Security is all about evaluating the possible threats and reducing their effectiveness.
More to the point, and as you alluded to, security is all about balancing safety (or security, if you will) and functionality. In this case, I believe that not including Teredo on by default as a security hole is a fallacy. Sure, it adds functionality, but at the same time, creates significant security problems without notifying or asking the user. And grandparent, know what you're talking about. A Hexago tunnel is easy enough to come by on Linux, and very little work to set up (literally cut and paste). Teredo can be run on Linux too, though I cannot recall how.
Basically, it comes down to this: Microsoft sacrificed what could potentially be a significant amount of security for a feature that is meaningless, and for that matter useless, to the majority of users (at least for now, and Microsoft has a tolerable patch system, so...). And that feature is on by default, without asking the user. So, yeah, I'd call that a security hole.
* The writing style is juvenile, and though Thompson may be a fool, he is a lawyer, which means he knows how to write official-looking documents, and that was too casual for even a professional memo. * Who the hell has ever heard of GameAlmighty? Attention whores like Thompson don't CC legal threats to unheard-of small gaming blogs with about a hundred readers. They CC it to NBC or something. * Who the hell has ever heard of GameAlmighty? Claiming to have received a letter from Jack Thompson is an extremely effective way to get hits. * Thompson already sent a letter to Bill Gates, about Counter-Strike. If he was going to send a letter about Halo 3, it would likely go to Steve Jobs. * Again with the writing style. It just feels very, very wrong. Can we get a literature/psychology professor/professional to analyze these?
I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I'll be the one laughing. Or maybe you will, and I'll be laughing at myself. I could be wrong.
Any NYC blackouts in recent decades have indeed been SNAFU, and they've had nothing to do with the physical layer (if you'll indulge me in applying the OSI model to power lines). And yeah, there have been a lot as grandparent and parent say, that were human error - whether overdraw, or whatever. Those in my time (not very long, shall we say) have had nothing even to do with humans. The one that comes to mind was VERY recent, and was much bigger than NYC. Took out the entire northeast, and part of Canada. It was a software problem - cascading failovers that hearkened back to the AT&T debacle in 1994. I can guarantee you that this cable, although certainly a good idea due to its inherent boost to grid capacity, will do nothing to stop that sort of thing. So although I tend to agree that users are a problem, a bigger problem is that machines just don't listen.
The desire for anonymity is not an admission of wrongdoing, or even guilt. In the United States you can sue for virtually anything. Many schools are terrified of giving students bad grades because the student might feel bad and their parent might sue the school/district/teacher for causing emotional stress or some nonsense like that. I don't blame people for posting information anonymously that might attract a lawsuit, even if it is already public record.
Also - he did provide a link to the page where the number is posted, so it's obviously already public and legal to repost. See above about the US's retarded civil law system.
I'll probably be modded off-topic or something, but you should find a better - or more specific - reason than emotional distress. Fear of "emotional distress" suits is why some schools have stopped using red ink to grade, or even grading all together - it might make the kids that don't do as well feel bad. Of course, the school doesn't give a damn about making the kids feel bad - they're there to teach, not reassure, after all - but they're terrified to do it because you can sue a school for anything these days.
Actually, although lawyers may not want you to know this, the safe harbor clause in the DMCA is somewhat redundant - almost as though they thought that by spelling out a particular case would make people think that other cases of the host not being liable do not exist. (Note: some of the framers of the US Bill of Rights were wary of spelling out certain rights because some idiot might decide that doing so excluded other rights.) Rather effective, it seems to me.
The "safe harbor" that would be relevant in digg's case is not part of the DMCA at all - it's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (one of the few parts that has not been struck down as unconstitutional). It states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Whether or not it applies here is somewhat debatable, but I can assure you that this is how craigslist survives, how blogs and slashdot can have comments, and so forth. Additionally, this is how many websites that allow anonymous posting protect themselves when illegal content is posted.
So let's stop talking about the DMCA safe harbor, which we've long ago established is irrelevant here - that clause is a load of political bullshit if I ever saw one. Just giving my two cents.
Except that generally, you would use the RTP protocol to stream, not just raw UDP. (Why? Experiment on an iffy connection using unicast VLC streams and you'll find out.) An integral part of the RTP standard is RTCP which provides a way for listeners to send control signals back to the sender and vice versa - primarily simple reports that they're listening and out-of-band stream information (song title, for example) respectively, although the spec provides for other application-specific uses. In fact, Section 6.2.1 of the RTP spec in RFC 3550 states that stream senders should keep track of listeners using RTCP.
Don't get me wrong though, multicast will be a huge boon to internet radio when and if it becomes commonplace. Think of the bandwidth savings by sending only a few streams of packets instead of hundreds.
