that's assuming 100% coverage. Since we're seeing variability, it follows that the structure of any presumed Dyson object at this location either hasn't reached "sphere" stage or isn't designed to. If the latter, then a "ring" or "swarm" style structure would be much thicker and more useful as a substrate. While I don't think Dyson structures are necessarily feasible in practical terms, in theoretical terms the heat management of a structure that can turn panels away from the star would be more efficient, so I tend to fall on the side of "spheres are impractical, rings make more sense"
well, according to the summary (no idea what's in the article, because...well, you know), that's exactly what this legislator is doing...he's opening the conversation by presenting an unpassable bill for the sake of starting the conversation. He has no actual intent of having the bill passed. That's the gist I got, anyway
part of the ATF requirements for being a manufacturer in firearms/explosives or being an alcoholic drink producer is certifying there are appropriate controls in place to prevent contamination of navigable waters. If the ATF really is involved in this, then it's likely that some other investigation has uncovered a connection between a licensee and the greasy substance that is contaminating the water supply, and the ATF is trying to collect more evidence to see if they lied on the certification (it's ATF forms 5000.29 and 5000.30). Lying to the ATF is a Federal felony, and they are very interested in making sure people know they don't take kindly to being lied to.
The courier has minimal incentive to actually deliver to you in a timely or efficient manner.
If you count "don't piss off your customers' customers by breaking their stuff" as "minimal", then I agree. But, of course, you don't mean that. I don't think you do, anyway...
If a vendor doesn't give you a choice of carrier (and many still do) and they routinely get hit with extra costs due to a high number of returns from shipping damage, then you bet they're going to tell the problem courier to fix the issue or move along. There is *absolutely* incentive to deliver in a timely and efficient (and intact) manner. The couriers will lose business from their customers, even if it's not you.
That's like saying, "It's amazing that I can control the ceiling fan in my living room with a $2 light switch, all I had to do was spend $300k building the house first."
this. and also, the linked article is just a press release disguised as a story, quoting only the subject of the article without any independant analysis or rebuttal of any kind
well, yeah - I wasn't trying to go through the whole history of the industry in its entirety, just a synopsis. I'm not Bennett Haselton. And yes, you certainly *can* talk about AT&T without talking about SBC and Cingular, because I just did and it fit the point of view of the narrative just fine. The point being, of course, that the gradual move from regional carriers to national carriers was deliberate and is unlikely to reverse itself.
You must be young enough not to remember this - cellular service in the US was historically segmented in exactly the way you describe.
In fact, to prevent monopolies, the existing Baby Bell regional phone companies got licenses for "wireline" based systems that utilized the existing telephone system infrastructure, and there was spectrum allocated for a single competing "non-wireline" service that used microwave repeaters between towers as the competition. These were labeled the "A" system and the "B" system. You wanted cellular service? You had exactly two choices. Wireline from the phone company, or non-wireline from the other guys. Most phones could work on either, but not both simultaneously (this was soon rectified as the carriers realized the potential for roaming fees between local carriers.)
When I started selling phones out of high school 20 years ago, our coverage area was less than half the state - driving 100 miles to the next big city would get you "roaming charges" of 99 cents per minute, plus long distance charges if you were making a "not-local-to-where-your-billing-area-is" call. This caused problems especially for people who lived on the edge between two areas, because their phones would (per design of the "cell" in "cellular") switch between one tower and the next without warning. I had people coming in complaining that they only ever used their phone at home (too rural for a landline) and would get half their calls on the roaming network. Eventually phones came with network locking possibilities to prevent roaming accidentally, but that compounded the problem since some users had to manually reprogram their phone for roaming each time they went to the post office. They demanded simplicity.
Eventually, these problems came to a head and the market demanded "no roaming fees" for increasingly large areas, and we could finally get all of Arizona as one big home calling area. (But watch out if you lived near the Colorado river!) Over time all the regional carriers decided to make their own networks one giant "no roaming" footprint, and our local calling map spanned the entire Southwest U.S. Hooray, you could now drive to the next state and not incur roaming charges!...as long as you were on your own service provider's towers. You still had to pay roaming fees if you went onto a neighboring network, though.
Then came digital networks - spectrum for AT&T (the long distance company, not the regional Baby Bells) allowed them to become one of the first NATIONWIDE providers, and people flocked to their system, even as spotty as it was. The writing was on the wall, and nationwide calling was going to be the norm.
