he Xbox can spit out all the interference it wants there, within some power envelope
Actually the Part 15 regs say that "this device may not cause harmful interference".
we'd get 10 posts from people saying that "the FCC should be dissolved" because the airwaves are a public resource
They are a public resource. Something needs to exist to manage them. In theory the FCC should manage them in the best interest of the public (in reality.... pffft, but that's another story). Should we dissolve the National Park Service too?
Devices that use spread spectrum do not cause interference
"Devices that use spread spectrum do not cause interference with each other"
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, anybody that has ever tried to use an analog 2.4Ghz cordless phone near a busy wi-fi network knows that they do cause interference. Hell, I can even tell when my wi-fi has a burst of activity if I'm using my bluetooth headset.... and bluetooth is supposed to avoid channels that are in use.
Bluetooth doesn't "play nicely" with WiFi. Bluetooth (from 1.2 onwards) was designed to remove channels that are being used from it's hopping sequence. But until it detects that those channels are in use (which may take quite awhile if your wifi network doesn't have a lot of traffic) you are still going to have interference issues. WiFi will usually "win", in that if either of the devices is going to be affected by the interference it's much more likely to be the bluetooth one.
Wouldn't it have been better to say "I hate everything that's unlicensed wireless"?
Devices interfere with each other
I've never had an interference issue with a cell phone. Of course my cell phone is using a licensed band......
they don't need to be recharged
This is the single reason why I've never bought a bluetooth headset. Yet another device to charge. Somebody needs to give me a rational explanation for why mini-usb hasn't become the charging standard across the industry. Motorola is using it for all of their stuff (phones and headsets). Why is nobody else? Yes, I mean you Nokia.....
I have been using channel 14 for 3 years with virtually no disconnects
Minor detail that you can't legally use that channel in the United States (or Canada?). Granted, the odds of getting caught are next to nothing, but I don't think this is a viable "fix" for anybody in the business world.....
Blockbuster will settle out-of-court and pay some piddly fine + attorney's fees and send everybody who asks a $5 for free rentals. Big deal.
Eh, those settlements usually cost the offending company millions of real dollars (i.e: the attorney's fees and fines) and millions of implied dollars (the cost of offering all those free rentals).
Granted, a few million bucks is a different animal for a company like Blockbuster (631 million market cap) then it would be for you or me, but it's not pocket change for them either.
I'm more surprised at this LAW that I never knew existed preventing a movie rental place from sharing your rentals without consent.
The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed after the contentious nomination hearings for Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court. During the hearings somebody leaked his video rental history to the press. Shortly afterwards Congress passed the law.
For once, a law I applaud, I only wish (at least in the US) that they would take this law and expand on it. Make it illegal for ANY commercial (and possibly most govt.) entities from sharing your personal information without express consent
Call me a cynic, but the only reason it passed was because somebody disclosed the rental history of a prominent person. We won't see similar legislation in other areas unless there is a negative impact on someone fairly high up the "food chain". One can only imagine the howls of discontent from the consumer-reporting industry if such a law was applied to all of our personal data. Not that I don't agree with you that we need such a law.
The the only people they consider "civilians" are other Israelis. You are lucky if they consider anyone else to even be "people".
Let's see what kind of attitude you would take if you lived in a country of ten million, surrounded by six hundred million that think you should be pushed into the sea.
try saying bomb (not I have a bomb, just bomb) in an airport and see how far that goes with the TSA
Saying "bomb" by itself shouldn't get you into trouble (will it is another question). Saying "I have a bomb" obviously will. Saying "I think we should be allowed to bring bombs on airplanes", should be protected speech -- you are merely expressing an opinion.
I suppose they could ask you to leave the airport (private property and all that) but I don't see how you could be arrested for that. Of course they probably would anyway but I'd love to see them make the charges stick.
Does Washington DC have no democratic bodies at all
They get to vote for President. They also have a local (city) Government. They have a non-voting delegate in the House. No representation in the Senate. There have been proposals to give DC representation in Congress by various means (folding it back into Maryland, giving it's own reps, etc) but they always get bogged down in politics.