You should check your math, there. You're complaining about a 12 Megabit per second line maxing at 1 MegaByte per second download speed. That's exactly what they told you - 12 Mb/s is 1.5 MB/s, and if you consider protocol overhead - TCP and NNTP (though I'm not sure NNTP introduces much overhead) - and overhead from other sources, and so on, 1 MB isn't half bad. Latency is a valid complaint, maybe. Your complaints about timeouts when web surfing and whatnot are interesting, though. What are you running as your router behind the modem (which seems implied)? How many other connections - TCP and UDP (yeah UDP is connectionless, but that's how the router thinks about it) are you using? A lot of home routers choke on large numbers of connections.
One tip for usenet - although you seem to be maxing your line anyway - some providers have a way to select a particular route to/from them. Easynews, maximumusenet, and I think giganews can do this, and likely others. Try their traceroute page and pick the one with the fewest hops, or shortest latency, to you.
Because they have the Sidekick. AFAIK you can't unlock the Sidekick (and now SK2 and SK3) - because it's made by T-mobile. Yes, the Sidekick is a stupid piece of equipment - nearly useless as an actual phone, not particularly interesting from an apps perspective, and so on - but it corners 2 niche markets. One, a handful of rich teenagers who either don't need voice or can buy a headset or a second phone (and I'm lumping people like Paris Hilton in here - yes, adults who (publicly) seem to act like spoiled 12-year-olds), and two, the deaf market. Most people wouldn't think of that second one, but I can tell you, it's a hugely important market and one that's not disappearing any time soon. I attend RIT - we play host to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (about 1/10 of the students here) - and let me tell you, one of the quickest ways to discern deaf people from hearing, unless you know them already, is to look at their hip. If there's a Sidekick case there, odds are they're deaf. Now, there are a lot of deaf people without this - but then, you don't see deaf students walking around with a RAZR or any one of a hundred other phones from the other carriers.
And I'm some people think that the deaf market will cease to exist as technology advances - after all, cerebral implants are already pretty good. But it won't, first off because technology will always be expensive, and second, because some people are proud to be deaf. I have deaf friends who say they know people who threw away their cerebral implant (the part that goes on the outside, obviously), or at least they don't use it. Then again, they also say that may be in part due to peer pressure (hard to explain - some deaf people apparently feel that those who get the CI are traitors to their culture, or somesuch), but some people just would rather be deaf.
Anyway, T-mobile's not going anywhere. Regardless of ridiculous restrictions on it, people who really care about the cost of data plans - like the teenagers mentioned above - don't really care what they can't do with it. They just want to be able to text their friends and have the newest 16kbps version of whatever is topping the charts at the moment without paying much. The rest of you probably make your own money and don't have to explain to Mommy and Daddy why you want a new cell phone.
...demand for backup communications services could outstrip the ability of vendors to provide them...
I can only assume they refer to the Internet. If you are in an emergency, and you have something to communicate that must be sent over the Internet, you don't have emergency communications. Your communications should take priority, sure - and I think that if there was such a bandwidth shortage, it would be a matter of only days before thousands more miles of dark fiber were lit up and the Internet restored to normal.
As for REAL emergency communications - matters of life and death, and of serious health issues - there is an infrastructure in place that has been for nearly a hundred years, consisting of radio communications between amateur radio operators, military personnel, FEMA and other government organizations, and a variety of independent relief organizations from the Red Cross to Worldview. And unlike the Internet, this system has strict rules about what gets priority - first, matters of life and death, classified EMERGENCY, second, other emergency-related messages, labelled priority, third, status messages, labelled welfare, and last normal traffic. In even the worst disasters, from Katrina to September 11, 2001, this system has never been overloaded. And yes, radio amateurs served during both disasters.
The big telecom companies need to stop spreading FUD so they can get bigger subsidies. And frankly, so what if people can't get to work? If there's a worldwide flu pandemic, there won't be many customers until it's over anyway. And yeah, businesses will lose money. But all of them will, so the playing field will remain level. It worked in Western Washington - anyone from around there remembers the snow in November and the wind in December - between the two storms most of the area's businesses were closed for at least three or four days, and life went on.
Here's why: the FBI probably uses this technique, in some cases, to track down child porn. True, most cases these days are probably copyright infringement cases demanded by the industry, but given today's power-hungry government and legislators who think their primary mandate is to keep their office, all the FBI has to do is say that they use it to combat child porn and no one but the district court or higher will touch it - and that takes months or years.
You may ask why I say this. Wikipedia COPA, COPPA, CIPA, Communications Decency Act (the parts that the courts struck down). Claim you're protecting children and you can get away with anything. Now, I'm not saying these laws are a bad thing - they're well-intentioned, but badly thought out and the difficulties of doing what they demand on the Internet were not considered.