As a result of this new nationwide threat, next came the consolidations. The Bell companies started banding together (the local one to me at the time went from US West Cellular to a multi-state Airtouch to what is now nationwide Verizon) and the non-wireline companies started either building out their own digital networks or merging with their neighbors like Verizon. And thusly "free nationwide roaming" became possible for the first time for all carriers.
Now it's so natural to assume your phone will work everywhere, that to fall back to regionally segmented pricing would probably introduce many new layers of cost and complexity to billing services that have since been thoroughly optimized for national use. I'd wager that many people have never even heard the term "roaming". What you're describing is not going to happen on any meaningful scale, if at all.
IP spoofing is only good in one direction, generally, seeing as how a sender using a falsified address would not be able to get ACK packets or other 2-way data back from the recipient (in this example, the IP camera system's video feed). In other words, spoofing is great for DOS attacks or injections of some sort, not so great for trying to view video. (Caveats for sending unauthenticated backdoor commands to alter firewall rules, etc., but that's an application layer problem, not an open port problem)
Alabama Arizona California* Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Maine Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Jersey North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Dakota Texas Vermont Washington West Virginia
It is false advertising to say it's unlimited and then institute limits on the existing contracts (accounts).
Yes, but that's NOT what Microsoft is doing. They are letting people know, well in advance, that their terms are changing, and customers are given a year to either accept these new terms or find another service.
You can't one sided make changes to agreed to terms and services.
Of course you can, if the original agreed upon terms say that you can:
"7. Updates to the Services or Software, and Changes to These Terms. a. We may change these Terms at any time, and we’ll tell you when we do. Using the Services after the changes become effective means you agree to the new terms. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you must stop using the Services, close your Microsoft account and/or Skype account and, if you are a parent or guardian, help your minor child close his or her Microsoft account or Skype account."
And...
"c. Additionally, there may be times when we need to remove or change features or functionality of the Service or stop providing a Service or access to Third-Party Apps and Services altogether. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any material, Digital Goods (defined in section 14(b)(v)), or applications previously purchased. We may release the Services or their features in a beta version, which may not work correctly or in the same way the final version may work."
Don't worry - as long as you're playing the Greeks, you have nothing to fear, since they're the only civilization that can play with those troops. Do be sure to gun for Military Tradition as soon as possible, though - the Cavalry is one of the best mid-game units available, at least for attacks.
Small "n" national, dimwit. If he meant to say what you're accusing of him of saying, he would have put "Nazi" instead, which very obviously doesn't fit in the context.
"will be" dumped back into real estate? Dude, that's been happening for years... Berkshire Hathaway (you know, Warren Buffett, the 4th richest guy on the planet) created an entire division JUST for getting in on single family houses. http://www.berkshirehathawayhs...
I'm quite certain that, if the risk were more easily manageable at scale, he'd make true on his desire to buy up 100,000+ single family homes: http://www.cnbc.com/id/4653842...
in order for a police order to be enforceable, it must be a lawful order. A cop cannot order you to stop filming them performing their public duties, because doing so has already been established to be an individual right. It's practically identical to how a police officer cannot order you to answer their questions while you are being detained. They can lie to you about it (whole other argument there), but you do not have to speak at all during questioning. The only exception I know of is identifying yourself when ordered - but if you fail to identify yourself in a jurisdiction that requires it, you don't get arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order - you're arrested for failing to identify, a specifically and highly limited exemption to the 5th Amendment. If a cop arrests you for filming after he tells you to stop, consider yourself lucky - you were just handed a decent payday.
Now, it's not OK to shove a camera in his face, mind you - stay 50 feet away if you can (unless you're the subject of the original police action and are filming for your own safety) so they can't claim that they felt threatened or that it was a matter of the blanket excuse of "officer safety". As long as a reasonable person in the same situation would not feel their safety was threatened by your filming, then you're good to go.