As for the later amendments designed to stop Jim Crow laws etc, well you seem to still have a worrying amount of local variation in democratic standards
Well, the United States is a Republic. Each of the 50 states retains their own sovereignty. The central (i.e: Federal) Government only exists (in theory) to provide for the common defense, resolve disputes between the states and engage in foreign policy. In practice the Federal Government has expanded the scope of it's power in the 20th century, but that notwithstanding the states still retain their sovereignty and can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution. In fact the Federal Government has no direct control over the actions of State Governments.
Just for your information, as a Christian, I think I can refute your ideas on a majority of the verses you quote.
You wasted your time. My point wasn't to advocate any idea (good or bad) as far as Christianity is concerned. My point was to show that taking quotes from the Bible out of context is no better then the GP taking quotes from the Qur'an out of context. He was pulling random quotes out of his ass and trying to use them as justification for why Islam is violent and why Christianity isn't.
You make the idiotic assumption that the bible is just a random jumble of words
You make the idiotic assumption that I was looking to trash the bible and/or Christianity. The person that I was replying to was pulling quotes from the Qur'an out of his ass and using them out of context to try and trash Islam. I was merely attempting to show that it cuts both ways and quotes taken from the Bible out of context make Christianity look equally as bad.
Or creates a 3G broadband network but refuses to allow actual 3G phones to access it (restricting you to this huge BRICK of a wireless "modem" they provide you)?
Isn't Rogers a GSM carrier? I seem to recall my T-Mobile USA (gsm) phone roaming on them the last time I was on Canada. If they are a GSM carrier just buy whatever phone you want and move your sim card.
You can set up a community WiFi network and then agree with all fellow users to buy a dedicated fat pipe to the Internet and share it on your WiFi
Yes, because I'll be able to convince my neighbors (average age: 50) of the need to abandon [INSERT SHITTY ISP HERE] and pay for all the required wi-fi equipment (cables and high-gain antennas) required to deploy a neighborhood wide wi-fi network.
Oh and that "fat pipe". Around here it's at least $500/mo for a T-1. That's a lousy 1.5/1.5Mbit of bandwidth. Contrast to Verizon DSL for $34.95/mo for 3.0/768. I'd have to hook up 15 people at $34.95 to pay for that T-1. 15 people paying $34.95/mo to share a 1.5/1.5 connection instead of paying $34.95/mo for their own 3.0/768 connection. Plus somebody gets to pay for all the antennas, cables, APs, etc, etc, etc.
Actually/. does support https, but only subscribers and the admins/editors can use it. I recall them saying it goes to a dedicated server reserved for the above group during the 10th anniversary stuff.
think you're saying that in America a convicted criminal loses the right to vote for the rest of their life?
It depends on which state you live in. Some (Flordia, IIRC) deny convicted felons the right to vote for the rest of their lives. Others (my own state: New York) deny it until they have "had their civil rights restored" (not in prison or on parole, petition the Governor to restore your rights after your sentence is over). Still others probably don't deny it at all, unless the person is actually IN prison.
I assume that the founding principles of the American revolution still apply, specifically the "no taxation without representation" principle.
You'd like to think that. But it doesn't apply in this case:( There are other cases too -- if you live within Washington DC's city limits you actually have no representation in Congress either. It's amazing that people aren't up in arms about this....
I'm sorry, but that's a dangerous attitude to have. The Government is not some parent that gets to dole out 'privileges' to it's children as long as they behave. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure that everybody who drives meets some standard of skill (which is why we have road tests and learners permits) but that's where it should end.
If they want to pass a law that says you can lose your license for longer if you refuse the breath test and are subsequently convicted of a DWI I'd be fine with that. But I have a serious problem when the Government calls something a "civil penalty" so they can get around the burden of proof imposed by a criminal proceeding.
If the Government is going to take something away from you then it should require full due process of law. The burden of proof should be the same as it is in a criminal trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil side of the justice system should exist to resolve disputes between private individuals and/or corporations. It should not be used by the Government against individuals.
Go read the NMA issues page on DWI. They actually have a somewhat logical position about it.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it really seems like what the "man on the street" wants out of our society, and what Government and other powerful forces not only want but shove down our throats are quite divergent.