Congratulations, you're part of the reason that Amateur Radio doesn't look so attractive to people anymore. I'm a Tech class (no code) licensed less than a year before restructuring. Of about seven people in my class, I was the only one to pass novice, much less tech, written exams. Those questions (yes, even the new Technician exam - I've helped people study) are plenty to keep out people who don't give a damn about the hobby. For a time, I was an ARRL member, and there were times when I almost did dedicate time to learn Morse code. But then I'd see a letter to the editor in QST about how removing the Morse requirement (back before the ARRL took an official stance) would ruin the hobby, and how if it happened they'd just go stay in the CW bands and tap out messages too fast for the newbies to copy anyway. The fact is, it wasn't the difficulty of Morse that made me lose interest. I've used systems similar to Code Quick before, and I know it would work for me. I think I didn't want to wind up running into your kind whining about the good old days when CW ruled the airwaves. Fortunately, everyone I've met on the VHF bands that I AM allowed access to has been extremely friendly. For this reason I probably will study for and upgrade to General or Extra in the near future.
So please, follow through on your threat and stay in the CW bands, at least if you're going to be like that. If you want to see Amateur radio die, you've got the right idea. Don't mentor newbies, don't try to show them just how great CW still is. Ignore them, let them see that they aren't wanted.
Amateur radio's allure to me has always been the ability to speak to people far away, be it the space shuttle, Iraq, Germany, South Africa, or maybe just a few hundred miles over a regional repeater net. (such as the Evergreen Intertie) Removing the CW restriction makes it easier to achieve this goal for all interested people, and I can see no way that something that can encourage individual, international ties can be a bad thing.
For the record, I plan to learn Morse code at some point. I always wanted to build and use the Tuna Tin Transmitter. It's just that between High school and now college, family, friends, a job, and so forth, it's hard to find any time at all.
I've rambled a bit here, so back on topic: don't shun new people. If you think they should know Morse code, then lead them to good resources. Send slow text for them, so they can learn to copy in real-world conditions. Mentor them. Mentor us, I should say. Otherwise, those few remaining CW bands will be a mighty lonely place once your generation is gone.
It's actually considerably more challenging. First, there's the art. You need a lot of people with a lot of time to do a lot of models. Second, there's the bandwidth. Consider that a MUD could work with the bandwidth, of, say, and IRC server. In fact that's not a bad idea... but I digress. MMOs require streaming multimedia, massive patches (since not everything is server side), download-on-demand textures and maps, and so on. And the servers also need to track the exact 3d coordinates of every player, NPC, monster, and item. In short, the main reason that the only OS MMO I know of (PlaneShift) is not particularly complete is a lack of infrastructure to work with, not to mention the sheer complexity of tracking all the required information server-side.
Google doesn't mind people doing this sort of thing. Remember how they aren't evil? Having seen how they respond to other people using their services at times, I give it a day or two (or maybe until this guy wins) before some software engineer at Google writes a Google Blog post about how they're thrilled that people are taking advantage of their service to defend themselves, since the query suggested earlier in this thread is on his blog.
And I personally still say the same thing about XP's requirements. And ESPECIALLY about Vista's. Note that "minimum" requirements mean, in my experience, that sure, you could run it, but could you possibly want to? Sure, any computer less than about four years old probably CAN run Vista (though it may require a memory upgrade - many computers still only came with 256 until maybe a year or two ago). But would you want to? I personally have run Windows 2000 on relatively ancient machines - 400 or so MHz processors, I think 64M of RAM, and so on - and I think they're still running, somehow - but don't wish to repeat the experience. However they could run, was the primary point. Why can't Vista come even close to that? It's not the interface - it can still fall back to classic mode or whatever it is they call it now. There is no excuse for that requiring any more than a simple VGA-capable graphics card, either. Remember "Safe Mode"? Why can't it cut back so that all it's really running is a simple firewall (though without all the frivolous services, that shouldn't be necessary if the few that are system-critical are written properly) and whatever the user has started, let's say Internet Explorer and an old version of Word (again, requirements)? My parents own a computer that has been running Windows 98, with Office 97, for nearly 9 years now. It could use an upgrade to Win2k, certainly, but why not something with some obvious security features that earlier versions of Windows irresponsibly neglected, like the default non-privileged user in Vista?
I don't want to make this thread even more off-topic, but I think that Microsoft should consider how Linux handles this (though it's probably too late to implement it): abstract everything. Got a computer that can't handle the newest version of, say, KDE or Gnome? Fine, try XFCE. Or Fluxbox, or... Same underlying code to draw stuff. With AIGLX and nVidia's AIGLX-type extensions, even Compiz and Beryl (think Aero Glass with more toys) don't need separate code. Can't handle Aero Glass? Fine, try Aero. Can't handle Aero? Try Classic mode. Miracle that your computer still runs at all? Disable some eye candy in Classic. And frankly, if the GUI in its most stripped-down form can't run on the same spec hardware that runs Windows 98 perfectly, maybe the code needs to be cleaned up. I'm not a software engineer, I just yell at bad ones. Look, the OS I run can run a box that acts as a home router on hardware that costs literally $20 US. Vista can't even be bought for that much money. And the hardware it requires (at a minimum) runs probably $80 used. Why bother even including ICS anymore?
I assume your suggesting that the kid has ditched the bracelet.
