hey, they're up and running around. they're doing their part to fight the looming obesity crisis, in addition to training to combat the looming undead crisis. =D
So...yeah. Make a cell call from 30,000 feet and get back to us. being as we're only talking about 5-6 miles of completely open air, i don't think that would be a problem, though you'd be jumping cells pretty frequently, which is presume is why they're putting a cell site on the plane itself.
counting isn't the hard part. the problem is finding all of them and collecting all the other demographic trivia, then collating and interpreting those findings.
3. it still does what is needed and we haven't come up with something else that is sufficiently better to justify the problems associated with 1 and 2.
it is, so long as it remains in a non-powder form or is sealed away. there's a good bit of it in the roof of my house, though to get it at, you'd have to knock holes through the roof, so it's fairly safe. but it's good to know it's there incase we do want to knock holes through the roof at some point in the future.
should have clarified that i wouldn't count any money not directly spent (lawyers working pro bono/on contingency). they spent $0 of their own money on the lawyer, so in my example, they would be liable for exactly $0 in the defendant's legal fees if they were to lose. being as no sensible lawyer would take a frivolous case on contingency (it's simply a bad risk), that should be safe from abuse.
Because it significantly raises the potential cost of suing someone only when done in a stupid manner.
a sensible manner (which is used in some places, i believe) would be something like equal claimable fees. if you (the plaintiff) spend $1000 on your lawyer and you lose, you won't have to pay more than $1000 worth of legal fees to the defendant (and the $1000 to your lawyer, of course). if you win, they pay your legal fees ($1000) and whatever they spent on (a) lawyer(s). this would also have the effect of making it less viable to attempt russian army tactics by throwing 30 high priced lawyers at you.
going by what i'm hearing from friends, it's practically everything except unencrypted HTTP and FTP traffic that's getting throttled. a friend of mine in toronto is extremely pissed off as her VOIP service appears to be getting throttled.
so was my aunt (on an old packard bell junker) until i hand-me-down-cycled her my sister's old computer (1ghz p3 with 512 ram) and put xubuntu on it. works great for her purposes (mahjong, email, and looking for recipes). now i need to find a cheap lcd screen as that old CRT won't fit where she wants it in her new apartment.
which (i assume) was paid vs. paid. this is going to be paid vs. free. question being : will "available everywhere*, but pay for" win over "available in many places, but free"?
which is even worse than satalite, which requires a trip into orbit and back. how in hell are they getting that much latency on a terrestrial connection? i'm typing this over a wireless internet service (sasktel's DOCSIS-based LOS wireless broadband. runs in the 2.5GHZ band, i believe. uses a big 24dB dish antenna (roughly the size of a satalite dish), so not portable.) and current uptime is 73 days and counting. bandwidth isn't great (2m/256k) and it's pretty pricy ($60/month), but it works for the last mile (or last 15 miles in my case).
Sasktel does the same thing with their wireless gateways, though they use WEP as they were getting unending complaints about WPA as various pieces of old/stupidly designed hardware would only work with WEP.
Oh whups, that 5 second key, not so easy. That would be a very easily crackable form of wireless, yet again. WEP is laughably broken, but last i heard, WPA is still secure for this purpose.
exactly. the definition of "consent" would be in conflict between the technological definition (open network allowing you to connect) vs. owner's consent and whether the former reasonably implies the latter.
The obvious problem being that an uneducated public will not necessarily vote for educated people. They'll vote for people they agree with, or at least people they think they agree with.
In many areas, the ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, the company that owns the physical lines) is required to lease out said lines to any CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, a company that provides service over said lines, but leases them rather than owns them) who wishes to provide services (usually DSL) over them.
In most of those same areas, phone lines without phone service (called "dry" lines) are available, allowing DSL service without having phone service.
Apparently no such arrangement exists in your area.
Though I have no idea why they decided on those terminologies.
Slashdot Mirror
hey, they're up and running around. they're doing their part to fight the looming obesity crisis, in addition to training to combat the looming undead crisis. =D
huh? how are you getting $3600 savings?
