Let me explain why we are still talking about area codes. It's very simple:
(1) I need to be able to call cell phones and voip phones from my POTS phone.
(2) I need to be able to call POTS phones from my cell phone and voip phone.
Therefore there must be a bridge between POTS and cell/voip, and that bridge is located in an AREA, and to get a call over that bridge you must dial an AREA CODE.
What i want is a cell phone in the shape of one of those old rotary handsets... just the handset, not the base with the dial on it. Nice heavy feel in your hand. Small enough where it wouldn't be a complete pain in the ass to carry it around, but still bizarre enough to be funny.
I apologize, you are correct. For some reason it seemed to work past my first browser restart, but I restarted the browser again, and the setting has reverted even though the about:config shows it hasn't...
Go ahead, make the change, then restart your browser. Now go look at about:config again. Yup, still set to false. Now go see if it the setting worked. It does not.
WFM. I am unable to visit those links after disabling IDN. This is because the browser is no longer translating the name to the Punycode format that the IDN DNS system requires, therefore the lookup fails.
Words come and go. A few years ago everybody would have said "don't ask me, check on Yahoo". Then it was "check on Altavista". Then "google for it". Do someone really think this will last forever?
Hey buddy, shut your heretical mouth and pass me a kleenex.
Everyone is focusing on the "right-click on selected text and search for it" part of this deal, but that is not where the innovation is supposed to be. If you highlight more than 10 words in google, it will drop the rest. This Y!Q thing lets you enter a bunch of text, and it uses that text to get a contextual idea of what you're searching for and find results. It is not looking for pages with all those search terms in the pages.
one would think they'd charge less at first and ramp the price up as more games are released
One would think they'd charge more at first, and ramp down as games are released. In the beginning it is more expensive to manufacture a device, and they are bringing in less revenue from games sales than they are later in the life of the device.
that's not what he said. he said, "since 9/11 the american government is growing more and more corrupt," not that it started then. this assertion is not incompatible with yours.
You are correct.
you pay more attention next time, and don't waste everybody's time with your bullshit.
Wouldn't a phone conversation go through similar relays? So by your logic I have no expectation of privacy when I pick up my phone.
I am not as familiar with how the phone networks are operated, however, most were originally setup as a government-granted monopoly, and these are called utilities, which have special protections under the law.
The internet is not a utility, thank gawd.
However this is not the case legally, even a conversation on a public telephone would be protected. The gov't could bug the outside of the phone booth, but not the inside or the phone itself. Even basic information like the number dialed (pin registries) are protected.
See above. Also, please note that I am not saying the government should be able to bug your ISPs or your house for internet traffic without a warrant. I am just saying, you have no expectation of privacy over the internet, and your packets are travelling across many routers that may or may not be owned by the government.
My net traffic goes through ISPs who I've signed an EULA for, and whose employees likely have NDAs they have to agree to. It's not public, ie. it's not like driving on taxpayer-funded highways.
You do not understand how the Internet network works, my friend. Your packets travel beyond your ISP (duh) and over many, many routers. Which routers depends on what your destination network is, but it is safe to say you have no expectation of privacy -- you give that up implicitly for the benefit of having other people deliver your packets for you.
And yes, I do expect a warrant before they go prying into my traffic if it never touches government servers.
I never said the government should be able to take traffic willy nilly from servers owned by non-government entities.
My point is, YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC IS NOT PRIVATE.
I expect a warrant before they go prying into my mail, too, even though it goes through several government offices prior to reaching my home.
Then I've got a ballbuster for you -- if your illegal activity is printed on a postcard, or is noticeable from outside the sealed letter (say, a computer has detected anthrax in your envelope), they don't need a warrant to come and get you. In many cases, you've also committed a FEDERAL crime because you used the USPS to send that illegal material.
You can't expect privacy in a public arena. Internet traffic is public. If you want privacy, use your own network or encrypt your traffic.
Encryption is like putting on clothes rather than walking around with your naughty bits in plain site.
If a terrorist attack occurs killing millions of people, the people would have been wise to reflect upon their actions. What suffering they must have caused to fuel such an attack.
Facing the idea that Terrorism is just an artifact of the way global politics are handled will be tough for America. Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?
Fucking hell, don't be a reverse-idiot.
Let me explain. See, there are the regular idiots that think, "All those Ay-rabs are terrorists, like them what crashed the aero-planes into them buildings in NEW YORK CITY."
Then there are reverse-idiots. Like you. Those who are so naive as to think that the terrorists are all just people pushed to the brink, and what, they had no choice but to kill 3000 innocent people because, after all, two wrongs make a right.
There are some people that fight with terrorists because their family was killed by America, indirectly or directly, and they are filled with rage.