I don't think your crazy but I don't know as if I agree with you either.
With the specific case of drug prohibition your gonna be hard pressed to find people on the street that agree with the concept of legalizing drugs. It's a little bit easier if you are specifically talking about weed, because more people have had experience with it, but even at that you'll run into a decent number of "do the crime, do the time" people.
It's the same with civil liberties. I've tried to have that discussion many times with people. The most common response I get from those that disagree with me was "9/11 changed everything" or "I'd rather be safe then dead".
Nobody seems to understand how our civil liberties have been eroded. Another pet topic of mine is DWI laws. All well and good to keep drunks off the street, right? But I have serious problems with "implied consent" laws (i.e: drive in our state and you HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF). When I try to explain that to people I either get "we have to keep the drunks off the road", or (a more enlightened, but still wrong IMHO answer) "you don't have a right to drive and it's only a civil penalty" (what happened to the 10th amendment again?)
Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that for the most part, the "man on the street" is more then willing to go along with having his rights taken away if it's packaged as protecting him from drunks/drugs/terrorists/etc. This isn't exactly a new discovery (recall the downfall of the Weimar Republic, achieved perfectly within the bounds of the law) but it is a depressing one when you think about it:(
Why is it that you are choosing, in your assumption, the most violent, and in this context (the discussion), worst interpretation for what I had said (i.e., attacking), when the choice of words I used is ambiguous and can mean so many things?
I wasn't making that assumption and I hope I didn't come off as such. It was simply a question, mostly because of my ignorance of the Muslim faith. I'm not a very religious person by nature but I have a better understanding of Christianity then I do of Islam, simply because I grew up in a country where Christianity is the most popular faith. Even an atheist raised in the United States or Europe would have at least a passing familiarity with Christianity -- whereas most people (atheist or otherwise) in the West would have no understanding of Islam beyond a summary from grade school and what they've learned from friends who are Muslim.
It is in that vain that I posed that question, because I haven't had many chances to have such a discussion with someone like yourself.
Feel free to contact me directly
I'll probably take you up on that. In fact, shoot me an e-mail to t c h a i k a AT gmail.com so I have your address:)
As a Muslim, I'm bound to defend my religion, the Messenger (may Allaah's peace be upon him)
I'm wondering what you mean by 'bound to defend my religion'? Are you required to actually attack those who disparage the faith (i.e: those Danish cartoons) or merely required to defend your religion in a public debate such as this one?
In the West we pretty much have total freedom of speech. The same freedom of speech that allows you or I to engage in this constructive discussion also allows the publication of the Danish cartoons or this episode of South Park. Both could be considered offensive to religion yet both are still protected speech. I'm just wondering if such freedoms are compatible with mainstream Islam. I've always assumed that they there and it's just a vocal minority of extremists that gives Islam it's bad name.
So, the best I can do is thank you for at least not letting his lies stand unopposed.
It's the height of hypocrisy to condemn Islam while promoting Christianity and that's what bothered me about his posts. Both faiths have had their dark days. Yet I'd like to think that the majority of Christians and Muslims do not agree with the actions of a vocal minority of extremists.
I'm also not blind to the legitimate gripes that many in the Middle East/Arab World have with the West -- gripes that have nothing at all to do with religion. The United States is takes most of the current blame for this today because we use our military might to maintain our economic position. Before the US was the sole superpower, the British and French attempted to dominate the Middle East. Like most of the rest of the non-aligned world, the nations of the Arab World were used as pawns by both sides during the Cold War. The current situation between the Israeli's and Palestinians doesn't help matters either.
Combine all of that history with a poor economic status and Despotic leaders more interested in retaining power then promoting the welfare of their people and it's not hard to see why Muslims (particularly Muslim youths) are falling victim to extremism. We aren't going to defeat that by force of arms, only by improving the underlying situation and addressing some of the more current wrongs with the geopolitical situation.
The whole cartoon thing, freedom of speech or not, really was in bad taste - if, say, Iran ran a series of cartoons showing stuff like the Pope boning a choir boy (hidden by robes as pornography is illegal there) Catholics would be offended, too. Or how about Jesus, nailed to the cross with a giant chubby under his loincloth and the caption "I'm cuming God!"