If you found your kid's RFID bracelet behind a trash can, would you assume the kid ditched it? The suggestion is rather that someone else removed it, with ulterior motives. You can't honestly tell me that a mass-produced (read: cheap) bracelet can stand up to a good pocketknife. You misunderstand grandparent, and for that matter the intent of the bracelets. If you think that a flimsy bracelet using an insecure technology is sufficient protection to give children freedom when you normally wouldn't, you overestimate the technology. The purpose of this is so that when you tell your kid "stay in this area and be back in half an hour", if they aren't back in half an hour, you can get hold of park security, and they will tell you where your kid is. But if you do that, you're not showing that you trust your kid very much. RFID is better suited to a proximity alarm anyway, which brings us back to the fact that you should be able to keep a better eye on your kids yourself.
A much more interesting idea (to me) is bar code bracelets. When you enter the park, each guest gets a bracelet printed with a unique bar code. Note this is cheaper than an RFID bracelet. If you want to use CodeGreen(tm) for your children, you scan your bracelet. A digital photo is taken for each of your children and is linked to your bar code, and they get a special colored bracelet made of a special plastic or some similarly resilient material (which are not perfect but are a pain in the ass to get off, even with a knife). They can't leave the park without you. As children leave, if they have the bracelet their photo must be linked to the code printed on an adult's bracelet. If the person accompanying them has no bracelet, or does not match, they are held by park security, and the children are sent back into the park, or if they wish security can accompany them to find their parents. Naturally, in case the bar code bracelet is destroyed, there needs to be an alternate identification, such as driver's license number and state, linked into the database. The system isn't perfect, but it does add some security. A UV-sensitive photo-luminescent (normally invisible) hand stamp could be substituted for the bracelet, or used in addition to it - the bracelet is more obvious to remove, but harder to remove accidentally.
Spokespeople for the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq declined to comment on the cyber-terror threat.
By declining to comment, they neither incite panic by saying that the threat is real (which would happen, the public tends to seriously overestimate the impact, ease, and likelihood of cyberterrorism), nor claim that it is not and wind up being criticized for underestimating the threat in the event it is. The latter is just good common sense, but choosing not to explicitly acknowledge the threat, thus allowing the public to remain disillusioned that it's impossible because the NYSE and Nasdaq are "smart enough" to stop an attack, is an unusual tactic, and one that I for one am glad to see one of the most powerful organizations in corporate America adopting. It's an excellent way to prevent spreading FUD while not trying to fool anyone, including themselves.
By the time I finish writing this, I'm sure it'll have been said, but the fact is, it doesn't matter what he did, so long as it was nonviolent and nonthreatening. He was an asshole, yes. But at no point, at least in the video, was he at all threatening or violent. Uncooperative, yes, but that's called passive resistance - certainly not reason to use the human equivalent of a cattle prod. The police are supposed to be trained to deal with uncooperative people. They're supposed to be level-headed. I for one would like to see all of these officers fired since they are obviously psychologically incapable of performing their jobs properly, or at the very least forced to attend some anger management councilling.
I understand they were angry. But last I checked, the law didn't say that I could taze someone just because they pissed me off. How can we respect a police force that doesn't even TRY to hold themselves to the same standard?
I recall being in Oakland and SF in 2003, the amount of homeless was disgusting.
Yeah, it is. It is everywhere. But frankly, as other posters have already said, it's not that hard to find a job. You don't need skills - all you need is a rough grasp of English and the ability to get clean. The first, I'd say most people have (those that don't are known as "illegal immigrants", but mostly have jobs, albeit underpaid). The ability to get clean is somewhat harder these days. But there are places that provide help - in Seattle, my hometown, there is for example Union Gospel Mission. Nearly any church, branch of government, or other organization that provides services to the public at large will probably either help or help people to find help. The fact is, those who are homeless are typically not willing to make an effort to find a home and a job. There are exceptions - I admit that many people are unable to work for health reasons. However, even then those that are willing to seek help can often find it. This isn't perfect, of course, there are exceptions. But we try to fix those.
Fact is, homeless people are pretty well-off in the United States. It is not hard for them to get food. They are allowed to live as they please, provided they do not interfere with others property rights. (again, note there are exceptions - there is an effort in Seattle called Tent City that has been forced to relocate multiple times because people don't trust them - despite that the administrators of Tent City, such as they are, keep it clean - alcohol is not allowed, for example) Remember, there was a time when the poor would have been sent to prison, or workhouses, for no greater crime than being poor. Nowadays, we do all we reasonably can as a society to help the poor.
The poster writes that when he comes away from a game of Defcon, he feels reflective, kind of sad, about it. I think that's exactly what Introversion Software wants. It's a great game, yeah, but when you play for a while and then notice, for the first time, distorted coughs and crying played randomly as part of the soundtrack, it kind of makes you stop and think. It's like, damn, I did that.
I think most games are not capable of teaching the dark side of violence. I hate to keep going back to it, but GTA is convenient here. You get points for killing. Other, less controversial games, too. Most FPS's, to an extent. Even that one racing game (Burnout?) where one game mode involves causing as much damage as you possibly can. Most games depict a cartoonish, unreal, detached violence.
