the event). Shop for better hotels (no, not more stars, but better service).
You are right. There should be no gun laws or drug laws for the same reasons. And when the cops stop a robber, the cops should all be charged with "possession of stolen property"
No. You can post a regular letter with child porn in it, and the mail carrier will not be personally liable for possession of child porn. Despite fitting the US definition of Mens Rea, someone who can provably show they didn't know what it was and could never "consume" it, isn't held responsible. Law doesn't shield them, but convention. Technically, someone could convict the mail carrier, but nobody would try.
The only security flaw in iOS is not sufficiently blocking jailbreakers.
Your argument is that it's the locks fault if the homeowner unlocks his door, removes the lock from the door, uses it to prop open the door, and gets robbed.
iOS is a trademarked name for a specific (signed and secure) OS. The jailbroken version is no longer iOS.
By your logic, if I download the source code of Linux, and purposefully put a security flaw in it, I can then install it on my machine then go to the media and complain how "Linux" is insecure and flawed.
Nope, the jailbroken fork of iOS is most certainly not iOS.
"Professor Bob" is common, but "Bob, Professor of Chemistry" is more common in formal settings. And I've *never* seen someone say "Professor of Chemistry Bob". Perhaps as a verbal introduction to a person (such as for a speaker), but I've never actually heard the "full title" prepended, only appended. Note, the proper way to form a title is with honors appended, not prepended. My Father, Dad Lastname, LLB. was never "LLB Dad Lastname" as you imply would be appropriate. He was Honorable Dad, but Honorable isn't a "title" as you claim. Sometimes the "title" (Professor (of Chemistry), always last in the full form) is the same as the honorific (professor) and you are confusing the honorific, which preceeds a name, with the title, that succeeds the name.
Your certainty doesn't correlate with correctness.
Some titles go last, others first. Honorifics almost always go first. Sometimes the honorific for the title is the same (or sufficiently similar) that it can be unclear whether the word alone is a title or an honorific. For example, President. "President" is the honorific, and the short form of the title. "Barak Obama, President of the United States of America" is the name with a title. "President Obama" does not have the title precede the name. "President" is the honorific for those with a title containing "president". I understand it's confusing. The only question is, are you willing to learn the truth when confronted with it, or are you going to just argue until the other person gives up, regardless of whether (or especially when) you are wrong?
If you want to use it as an adjective in your title, then it has to be before the thing it modifies. This is how English works.
Like Joe Schmoe, O.B.E.? That's British English, but the title after the name (like where they put the degrees and such in the US, as well as the UK) is the norm, and (retired) whether you say "retired" or "emeritus" is part of a title.
Cities in the US are "incorporated" (turned into corporations). So I fail to see how the City of London Corporation is different than any city government in the US.
Nobody has given a difference here, other than "it has "corporation" in the name!!!!1!1!!"
Like every city in the USA. I was born and grew up in Dallas. Which was "incorporated" (made into a corporation). There are small parts of land around the area that are unincorporated, but most land in and around every US city is a corporation. That you don't know what a corporation is doesn't change the fact that it's a term for a group of people (like a regular US city). It's just a little archaic, even if in common use continually for places like London and cities in the US, though they are called incorporated, rather than corporations. But that's the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Joke + not funny = troll
Fossil fuel companies get billions more in subsidies than solar. But you don't complain about those. Why?
That's what we are using now, we just keep the power plant millions of miles away for safety, and transfer the power wirelessly.
So provided that the "containment" effort took place only on Marriott's property (not a public space), I'm having trouble seeing how Marriott is legally in the wrong.
So a renter has no rights at all? If I rent a space, it's "mine". So Marriott loses the airspace when they rent it out. Also, that's an interesting idea in the whitepaper, considering how the FCC doesn't recognize a difference between public and private space. It's been made clear that a "jammer" in a private theater, with ample warnings and no leakage, would still be illegal. Just because you own the land under the air, doesn't mean you own the airspace.
THEY DID NOT USE A JAMMING DEVICE
No, no jamming, just a hacking device.
Instead, they merely sent normal WiFi messages to any clients connecting to the AP saying "Hey, Get off that AP.
Yes, they performed a DoS attack against people and computers. Rather than a civil fine, they should be sending techs and engineers to jail.
Post in here that you have a problem in Windows, and the fanbois will descend like locusts to call you a dumfuk and that it isn't Windows, but 100 percent your fault.
I think you fail Poe's law.
Nope, there was never a Windows 97. There was a Windows 95 pirated version with an edited splash screen, and there was a Windows 98 version released in 97 (Win98 alpha), but Microsoft never released or badged anything as Windows 97, and no version ever identified as that internally.
RF is indeed a big problem with density,
With a convention center, you put them all on the ceiling. Put the AP in a shielded box, and the external antenna in a 5-sided cube of RF insulation, only pointing down. You get no AP/AP interference and the omnis on the clients don't flood everyone too much. You'll get more client-to-client interference than anything else, and not much can be done about that, other than RF absorbing materials used at ground level.