But most of the Islamic terrorists that get air-time, and their immediate followers, are not like this. They are simply interested in spreading militant Islam through-out the world, and stopping any spread of democracy or pluralistic thinking.
The gist of what I get from your above excuses regarding FOIA requests is what I already knew:
Government agencies have absolutely no incentive to expedite FOIA requests, because doing so would mean less work for all their friends, co-workers, and lawyers. Whereas the taxpayers already pay for you to create these documents in the first place (and do little else in many cases), they then subsequently pay again to get you to locate the information that should have been made more easily searchable in the first place.
Compare this to a company, where the incentive is to streamline access to documents so they can spend less money and become more efficient so that their profits are higher, their stockowners happier, and more employees can be paid/hired with the excess capital.
This is why the government sucks at running everything. There is absolutely no incentive to improve.
Haven't you ever seen two dogs meeting in the street? The first thing they do is to smell each other's ass. That's because a dog's ass has an absolutely wonderful smell! It must be true, how could a hundred million dogs be wrong?
I consider your comment one of the most insightful I've ever read on Slashdot.
A 13yr old with a camcorder can also set it up in the bushes to look inside your home and watch what you're doing. This doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't be required to get a warrant to do the same.
You have an expectation of privacy in a private domecile. Bad analogy.
In the same realm, just because they can sniff the network traffic doesn't mean that they should. They have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and they should have to do the same to tap your IM conversations, e-mail correspondence, and web history.
Your internet traffic, for technical reasons, is travelling over many, many routers operated in the open by many, many companies and government organizations.
Honestly, what expectation of privacy do you have for unencrypted traffic over an OPEN, PUBLIC network?
You have some options if you want privacy:
- Use strong encryption. - Use an anonymous proxy service that you can trust. - Setup your own network and send your information over it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're basically forced to use an interpreted language
You mean like JavaScript, which is already nicely integrated into Firefox, and used extensively in XPIs?
Isn't that just reinventing Java?
Java is not a sandbox, it just HAS a sandbox.
Just because a program wants to use sandbox security scheme doesn't mean it's "reinventing Java" or that it needs to use Java to do this.
Let me explain why we are still talking about area codes. It's very simple:
(1) I need to be able to call cell phones and voip phones from my POTS phone.
(2) I need to be able to call POTS phones from my cell phone and voip phone.
Therefore there must be a bridge between POTS and cell/voip, and that bridge is located in an AREA, and to get a call over that bridge you must dial an AREA CODE.
What i want is a cell phone in the shape of one of those old rotary handsets... just the handset, not the base with the dial on it. Nice heavy feel in your hand. Small enough where it wouldn't be a complete pain in the ass to carry it around, but still bizarre enough to be funny.
Ben Dover.
I apologize, you are correct. For some reason it seemed to work past my first browser restart, but I restarted the browser again, and the setting has reverted even though the about:config shows it hasn't...
Go ahead, make the change, then restart your browser. Now go look at about:config again. Yup, still set to false. Now go see if it the setting worked. It does not.
WFM. I am unable to visit those links after disabling IDN. This is because the browser is no longer translating the name to the Punycode format that the IDN DNS system requires, therefore the lookup fails.
Perhaps your cache setting is fucked.
Sure, I know criminals will be able to get their guns illegally. I just take my chances with that.
Gee, that's logical.
No offense, but give a fool a hammer and he'll crack his skull.
Give a man a gun, and he can kill many people with it.
Give that same man a pencil and... eh, not so much.
Thanks. Please also hand me the following: one q-tip, an aspirin, and a xerox of the instructions on how to tivo a show for my mom.
Words come and go. A few years ago everybody would have said "don't ask me, check on Yahoo". Then it was "check on Altavista". Then "google for it". Do someone really think this will last forever?
Hey buddy, shut your heretical mouth and pass me a kleenex.
What could they be doing that would disallow a number as the first character?
$making $all $passwords $into $perl $variables??
...but when my mother comes over
Don't you mean "down"?
Everyone is focusing on the "right-click on selected text and search for it" part of this deal, but that is not where the innovation is supposed to be. If you highlight more than 10 words in google, it will drop the rest. This Y!Q thing lets you enter a bunch of text, and it uses that text to get a contextual idea of what you're searching for and find results. It is not looking for pages with all those search terms in the pages.
How does it do all this?
Magic.
Cache of Google provided by... ummm Google.
one would think they'd charge less at first and ramp the price up as more games are released
One would think they'd charge more at first, and ramp down as games are released. In the beginning it is more expensive to manufacture a device, and they are bringing in less revenue from games sales than they are later in the life of the device.
that f*ucking computer...
You f*ucked up your sh*itty pun.
that's not what he said. he said, "since 9/11 the american government is growing more and more corrupt," not that it started then. this assertion is not incompatible with yours.