Not to sound like an advertisement, but I got the same feeling of the violence making you think in Introversion's Darwinia, too. You get attached to the Darwinians, and then you have to send hordes of them to battle the virus infection. And when they do kill viruses, you have to go collect the souls of virus and Darwinian alike.
Personally, I'd like to see more games that have a more realistic depiction of violence.
Yes, but since filtering traffic by reading it would require not only several supercomputers but also a blatant disregard for said laws, it must be done by analyzing traffic flow. Anyone who's running an ISP and reading this, don't even waste your money. Trying to analyze traffic which does not neccessarily conform to any particular standard, and is encrypted at that, is a futile effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably too difficult to prevent - CID is an in-band squirt of data at 1200 baud.
More to the point, and as you alluded to, security is all about balancing safety (or security, if you will) and functionality. In this case, I believe that not including Teredo on by default as a security hole is a fallacy. Sure, it adds functionality, but at the same time, creates significant security problems without notifying or asking the user. And grandparent, know what you're talking about. A Hexago tunnel is easy enough to come by on Linux, and very little work to set up (literally cut and paste). Teredo can be run on Linux too, though I cannot recall how.
Basically, it comes down to this: Microsoft sacrificed what could potentially be a significant amount of security for a feature that is meaningless, and for that matter useless, to the majority of users (at least for now, and Microsoft has a tolerable patch system, so...). And that feature is on by default, without asking the user. So, yeah, I'd call that a security hole.
How do I know?
* The writing style is juvenile, and though Thompson may be a fool, he is a lawyer, which means he knows how to write official-looking documents, and that was too casual for even a professional memo.
* Who the hell has ever heard of GameAlmighty? Attention whores like Thompson don't CC legal threats to unheard-of small gaming blogs with about a hundred readers. They CC it to NBC or something.
* Who the hell has ever heard of GameAlmighty? Claiming to have received a letter from Jack Thompson is an extremely effective way to get hits.
* Thompson already sent a letter to Bill Gates, about Counter-Strike. If he was going to send a letter about Halo 3, it would likely go to Steve Jobs.
* Again with the writing style. It just feels very, very wrong. Can we get a literature/psychology professor/professional to analyze these?
I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I'll be the one laughing. Or maybe you will, and I'll be laughing at myself. I could be wrong.
Any NYC blackouts in recent decades have indeed been SNAFU, and they've had nothing to do with the physical layer (if you'll indulge me in applying the OSI model to power lines). And yeah, there have been a lot as grandparent and parent say, that were human error - whether overdraw, or whatever. Those in my time (not very long, shall we say) have had nothing even to do with humans. The one that comes to mind was VERY recent, and was much bigger than NYC. Took out the entire northeast, and part of Canada. It was a software problem - cascading failovers that hearkened back to the AT&T debacle in 1994. I can guarantee you that this cable, although certainly a good idea due to its inherent boost to grid capacity, will do nothing to stop that sort of thing. So although I tend to agree that users are a problem, a bigger problem is that machines just don't listen.
The desire for anonymity is not an admission of wrongdoing, or even guilt. In the United States you can sue for virtually anything. Many schools are terrified of giving students bad grades because the student might feel bad and their parent might sue the school/district/teacher for causing emotional stress or some nonsense like that. I don't blame people for posting information anonymously that might attract a lawsuit, even if it is already public record.
Also - he did provide a link to the page where the number is posted, so it's obviously already public and legal to repost. See above about the US's retarded civil law system.
I'll probably be modded off-topic or something, but you should find a better - or more specific - reason than emotional distress. Fear of "emotional distress" suits is why some schools have stopped using red ink to grade, or even grading all together - it might make the kids that don't do as well feel bad. Of course, the school doesn't give a damn about making the kids feel bad - they're there to teach, not reassure, after all - but they're terrified to do it because you can sue a school for anything these days.
Actually, although lawyers may not want you to know this, the safe harbor clause in the DMCA is somewhat redundant - almost as though they thought that by spelling out a particular case would make people think that other cases of the host not being liable do not exist. (Note: some of the framers of the US Bill of Rights were wary of spelling out certain rights because some idiot might decide that doing so excluded other rights.) Rather effective, it seems to me.
The "safe harbor" that would be relevant in digg's case is not part of the DMCA at all - it's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (one of the few parts that has not been struck down as unconstitutional). It states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Whether or not it applies here is somewhat debatable, but I can assure you that this is how craigslist survives, how blogs and slashdot can have comments, and so forth. Additionally, this is how many websites that allow anonymous posting protect themselves when illegal content is posted.
So let's stop talking about the DMCA safe harbor, which we've long ago established is irrelevant here - that clause is a load of political bullshit if I ever saw one. Just giving my two cents.