Slashdot Mirror
that's assuming 100% coverage. Since we're seeing variability, it follows that the structure of any presumed Dyson object at this location either hasn't reached "sphere" stage or isn't designed to. If the latter, then a "ring" or "swarm" style structure would be much thicker and more useful as a substrate. While I don't think Dyson structures are necessarily feasible in practical terms, in theoretical terms the heat management of a structure that can turn panels away from the star would be more efficient, so I tend to fall on the side of "spheres are impractical, rings make more sense"
well, according to the summary (no idea what's in the article, because...well, you know), that's exactly what this legislator is doing...he's opening the conversation by presenting an unpassable bill for the sake of starting the conversation. He has no actual intent of having the bill passed. That's the gist I got, anyway
part of the ATF requirements for being a manufacturer in firearms/explosives or being an alcoholic drink producer is certifying there are appropriate controls in place to prevent contamination of navigable waters. If the ATF really is involved in this, then it's likely that some other investigation has uncovered a connection between a licensee and the greasy substance that is contaminating the water supply, and the ATF is trying to collect more evidence to see if they lied on the certification (it's ATF forms 5000.29 and 5000.30). Lying to the ATF is a Federal felony, and they are very interested in making sure people know they don't take kindly to being lied to.
see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
that's not how email works. See: retry interval https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
The courier has minimal incentive to actually deliver to you in a timely or efficient manner.
If you count "don't piss off your customers' customers by breaking their stuff" as "minimal", then I agree. But, of course, you don't mean that. I don't think you do, anyway...
If a vendor doesn't give you a choice of carrier (and many still do) and they routinely get hit with extra costs due to a high number of returns from shipping damage, then you bet they're going to tell the problem courier to fix the issue or move along. There is *absolutely* incentive to deliver in a timely and efficient (and intact) manner. The couriers will lose business from their customers, even if it's not you.
That's like saying, "It's amazing that I can control the ceiling fan in my living room with a $2 light switch, all I had to do was spend $300k building the house first."
this. and also, the linked article is just a press release disguised as a story, quoting only the subject of the article without any independant analysis or rebuttal of any kind
Two words: Belly landing.
well, yeah - I wasn't trying to go through the whole history of the industry in its entirety, just a synopsis. I'm not Bennett Haselton. And yes, you certainly *can* talk about AT&T without talking about SBC and Cingular, because I just did and it fit the point of view of the narrative just fine. The point being, of course, that the gradual move from regional carriers to national carriers was deliberate and is unlikely to reverse itself.
You must be young enough not to remember this - cellular service in the US was historically segmented in exactly the way you describe.
In fact, to prevent monopolies, the existing Baby Bell regional phone companies got licenses for "wireline" based systems that utilized the existing telephone system infrastructure, and there was spectrum allocated for a single competing "non-wireline" service that used microwave repeaters between towers as the competition. These were labeled the "A" system and the "B" system. You wanted cellular service? You had exactly two choices. Wireline from the phone company, or non-wireline from the other guys. Most phones could work on either, but not both simultaneously (this was soon rectified as the carriers realized the potential for roaming fees between local carriers.)
When I started selling phones out of high school 20 years ago, our coverage area was less than half the state - driving 100 miles to the next big city would get you "roaming charges" of 99 cents per minute, plus long distance charges if you were making a "not-local-to-where-your-billing-area-is" call. This caused problems especially for people who lived on the edge between two areas, because their phones would (per design of the "cell" in "cellular") switch between one tower and the next without warning. I had people coming in complaining that they only ever used their phone at home (too rural for a landline) and would get half their calls on the roaming network. Eventually phones came with network locking possibilities to prevent roaming accidentally, but that compounded the problem since some users had to manually reprogram their phone for roaming each time they went to the post office. They demanded simplicity.
Eventually, these problems came to a head and the market demanded "no roaming fees" for increasingly large areas, and we could finally get all of Arizona as one big home calling area. (But watch out if you lived near the Colorado river!) Over time all the regional carriers decided to make their own networks one giant "no roaming" footprint, and our local calling map spanned the entire Southwest U.S. Hooray, you could now drive to the next state and not incur roaming charges!...as long as you were on your own service provider's towers. You still had to pay roaming fees if you went onto a neighboring network, though.
Then came digital networks - spectrum for AT&T (the long distance company, not the regional Baby Bells) allowed them to become one of the first NATIONWIDE providers, and people flocked to their system, even as spotty as it was. The writing was on the wall, and nationwide calling was going to be the norm.
As a result of this new nationwide threat, next came the consolidations. The Bell companies started banding together (the local one to me at the time went from US West Cellular to a multi-state Airtouch to what is now nationwide Verizon) and the non-wireline companies started either building out their own digital networks or merging with their neighbors like Verizon. And thusly "free nationwide roaming" became possible for the first time for all carriers.