As offensive as any of those examples might be, it's still your right to publish them, and it's still my right to read/watch them and laugh if I'm so inclined. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of politically correct speech.
Hell, we don't even need your theoretical examples. Did you happen to see this episode of South Park? Catholic reaction to it was limited to calling for boycotts and asking stations not to (re-)broadcast the episode. Nobody torched a KFC over it. No religious figures in the Catholic Church called for Trey or Matt to be killed.
If they made a similar episode about Islam (assuming Viacom had the balls to put it on the air) I would support their right to do so. I'd likely watch it and laugh at it too. There's quite a bit about Islam that's mockable. Why should it get special treatment?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the Part 15 regs say that "this device may not cause harmful interference".
we'd get 10 posts from people saying that "the FCC should be dissolved" because the airwaves are a public resourceThey are a public resource. Something needs to exist to manage them. In theory the FCC should manage them in the best interest of the public (in reality.... pffft, but that's another story). Should we dissolve the National Park Service too?
"Devices that use spread spectrum do not cause interference with each other"
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, anybody that has ever tried to use an analog 2.4Ghz cordless phone near a busy wi-fi network knows that they do cause interference. Hell, I can even tell when my wi-fi has a burst of activity if I'm using my bluetooth headset.... and bluetooth is supposed to avoid channels that are in use.
Bluetooth doesn't "play nicely" with WiFi. Bluetooth (from 1.2 onwards) was designed to remove channels that are being used from it's hopping sequence. But until it detects that those channels are in use (which may take quite awhile if your wifi network doesn't have a lot of traffic) you are still going to have interference issues. WiFi will usually "win", in that if either of the devices is going to be affected by the interference it's much more likely to be the bluetooth one.
Wouldn't it have been better to say "I hate everything that's unlicensed wireless"?
Devices interfere with each otherI've never had an interference issue with a cell phone. Of course my cell phone is using a licensed band......
they don't need to be rechargedThis is the single reason why I've never bought a bluetooth headset. Yet another device to charge. Somebody needs to give me a rational explanation for why mini-usb hasn't become the charging standard across the industry. Motorola is using it for all of their stuff (phones and headsets). Why is nobody else? Yes, I mean you Nokia.....
Minor detail that you can't legally use that channel in the United States (or Canada?). Granted, the odds of getting caught are next to nothing, but I don't think this is a viable "fix" for anybody in the business world.....
His 'conviction' in that case would likely be delivered via a bunker busting smart bomb. Seriously, what are the odds he makes it to a trial?
Eh, those settlements usually cost the offending company millions of real dollars (i.e: the attorney's fees and fines) and millions of implied dollars (the cost of offering all those free rentals).
Granted, a few million bucks is a different animal for a company like Blockbuster (631 million market cap) then it would be for you or me, but it's not pocket change for them either.
Adam? Is that you?
The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed after the contentious nomination hearings for Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court. During the hearings somebody leaked his video rental history to the press. Shortly afterwards Congress passed the law.
For once, a law I applaud, I only wish (at least in the US) that they would take this law and expand on it. Make it illegal for ANY commercial (and possibly most govt.) entities from sharing your personal information without express consentCall me a cynic, but the only reason it passed was because somebody disclosed the rental history of a prominent person. We won't see similar legislation in other areas unless there is a negative impact on someone fairly high up the "food chain". One can only imagine the howls of discontent from the consumer-reporting industry if such a law was applied to all of our personal data. Not that I don't agree with you that we need such a law.
Let's see what kind of attitude you would take if you lived in a country of ten million, surrounded by six hundred million that think you should be pushed into the sea.
Pretty much anything > Austin Powers. Seriously. I can't be the only person around here that hated those movies. Can I?
Saying "bomb" by itself shouldn't get you into trouble (will it is another question). Saying "I have a bomb" obviously will. Saying "I think we should be allowed to bring bombs on airplanes", should be protected speech -- you are merely expressing an opinion.