Except that generally, you would use the RTP protocol to stream, not just raw UDP. (Why? Experiment on an iffy connection using unicast VLC streams and you'll find out.) An integral part of the RTP standard is RTCP which provides a way for listeners to send control signals back to the sender and vice versa - primarily simple reports that they're listening and out-of-band stream information (song title, for example) respectively, although the spec provides for other application-specific uses. In fact, Section 6.2.1 of the RTP spec in RFC 3550 states that stream senders should keep track of listeners using RTCP.
Don't get me wrong though, multicast will be a huge boon to internet radio when and if it becomes commonplace. Think of the bandwidth savings by sending only a few streams of packets instead of hundreds.
You should check your math, there. You're complaining about a 12 Megabit per second line maxing at 1 MegaByte per second download speed. That's exactly what they told you - 12 Mb/s is 1.5 MB/s, and if you consider protocol overhead - TCP and NNTP (though I'm not sure NNTP introduces much overhead) - and overhead from other sources, and so on, 1 MB isn't half bad. Latency is a valid complaint, maybe. Your complaints about timeouts when web surfing and whatnot are interesting, though. What are you running as your router behind the modem (which seems implied)? How many other connections - TCP and UDP (yeah UDP is connectionless, but that's how the router thinks about it) are you using? A lot of home routers choke on large numbers of connections.
One tip for usenet - although you seem to be maxing your line anyway - some providers have a way to select a particular route to/from them. Easynews, maximumusenet, and I think giganews can do this, and likely others. Try their traceroute page and pick the one with the fewest hops, or shortest latency, to you.
Pray is a synonym for "plead". Notably it's not used much in the American vernacular, only in some extremely formal speech, and, as you see, legalese.
It can also be used as a synonym for "please" as in the semi-archaic phrase "pray tell".
And I'm some people think that the deaf market will cease to exist as technology advances - after all, cerebral implants are already pretty good. But it won't, first off because technology will always be expensive, and second, because some people are proud to be deaf. I have deaf friends who say they know people who threw away their cerebral implant (the part that goes on the outside, obviously), or at least they don't use it. Then again, they also say that may be in part due to peer pressure (hard to explain - some deaf people apparently feel that those who get the CI are traitors to their culture, or somesuch), but some people just would rather be deaf.
Anyway, T-mobile's not going anywhere. Regardless of ridiculous restrictions on it, people who really care about the cost of data plans - like the teenagers mentioned above - don't really care what they can't do with it. They just want to be able to text their friends and have the newest 16kbps version of whatever is topping the charts at the moment without paying much. The rest of you probably make your own money and don't have to explain to Mommy and Daddy why you want a new cell phone.
I can only assume they refer to the Internet. If you are in an emergency, and you have something to communicate that must be sent over the Internet, you don't have emergency communications. Your communications should take priority, sure - and I think that if there was such a bandwidth shortage, it would be a matter of only days before thousands more miles of dark fiber were lit up and the Internet restored to normal.
As for REAL emergency communications - matters of life and death, and of serious health issues - there is an infrastructure in place that has been for nearly a hundred years, consisting of radio communications between amateur radio operators, military personnel, FEMA and other government organizations, and a variety of independent relief organizations from the Red Cross to Worldview. And unlike the Internet, this system has strict rules about what gets priority - first, matters of life and death, classified EMERGENCY, second, other emergency-related messages, labelled priority, third, status messages, labelled welfare, and last normal traffic. In even the worst disasters, from Katrina to September 11, 2001, this system has never been overloaded. And yes, radio amateurs served during both disasters.
The big telecom companies need to stop spreading FUD so they can get bigger subsidies. And frankly, so what if people can't get to work? If there's a worldwide flu pandemic, there won't be many customers until it's over anyway. And yeah, businesses will lose money. But all of them will, so the playing field will remain level. It worked in Western Washington - anyone from around there remembers the snow in November and the wind in December - between the two storms most of the area's businesses were closed for at least three or four days, and life went on.
Here's why: the FBI probably uses this technique, in some cases, to track down child porn. True, most cases these days are probably copyright infringement cases demanded by the industry, but given today's power-hungry government and legislators who think their primary mandate is to keep their office, all the FBI has to do is say that they use it to combat child porn and no one but the district court or higher will touch it - and that takes months or years.
You may ask why I say this. Wikipedia COPA, COPPA, CIPA, Communications Decency Act (the parts that the courts struck down). Claim you're protecting children and you can get away with anything. Now, I'm not saying these laws are a bad thing - they're well-intentioned, but badly thought out and the difficulties of doing what they demand on the Internet were not considered.