By your definition of "free", "free" has no meaning. As people presume it to have some meaning, then your definition must be wrong.
They aren't talented. Get 10,000 people in a convention center. How do you give them wireless? You can't just put in APs. Even 10,000 APs won't work (one per person). The problem isn't the RF (well, not always), but is L-2. When you have 10,000 people on the same L2 network, and every link on that L2 network is half-duplex, what's the usable capacity of the network? Rounds to zero.
These "talented" people should have known that. So you need some number of APs (I'd aim for about 1000, with minimal overlap and no interference), and each one (or groups of 10) on the same L2 network. If you want L3 transparency, you'll need expensive APs that can tunnel L3 to other APs for seamless L3 roaming across separate L2 networks.
I know it works. I've done it. You just have to identify the problems and solve them. Given that they've done it annually and it doesn't work, the problem isn't that it's wireless, it's that the "talented" people aren't.
I would re-do the star system. Currently, the stars are based on "available" services, regardless of cost. The new ratings should be weighted so that "included" services count more than "available, but extra cost" ones.
I've only held events in hotels that included Internet for "free" (with the price of the event). Shop for better hotels (no, not more stars, but better service).
Data is typically the result of measurements
Data is simply information. Data does not imply analysis or even meaning.
So you are saying that measurements have no meaning. That is why I object to your argument.
Data [...] is a set of values
Data is a set of values. DNA is a set of values. DNA is data. That data is important.
Data is simply information.
Information is good. Every book is "simply information".
No, I don't get that. You've asserted that without proof or evidence.
You are right. There should be no gun laws or drug laws for the same reasons. And when the cops stop a robber, the cops should all be charged with "possession of stolen property"
No. You can post a regular letter with child porn in it, and the mail carrier will not be personally liable for possession of child porn. Despite fitting the US definition of Mens Rea, someone who can provably show they didn't know what it was and could never "consume" it, isn't held responsible. Law doesn't shield them, but convention. Technically, someone could convict the mail carrier, but nobody would try.
The only security flaw in iOS is not sufficiently blocking jailbreakers.
Your argument is that it's the locks fault if the homeowner unlocks his door, removes the lock from the door, uses it to prop open the door, and gets robbed.
They do do serial killers (f they kill in more than one state) and don't do counterfeiting. That's for the SS.
iOS is a trademarked name for a specific (signed and secure) OS. The jailbroken version is no longer iOS.
By your logic, if I download the source code of Linux, and purposefully put a security flaw in it, I can then install it on my machine then go to the media and complain how "Linux" is insecure and flawed.
Nope, the jailbroken fork of iOS is most certainly not iOS.
"Professor Bob" is common, but "Bob, Professor of Chemistry" is more common in formal settings. And I've *never* seen someone say "Professor of Chemistry Bob". Perhaps as a verbal introduction to a person (such as for a speaker), but I've never actually heard the "full title" prepended, only appended. Note, the proper way to form a title is with honors appended, not prepended. My Father, Dad Lastname, LLB. was never "LLB Dad Lastname" as you imply would be appropriate. He was Honorable Dad, but Honorable isn't a "title" as you claim. Sometimes the "title" (Professor (of Chemistry), always last in the full form) is the same as the honorific (professor) and you are confusing the honorific, which preceeds a name, with the title, that succeeds the name.
Your certainty doesn't correlate with correctness.
Some titles go last, others first. Honorifics almost always go first. Sometimes the honorific for the title is the same (or sufficiently similar) that it can be unclear whether the word alone is a title or an honorific. For example, President. "President" is the honorific, and the short form of the title. "Barak Obama, President of the United States of America" is the name with a title. "President Obama" does not have the title precede the name. "President" is the honorific for those with a title containing "president". I understand it's confusing. The only question is, are you willing to learn the truth when confronted with it, or are you going to just argue until the other person gives up, regardless of whether (or especially when) you are wrong?
It's not spreading on iOS devices. It's spreading on non-iOS devices that were sold with iOS. There's a difference.
If you want to use it as an adjective in your title, then it has to be before the thing it modifies. This is how English works.
Like Joe Schmoe, O.B.E.? That's British English, but the title after the name (like where they put the degrees and such in the US, as well as the UK) is the norm, and (retired) whether you say "retired" or "emeritus" is part of a title.
Cities in the US are "incorporated" (turned into corporations). So I fail to see how the City of London Corporation is different than any city government in the US.
Nobody has given a difference here, other than "it has "corporation" in the name!!!!1!1!!"
There is alrady a mechanism in place for that. It is called a VOTE.
Great, so how do I vote against the police chief of London City?
Like every city in the USA. I was born and grew up in Dallas. Which was "incorporated" (made into a corporation). There are small parts of land around the area that are unincorporated, but most land in and around every US city is a corporation. That you don't know what a corporation is doesn't change the fact that it's a term for a group of people (like a regular US city). It's just a little archaic, even if in common use continually for places like London and cities in the US, though they are called incorporated, rather than corporations. But that's the same thing.