You are correct.
you pay more attention next time, and don't waste everybody's time with your bullshit.
You are also, an asshole.
Wouldn't a phone conversation go through similar relays? So by your logic I have no expectation of privacy when I pick up my phone.
I am not as familiar with how the phone networks are operated, however, most were originally setup as a government-granted monopoly, and these are called utilities, which have special protections under the law.
The internet is not a utility, thank gawd.
However this is not the case legally, even a conversation on a public telephone would be protected. The gov't could bug the outside of the phone booth, but not the inside or the phone itself. Even basic information like the number dialed (pin registries) are protected.
See above. Also, please note that I am not saying the government should be able to bug your ISPs or your house for internet traffic without a warrant. I am just saying, you have no expectation of privacy over the internet, and your packets are travelling across many routers that may or may not be owned by the government.
My net traffic goes through ISPs who I've signed an EULA for, and whose employees likely have NDAs they have to agree to. It's not public, ie. it's not like driving on taxpayer-funded highways.
You do not understand how the Internet network works, my friend. Your packets travel beyond your ISP (duh) and over many, many routers. Which routers depends on what your destination network is, but it is safe to say you have no expectation of privacy -- you give that up implicitly for the benefit of having other people deliver your packets for you.
And yes, I do expect a warrant before they go prying into my traffic if it never touches government servers.
I never said the government should be able to take traffic willy nilly from servers owned by non-government entities.
My point is, YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC IS NOT PRIVATE.
I expect a warrant before they go prying into my mail, too, even though it goes through several government offices prior to reaching my home.
Then I've got a ballbuster for you -- if your illegal activity is printed on a postcard, or is noticeable from outside the sealed letter (say, a computer has detected anthrax in your envelope), they don't need a warrant to come and get you. In many cases, you've also committed a FEDERAL crime because you used the USPS to send that illegal material.
You can't expect privacy in a public arena. Internet traffic is public. If you want privacy, use your own network or encrypt your traffic.
Encryption is like putting on clothes rather than walking around with your naughty bits in plain site.
If a terrorist attack occurs killing millions of people, the people would have been wise to reflect upon their actions. What suffering they must have caused to fuel such an attack.
Facing the idea that Terrorism is just an artifact of the way global politics are handled will be tough for America. Given a seat at the negotiating table, and an honest ear to hear their side, who would choose terror ?
Fucking hell, don't be a reverse-idiot.
Let me explain. See, there are the regular idiots that think, "All those Ay-rabs are terrorists, like them what crashed the aero-planes into them buildings in NEW YORK CITY."
Then there are reverse-idiots. Like you. Those who are so naive as to think that the terrorists are all just people pushed to the brink, and what, they had no choice but to kill 3000 innocent people because, after all, two wrongs make a right.
There are some people that fight with terrorists because their family was killed by America, indirectly or directly, and they are filled with rage.
But most of the Islamic terrorists that get air-time, and their immediate followers, are not like this. They are simply interested in spreading militant Islam through-out the world, and stopping any spread of democracy or pluralistic thinking.
The gist of what I get from your above excuses regarding FOIA requests is what I already knew:
Government agencies have absolutely no incentive to expedite FOIA requests, because doing so would mean less work for all their friends, co-workers, and lawyers. Whereas the taxpayers already pay for you to create these documents in the first place (and do little else in many cases), they then subsequently pay again to get you to locate the information that should have been made more easily searchable in the first place.
Compare this to a company, where the incentive is to streamline access to documents so they can spend less money and become more efficient so that their profits are higher, their stockowners happier, and more employees can be paid/hired with the excess capital.
This is why the government sucks at running everything. There is absolutely no incentive to improve.
Haven't you ever seen two dogs meeting in the street? The first thing they do is to smell each other's ass. That's because a dog's ass has an absolutely wonderful smell! It must be true, how could a hundred million dogs be wrong?
I consider your comment one of the most insightful I've ever read on Slashdot.
A 13yr old with a camcorder can also set it up in the bushes to look inside your home and watch what you're doing. This doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't be required to get a warrant to do the same.
You have an expectation of privacy in a private domecile. Bad analogy.
In the same realm, just because they can sniff the network traffic doesn't mean that they should. They have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and they should have to do the same to tap your IM conversations, e-mail correspondence, and web history.
Your internet traffic, for technical reasons, is travelling over many, many routers operated in the open by many, many companies and government organizations.
Honestly, what expectation of privacy do you have for unencrypted traffic over an OPEN, PUBLIC network?
You have some options if you want privacy:
- Use strong encryption.
- Use an anonymous proxy service that you can trust.
- Setup your own network and send your information over it.