Congratulations, you're part of the reason that Amateur Radio doesn't look so attractive to people anymore. I'm a Tech class (no code) licensed less than a year before restructuring. Of about seven people in my class, I was the only one to pass novice, much less tech, written exams. Those questions (yes, even the new Technician exam - I've helped people study) are plenty to keep out people who don't give a damn about the hobby. For a time, I was an ARRL member, and there were times when I almost did dedicate time to learn Morse code. But then I'd see a letter to the editor in QST about how removing the Morse requirement (back before the ARRL took an official stance) would ruin the hobby, and how if it happened they'd just go stay in the CW bands and tap out messages too fast for the newbies to copy anyway. The fact is, it wasn't the difficulty of Morse that made me lose interest. I've used systems similar to Code Quick before, and I know it would work for me. I think I didn't want to wind up running into your kind whining about the good old days when CW ruled the airwaves. Fortunately, everyone I've met on the VHF bands that I AM allowed access to has been extremely friendly. For this reason I probably will study for and upgrade to General or Extra in the near future.
So please, follow through on your threat and stay in the CW bands, at least if you're going to be like that. If you want to see Amateur radio die, you've got the right idea. Don't mentor newbies, don't try to show them just how great CW still is. Ignore them, let them see that they aren't wanted.
Amateur radio's allure to me has always been the ability to speak to people far away, be it the space shuttle, Iraq, Germany, South Africa, or maybe just a few hundred miles over a regional repeater net. (such as the Evergreen Intertie) Removing the CW restriction makes it easier to achieve this goal for all interested people, and I can see no way that something that can encourage individual, international ties can be a bad thing.
For the record, I plan to learn Morse code at some point. I always wanted to build and use the Tuna Tin Transmitter. It's just that between High school and now college, family, friends, a job, and so forth, it's hard to find any time at all.
I've rambled a bit here, so back on topic: don't shun new people. If you think they should know Morse code, then lead them to good resources. Send slow text for them, so they can learn to copy in real-world conditions. Mentor them. Mentor us, I should say. Otherwise, those few remaining CW bands will be a mighty lonely place once your generation is gone.
-73 and good night de WN5FIZ
It's actually considerably more challenging. First, there's the art. You need a lot of people with a lot of time to do a lot of models. Second, there's the bandwidth. Consider that a MUD could work with the bandwidth, of, say, and IRC server. In fact that's not a bad idea... but I digress. MMOs require streaming multimedia, massive patches (since not everything is server side), download-on-demand textures and maps, and so on. And the servers also need to track the exact 3d coordinates of every player, NPC, monster, and item. In short, the main reason that the only OS MMO I know of (PlaneShift) is not particularly complete is a lack of infrastructure to work with, not to mention the sheer complexity of tracking all the required information server-side.
Google doesn't mind people doing this sort of thing. Remember how they aren't evil? Having seen how they respond to other people using their services at times, I give it a day or two (or maybe until this guy wins) before some software engineer at Google writes a Google Blog post about how they're thrilled that people are taking advantage of their service to defend themselves, since the query suggested earlier in this thread is on his blog.
And I personally still say the same thing about XP's requirements. And ESPECIALLY about Vista's. Note that "minimum" requirements mean, in my experience, that sure, you could run it, but could you possibly want to? Sure, any computer less than about four years old probably CAN run Vista (though it may require a memory upgrade - many computers still only came with 256 until maybe a year or two ago). But would you want to? I personally have run Windows 2000 on relatively ancient machines - 400 or so MHz processors, I think 64M of RAM, and so on - and I think they're still running, somehow - but don't wish to repeat the experience. However they could run, was the primary point. Why can't Vista come even close to that? It's not the interface - it can still fall back to classic mode or whatever it is they call it now. There is no excuse for that requiring any more than a simple VGA-capable graphics card, either. Remember "Safe Mode"? Why can't it cut back so that all it's really running is a simple firewall (though without all the frivolous services, that shouldn't be necessary if the few that are system-critical are written properly) and whatever the user has started, let's say Internet Explorer and an old version of Word (again, requirements)? My parents own a computer that has been running Windows 98, with Office 97, for nearly 9 years now. It could use an upgrade to Win2k, certainly, but why not something with some obvious security features that earlier versions of Windows irresponsibly neglected, like the default non-privileged user in Vista?
I don't want to make this thread even more off-topic, but I think that Microsoft should consider how Linux handles this (though it's probably too late to implement it): abstract everything. Got a computer that can't handle the newest version of, say, KDE or Gnome? Fine, try XFCE. Or Fluxbox, or... Same underlying code to draw stuff. With AIGLX and nVidia's AIGLX-type extensions, even Compiz and Beryl (think Aero Glass with more toys) don't need separate code. Can't handle Aero Glass? Fine, try Aero. Can't handle Aero? Try Classic mode. Miracle that your computer still runs at all? Disable some eye candy in Classic. And frankly, if the GUI in its most stripped-down form can't run on the same spec hardware that runs Windows 98 perfectly, maybe the code needs to be cleaned up. I'm not a software engineer, I just yell at bad ones. Look, the OS I run can run a box that acts as a home router on hardware that costs literally $20 US. Vista can't even be bought for that much money. And the hardware it requires (at a minimum) runs probably $80 used. Why bother even including ICS anymore?