105W*1500h=157KWhr*$0.12=$18.84
50W*2004h=100.2KWhr*$0.12=$12.02 (2004 is 1500+(24*21) to account for the extra time)
savings of $6.82.
why are you adding in another 30k kwhr?
question is, where do you draw the line between "follows the standard" and "renders real websites correctly"?
counting isn't the hard part. the problem is finding all of them and collecting all the other demographic trivia, then collating and interpreting those findings.
3. it still does what is needed and we haven't come up with something else that is sufficiently better to justify the problems associated with 1 and 2.
in short, becauseitkeepsworking.
it is, so long as it remains in a non-powder form or is sealed away. there's a good bit of it in the roof of my house, though to get it at, you'd have to knock holes through the roof, so it's fairly safe. but it's good to know it's there incase we do want to knock holes through the roof at some point in the future.
should have clarified that i wouldn't count any money not directly spent (lawyers working pro bono/on contingency). they spent $0 of their own money on the lawyer, so in my example, they would be liable for exactly $0 in the defendant's legal fees if they were to lose. being as no sensible lawyer would take a frivolous case on contingency (it's simply a bad risk), that should be safe from abuse.
a sensible manner (which is used in some places, i believe) would be something like equal claimable fees. if you (the plaintiff) spend $1000 on your lawyer and you lose, you won't have to pay more than $1000 worth of legal fees to the defendant (and the $1000 to your lawyer, of course). if you win, they pay your legal fees ($1000) and whatever they spent on (a) lawyer(s). this would also have the effect of making it less viable to attempt russian army tactics by throwing 30 high priced lawyers at you.
i believe some do allow for lawyer fees, but it's capped at a couple hundred dollars or so.
better yet, complain to your ISP and the CRTC, as i'm sure this violates regulations or at least qualifies as unfair business practises.
going by what i'm hearing from friends, it's practically everything except unencrypted HTTP and FTP traffic that's getting throttled. a friend of mine in toronto is extremely pissed off as her VOIP service appears to be getting throttled.
so was my aunt (on an old packard bell junker) until i hand-me-down-cycled her my sister's old computer (1ghz p3 with 512 ram) and put xubuntu on it. works great for her purposes (mahjong, email, and looking for recipes). now i need to find a cheap lcd screen as that old CRT won't fit where she wants it in her new apartment.
which (i assume) was paid vs. paid. this is going to be paid vs. free. question being : will "available everywhere*, but pay for" win over "available in many places, but free"?
which is even worse than satalite, which requires a trip into orbit and back. how in hell are they getting that much latency on a terrestrial connection? i'm typing this over a wireless internet service (sasktel's DOCSIS-based LOS wireless broadband. runs in the 2.5GHZ band, i believe. uses a big 24dB dish antenna (roughly the size of a satalite dish), so not portable.) and current uptime is 73 days and counting. bandwidth isn't great (2m/256k) and it's pretty pricy ($60/month), but it works for the last mile (or last 15 miles in my case).
the feast of st. john is right around the june solstice, though i can't find anything happening near the september equinox.
Sasktel does the same thing with their wireless gateways, though they use WEP as they were getting unending complaints about WPA as various pieces of old/stupidly designed hardware would only work with WEP.
and how do you define "unauthorized access" even? network is open and allows you connect, so does that qualify as "authorized access" or not?
did that bill ever go anywhere?
exactly. the definition of "consent" would be in conflict between the technological definition (open network allowing you to connect) vs. owner's consent and whether the former reasonably implies the latter.
The obvious problem being that an uneducated public will not necessarily vote for educated people. They'll vote for people they agree with, or at least people they think they agree with.
basic integer addition is not trivial?
maybe the problem is they're using floats rather than ints.
In many areas, the ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, the company that owns the physical lines) is required to lease out said lines to any CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, a company that provides service over said lines, but leases them rather than owns them) who wishes to provide services (usually DSL) over them.
In most of those same areas, phone lines without phone service (called "dry" lines) are available, allowing DSL service without having phone service.
Apparently no such arrangement exists in your area.
Though I have no idea why they decided on those terminologies.
I don't think that will help. Last I heard, Rogers throttles all encrypted traffic.