Now it's so natural to assume your phone will work everywhere, that to fall back to regionally segmented pricing would probably introduce many new layers of cost and complexity to billing services that have since been thoroughly optimized for national use. I'd wager that many people have never even heard the term "roaming". What you're describing is not going to happen on any meaningful scale, if at all.
damn, mod points just ran out. Best first post in a long, long time :D
IP spoofing is only good in one direction, generally, seeing as how a sender using a falsified address would not be able to get ACK packets or other 2-way data back from the recipient (in this example, the IP camera system's video feed). In other words, spoofing is great for DOS attacks or injections of some sort, not so great for trying to view video. (Caveats for sending unauthenticated backdoor commands to alter firewall rules, etc., but that's an application layer problem, not an open port problem)
This is a moo point. A cow's opinion just doesn't matter. It's moo.
sounds a lot like credit/debit cards, but with slightly more hassle and lower (maybe?) fees.
careful, your bias is showing.
From https://support.coinbase.com/c...
Eligible States
Alabama
Arizona
California*
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
...until they stopped.
comments like this are the only reason I bother reading /. any more. well done.
It is false advertising to say it's unlimited and then institute limits on the existing contracts (accounts).
Yes, but that's NOT what Microsoft is doing. They are letting people know, well in advance, that their terms are changing, and customers are given a year to either accept these new terms or find another service.
You can't one sided make changes to agreed to terms and services.
Of course you can, if the original agreed upon terms say that you can:
"7. Updates to the Services or Software, and Changes to These Terms.
a. We may change these Terms at any time, and we’ll tell you when we do. Using the Services after the changes become effective means you agree to the new terms. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you must stop using the Services, close your Microsoft account and/or Skype account and, if you are a parent or guardian, help your minor child close his or her Microsoft account or Skype account."
And...
"c. Additionally, there may be times when we need to remove or change features or functionality of the Service or stop providing a Service or access to Third-Party Apps and Services altogether. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any material, Digital Goods (defined in section 14(b)(v)), or applications previously purchased. We may release the Services or their features in a beta version, which may not work correctly or in the same way the final version may work."
source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-u...
Don't worry - as long as you're playing the Greeks, you have nothing to fear, since they're the only civilization that can play with those troops. Do be sure to gun for Military Tradition as soon as possible, though - the Cavalry is one of the best mid-game units available, at least for attacks.
Don't be delusional. What you describe is the exception, not the norm. http://www.fidelity.com/inside...
Small "n" national, dimwit. If he meant to say what you're accusing of him of saying, he would have put "Nazi" instead, which very obviously doesn't fit in the context.
"will be" dumped back into real estate? Dude, that's been happening for years... Berkshire Hathaway (you know, Warren Buffett, the 4th richest guy on the planet) created an entire division JUST for getting in on single family houses. http://www.berkshirehathawayhs...
I'm quite certain that, if the risk were more easily manageable at scale, he'd make true on his desire to buy up 100,000+ single family homes: http://www.cnbc.com/id/4653842...
But, over and above that, every time you treat the police like the enemy, some people in the police will treat you like the enemy too.
It's pretty much the other way around already.
in order for a police order to be enforceable, it must be a lawful order. A cop cannot order you to stop filming them performing their public duties, because doing so has already been established to be an individual right. It's practically identical to how a police officer cannot order you to answer their questions while you are being detained. They can lie to you about it (whole other argument there), but you do not have to speak at all during questioning. The only exception I know of is identifying yourself when ordered - but if you fail to identify yourself in a jurisdiction that requires it, you don't get arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order - you're arrested for failing to identify, a specifically and highly limited exemption to the 5th Amendment. If a cop arrests you for filming after he tells you to stop, consider yourself lucky - you were just handed a decent payday.
Now, it's not OK to shove a camera in his face, mind you - stay 50 feet away if you can (unless you're the subject of the original police action and are filming for your own safety) so they can't claim that they felt threatened or that it was a matter of the blanket excuse of "officer safety". As long as a reasonable person in the same situation would not feel their safety was threatened by your filming, then you're good to go.
oh, and IANAL.
yes, they would. keyloggers don't care how old your password is, nor does social engineering.