I suppose they could ask you to leave the airport (private property and all that) but I don't see how you could be arrested for that. Of course they probably would anyway but I'd love to see them make the charges stick.
They get to vote for President. They also have a local (city) Government. They have a non-voting delegate in the House. No representation in the Senate. There have been proposals to give DC representation in Congress by various means (folding it back into Maryland, giving it's own reps, etc) but they always get bogged down in politics.
As for the later amendments designed to stop Jim Crow laws etc, well you seem to still have a worrying amount of local variation in democratic standardsWell, the United States is a Republic. Each of the 50 states retains their own sovereignty. The central (i.e: Federal) Government only exists (in theory) to provide for the common defense, resolve disputes between the states and engage in foreign policy. In practice the Federal Government has expanded the scope of it's power in the 20th century, but that notwithstanding the states still retain their sovereignty and can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution. In fact the Federal Government has no direct control over the actions of State Governments.
You wasted your time. My point wasn't to advocate any idea (good or bad) as far as Christianity is concerned. My point was to show that taking quotes from the Bible out of context is no better then the GP taking quotes from the Qur'an out of context. He was pulling random quotes out of his ass and trying to use them as justification for why Islam is violent and why Christianity isn't.
You make the idiotic assumption that I was looking to trash the bible and/or Christianity. The person that I was replying to was pulling quotes from the Qur'an out of his ass and using them out of context to try and trash Islam. I was merely attempting to show that it cuts both ways and quotes taken from the Bible out of context make Christianity look equally as bad.
Isn't Rogers a GSM carrier? I seem to recall my T-Mobile USA (gsm) phone roaming on them the last time I was on Canada. If they are a GSM carrier just buy whatever phone you want and move your sim card.
Yes, because I'll be able to convince my neighbors (average age: 50) of the need to abandon [INSERT SHITTY ISP HERE] and pay for all the required wi-fi equipment (cables and high-gain antennas) required to deploy a neighborhood wide wi-fi network.
Oh and that "fat pipe". Around here it's at least $500/mo for a T-1. That's a lousy 1.5/1.5Mbit of bandwidth. Contrast to Verizon DSL for $34.95/mo for 3.0/768. I'd have to hook up 15 people at $34.95 to pay for that T-1. 15 people paying $34.95/mo to share a 1.5/1.5 connection instead of paying $34.95/mo for their own 3.0/768 connection. Plus somebody gets to pay for all the antennas, cables, APs, etc, etc, etc.
Actually /. does support https, but only subscribers and the admins/editors can use it. I recall them saying it goes to a dedicated server reserved for the above group during the 10th anniversary stuff.
I browse /. though https too.
It depends on which state you live in. Some (Flordia, IIRC) deny convicted felons the right to vote for the rest of their lives. Others (my own state: New York) deny it until they have "had their civil rights restored" (not in prison or on parole, petition the Governor to restore your rights after your sentence is over). Still others probably don't deny it at all, unless the person is actually IN prison.
I assume that the founding principles of the American revolution still apply, specifically the "no taxation without representation" principle.You'd like to think that. But it doesn't apply in this case :( There are other cases too -- if you live within Washington DC's city limits you actually have no representation in Congress either. It's amazing that people aren't up in arms about this....
I'm sorry, but that's a dangerous attitude to have. The Government is not some parent that gets to dole out 'privileges' to it's children as long as they behave. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure that everybody who drives meets some standard of skill (which is why we have road tests and learners permits) but that's where it should end.
If they want to pass a law that says you can lose your license for longer if you refuse the breath test and are subsequently convicted of a DWI I'd be fine with that. But I have a serious problem when the Government calls something a "civil penalty" so they can get around the burden of proof imposed by a criminal proceeding.
If the Government is going to take something away from you then it should require full due process of law. The burden of proof should be the same as it is in a criminal trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil side of the justice system should exist to resolve disputes between private individuals and/or corporations. It should not be used by the Government against individuals.
Go read the NMA issues page on DWI. They actually have a somewhat logical position about it.
I don't think your crazy but I don't know as if I agree with you either.