If you found your kid's RFID bracelet behind a trash can, would you assume the kid ditched it? The suggestion is rather that someone else removed it, with ulterior motives. You can't honestly tell me that a mass-produced (read: cheap) bracelet can stand up to a good pocketknife. You misunderstand grandparent, and for that matter the intent of the bracelets. If you think that a flimsy bracelet using an insecure technology is sufficient protection to give children freedom when you normally wouldn't, you overestimate the technology. The purpose of this is so that when you tell your kid "stay in this area and be back in half an hour", if they aren't back in half an hour, you can get hold of park security, and they will tell you where your kid is. But if you do that, you're not showing that you trust your kid very much. RFID is better suited to a proximity alarm anyway, which brings us back to the fact that you should be able to keep a better eye on your kids yourself.
A much more interesting idea (to me) is bar code bracelets. When you enter the park, each guest gets a bracelet printed with a unique bar code. Note this is cheaper than an RFID bracelet. If you want to use CodeGreen(tm) for your children, you scan your bracelet. A digital photo is taken for each of your children and is linked to your bar code, and they get a special colored bracelet made of a special plastic or some similarly resilient material (which are not perfect but are a pain in the ass to get off, even with a knife). They can't leave the park without you. As children leave, if they have the bracelet their photo must be linked to the code printed on an adult's bracelet. If the person accompanying them has no bracelet, or does not match, they are held by park security, and the children are sent back into the park, or if they wish security can accompany them to find their parents. Naturally, in case the bar code bracelet is destroyed, there needs to be an alternate identification, such as driver's license number and state, linked into the database. The system isn't perfect, but it does add some security. A UV-sensitive photo-luminescent (normally invisible) hand stamp could be substituted for the bracelet, or used in addition to it - the bracelet is more obvious to remove, but harder to remove accidentally.
Quit denying the facts, Steve. We have every right to reject your Wikiality and substitute our own.
By the time I finish writing this, I'm sure it'll have been said, but the fact is, it doesn't matter what he did, so long as it was nonviolent and nonthreatening. He was an asshole, yes. But at no point, at least in the video, was he at all threatening or violent. Uncooperative, yes, but that's called passive resistance - certainly not reason to use the human equivalent of a cattle prod. The police are supposed to be trained to deal with uncooperative people. They're supposed to be level-headed. I for one would like to see all of these officers fired since they are obviously psychologically incapable of performing their jobs properly, or at the very least forced to attend some anger management councilling.
I understand they were angry. But last I checked, the law didn't say that I could taze someone just because they pissed me off. How can we respect a police force that doesn't even TRY to hold themselves to the same standard?
Yeah, it is. It is everywhere. But frankly, as other posters have already said, it's not that hard to find a job. You don't need skills - all you need is a rough grasp of English and the ability to get clean. The first, I'd say most people have (those that don't are known as "illegal immigrants", but mostly have jobs, albeit underpaid). The ability to get clean is somewhat harder these days. But there are places that provide help - in Seattle, my hometown, there is for example Union Gospel Mission. Nearly any church, branch of government, or other organization that provides services to the public at large will probably either help or help people to find help. The fact is, those who are homeless are typically not willing to make an effort to find a home and a job. There are exceptions - I admit that many people are unable to work for health reasons. However, even then those that are willing to seek help can often find it. This isn't perfect, of course, there are exceptions. But we try to fix those.
Fact is, homeless people are pretty well-off in the United States. It is not hard for them to get food. They are allowed to live as they please, provided they do not interfere with others property rights. (again, note there are exceptions - there is an effort in Seattle called Tent City that has been forced to relocate multiple times because people don't trust them - despite that the administrators of Tent City, such as they are, keep it clean - alcohol is not allowed, for example) Remember, there was a time when the poor would have been sent to prison, or workhouses, for no greater crime than being poor. Nowadays, we do all we reasonably can as a society to help the poor.
The poster writes that when he comes away from a game of Defcon, he feels reflective, kind of sad, about it. I think that's exactly what Introversion Software wants. It's a great game, yeah, but when you play for a while and then notice, for the first time, distorted coughs and crying played randomly as part of the soundtrack, it kind of makes you stop and think. It's like, damn, I did that.
I think most games are not capable of teaching the dark side of violence. I hate to keep going back to it, but GTA is convenient here. You get points for killing. Other, less controversial games, too. Most FPS's, to an extent. Even that one racing game (Burnout?) where one game mode involves causing as much damage as you possibly can. Most games depict a cartoonish, unreal, detached violence.
Not to sound like an advertisement, but I got the same feeling of the violence making you think in Introversion's Darwinia, too. You get attached to the Darwinians, and then you have to send hordes of them to battle the virus infection. And when they do kill viruses, you have to go collect the souls of virus and Darwinian alike.
Personally, I'd like to see more games that have a more realistic depiction of violence.Yes, but since filtering traffic by reading it would require not only several supercomputers but also a blatant disregard for said laws, it must be done by analyzing traffic flow. Anyone who's running an ISP and reading this, don't even waste your money. Trying to analyze traffic which does not neccessarily conform to any particular standard, and is encrypted at that, is a futile effort.