With the specific case of drug prohibition your gonna be hard pressed to find people on the street that agree with the concept of legalizing drugs. It's a little bit easier if you are specifically talking about weed, because more people have had experience with it, but even at that you'll run into a decent number of "do the crime, do the time" people.
It's the same with civil liberties. I've tried to have that discussion many times with people. The most common response I get from those that disagree with me was "9/11 changed everything" or "I'd rather be safe then dead".
Nobody seems to understand how our civil liberties have been eroded. Another pet topic of mine is DWI laws. All well and good to keep drunks off the street, right? But I have serious problems with "implied consent" laws (i.e: drive in our state and you HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF). When I try to explain that to people I either get "we have to keep the drunks off the road", or (a more enlightened, but still wrong IMHO answer) "you don't have a right to drive and it's only a civil penalty" (what happened to the 10th amendment again?)
Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that for the most part, the "man on the street" is more then willing to go along with having his rights taken away if it's packaged as protecting him from drunks/drugs/terrorists/etc. This isn't exactly a new discovery (recall the downfall of the Weimar Republic, achieved perfectly within the bounds of the law) but it is a depressing one when you think about it :(
I wasn't making that assumption and I hope I didn't come off as such. It was simply a question, mostly because of my ignorance of the Muslim faith. I'm not a very religious person by nature but I have a better understanding of Christianity then I do of Islam, simply because I grew up in a country where Christianity is the most popular faith. Even an atheist raised in the United States or Europe would have at least a passing familiarity with Christianity -- whereas most people (atheist or otherwise) in the West would have no understanding of Islam beyond a summary from grade school and what they've learned from friends who are Muslim.
It is in that vain that I posed that question, because I haven't had many chances to have such a discussion with someone like yourself.
Feel free to contact me directlyI'll probably take you up on that. In fact, shoot me an e-mail to t c h a i k a AT gmail.com so I have your address :)
I'm wondering what you mean by 'bound to defend my religion'? Are you required to actually attack those who disparage the faith (i.e: those Danish cartoons) or merely required to defend your religion in a public debate such as this one?
In the West we pretty much have total freedom of speech. The same freedom of speech that allows you or I to engage in this constructive discussion also allows the publication of the Danish cartoons or this episode of South Park. Both could be considered offensive to religion yet both are still protected speech. I'm just wondering if such freedoms are compatible with mainstream Islam. I've always assumed that they there and it's just a vocal minority of extremists that gives Islam it's bad name.
So, the best I can do is thank you for at least not letting his lies stand unopposed.It's the height of hypocrisy to condemn Islam while promoting Christianity and that's what bothered me about his posts. Both faiths have had their dark days. Yet I'd like to think that the majority of Christians and Muslims do not agree with the actions of a vocal minority of extremists.
I'm also not blind to the legitimate gripes that many in the Middle East/Arab World have with the West -- gripes that have nothing at all to do with religion. The United States is takes most of the current blame for this today because we use our military might to maintain our economic position. Before the US was the sole superpower, the British and French attempted to dominate the Middle East. Like most of the rest of the non-aligned world, the nations of the Arab World were used as pawns by both sides during the Cold War. The current situation between the Israeli's and Palestinians doesn't help matters either.
Combine all of that history with a poor economic status and Despotic leaders more interested in retaining power then promoting the welfare of their people and it's not hard to see why Muslims (particularly Muslim youths) are falling victim to extremism. We aren't going to defeat that by force of arms, only by improving the underlying situation and addressing some of the more current wrongs with the geopolitical situation.
As offensive as any of those examples might be, it's still your right to publish them, and it's still my right to read/watch them and laugh if I'm so inclined. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of politically correct speech.
Hell, we don't even need your theoretical examples. Did you happen to see this episode of South Park? Catholic reaction to it was limited to calling for boycotts and asking stations not to (re-)broadcast the episode. Nobody torched a KFC over it. No religious figures in the Catholic Church called for Trey or Matt to be killed.
If they made a similar episode about Islam (assuming Viacom had the balls to put it on the air) I would support their right to do so. I'd likely watch it and laugh at it too. There's quite a bit about Islam that's mockable. Why should it get special treatment?
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll have lots of free time to do so when you find yourself sleeping on the couch ;)