That's not going to work. If you've got the drone connected to your laptop via Wifi, unless you want your laptop (and drone) owned in short order, you're going to use an encrypted connection.
And unless this other device can get on the network, it's not going to do any punting.
The entire concept behind this device is that it can keep unwanted devices off of PUBLIC networks, such as those provided by schools, restaurants, hotels, businesses, etc.
So yeah; if someone's flying a drone via a Starbuck's hotspot, this could cause it to land. It won't cause it to crash, because recreational drones that use WiFi have built-in autopilot to handle just such situations, where the controller is no longer accessible. It sets down gently, unless you've reprogrammed the drone intentionally to not do this (in which case you're in contravention of a few laws already).
"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
I don't know about that... by that interpretation, any RST packet sent over Wifi would be illegal.
This is the digital equivalent of saying "Hey You! Yeah, Google Glass with MAC ID XXXXYYYY! Get off my lawn!"
The rule for Part 15 devices (which includes Google Glasses) is that they must accept any signal interference and fail gracefully, and they must not cause interference with other signals using the spectrum.
It doesn't cause any interference with the transmissions, it just sends a message on the transport layer that the device should leave.
In the first case thousands if not hundred of thousands of 'natives' got harmed. In the chinese case no one gets harmed.
That depends on the 'one' -- I'm pretty sure the corals and the fisheries that depend upon them aren't considered "not harmed". But that's a really good way to extend your country; I'm surprised we don't see it more often.
That's why they've rolled out the Apple Watch -- you store your phone away somewhere, and just deal with the watch as your interface. The phone comes out if you're taking pictures/video, or looking at pictures/video, or using an app that isn't available on the Watch.
That said, I used to be in the "yay, Apple is staying with a small phone" camp -- now however, eyesight is more of an issue than it used to be, and their old form factor is just a tad too small for comfort. So I'm glad there are options.
This. I found the article question a bit odd, as it seems to imply you should only learn languages that have, or will become in high demand and land you a job with a good paying salary.
The other thing that playing around with esoteric languages will do is let you review other people's code with a fresh perspective, no matter the language. If you wrap your head around the mindset behind enough languages, it'll be easy to spot where someone has written code in a certain mindset and blinkered themselves to certain issues they my hit in the language they're using.
Oh, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned LISP. Let's all learn to think recursively.
An interesting part of all this is that Netflix already has to play by Canadian rules to some degree, as licensing for Canada isn't the same as for the US, so in Canada, you get NetFlix Canada, which has different content. I'm pretty sure they'd actually be more than happy to play by the Canadian Content rules (they already offer French content, just like Apple) as long as they could get reasonable discounts on Canadian content creation so that it would be competitive.
Google has nothing to worry about really, as there's already a huge amount of Canadian content on YouTube. Of course, if they're asked to regulate to a percentage of total content offered, that would be a significant issue, as YouTube doesn't work that way.
In BC, you can get liquor from a microbrewery, and from various other establishments licensed to sell it. 30 years ago, the BC Liquor Store was the only game in town, but with the advent of microbreweries all over BC, this changed. People were kind of upset that some of the best alcoholic beverages were made in BC, but you had to go to Washington State in order to buy them.
So now, while you still see the BCL stores, you can get your cans/bottles/kegs from all sorts of places.
Other provinces also have the freedom to regulate as they see fit now; most have decided to just go with what's always been done.
Ontario's always been an odd fish, with way stricter regulations, often just because "that's the way it's always been done, and deregulation is a slippery slope." So you get things like mandatory Grade 13 for students going into Ontario universities (but those from outside the province don't need to take it), mandatory business closure on boxing day (even though the reason for this is lost in the mists of time for most), all the OPP-related regulations (I always found it odd that the RCMP polices so much of the country, but can't police Ontario, where it (was) headquartered), etc. Look into dairy regulations in Ontario, and you'll find they're even worse than liquor regulations, due to the fact that they used to be in heavy competition with Quebec back before confederacy....
And you're absolutely right about the major issue here being "Will I have to give up something I value if I really accept these results." Of course, people will care the moment one of those femto-second lasers causes a miniature black hole to appear in the middle of a supermarket because someone didn't fully understand the theory (see the barcode wars of the 70's and early 80's if you don't get this humor).
I think there are two issues here; one is people trying to use science as a tool to prove their religious or political point. The second is more troubling -- we have got to the point where people specialize so much that while scientific evidence may be reproducible in theory, in reality there are only a limited number of facilities in the world that can reproduce the experiments, and only a limited number of individuals with the background knowledge and skills to pull it off. This of course doesn't apply to things like relativity, but any time that someone can't reproduce the results of an experiment themselves, they have to turn to consensus of those who did. There's no way around that, other than running a "best approximation" experiment that contains a massive range of deviation.
Another thing to remember is that any scientific investigation is an approximation based on limited human understanding -- people tend to have this built-in desire to tell stories, and the scientific method is all about telling a reproducible story. Whether the reproduction is accurate enough is fully down to the means of measuring that accuracy, which in the end is done by human beings, albeit sometimes with the use of tools.
Added on to this, you have numerous scientific theories which are only partially proven, either due to halting issues, or due to lack of tools that can make accurate enough measurements -- and those theories are the basis for other processes which are required for other scientific experiments. If the original theory is proven to be false at some point (like atoms being the smallest particles in the universe), every experiment which takes that as a given fact (due often to scientific consensus, not due to a stated limitation in the experiment itself) has then to be re-run with the new data to be anything other than a nice story.
Like what? I've been trying to figure that out, I can't see anything.
Improved use of routing tables/efficient distribution for mass-consumable data (movies, facebook logos, etc). For any problem the Internet was actually designed to solve, it is either equal, or less efficient than TCP over IP.
Basically, this could be a better protocol for any CDNs, but loses all efficiency gains pretty much everywhere else -- which reinforces Eravnrekaree's original point.
I get what you're saying, but I don't get how NDN is supposed to replace TCP/IP. Sure, it replaces many things done with UDP, and it even can do some things better than TCP, but it's not going to be replacing IPvX any time soon, just as TCP and UDP and ICMP etc. can happily co-exist.
What I find interesting is that there's been an implementation of NDN/IP for YEARS -- it's called Freenet. Something tells me that the sponsoring groups wouldn't like to see this particular implementation be the first thing to try out their new network layer however....
The whole idea that there is no actual Russian invasion falls a little flat when there are captured and dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and the official Russian line is that those soldiers, apparently with all of their military equipment and supplies, voluntarily invaded Ukraine on their vacations. You would think that Russia wouldn't want their soldiers taking tanks and artillery on vacation with them, but maybe they just do things a little differently in Russia.
By the way, it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". I would expect 8 former intelligence officials to know that, or at least be consistent in their so-called "memo".
I thought Russia had changed that line once they got a reasonable foothold over the weekend?
As for Ukraine vs "the Ukraine" -- "There are different hypotheses as to the etymology of the name Ukraine. According to the older and most widespread hypothesis, it means "borderland",[21] while more recently some linguistic studies claim a different meaning: "homeland" or "region, country".[22] "The Ukraine" was once the usual form in English[23] but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become much less common in the English-speaking world and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article." -- Wikipedia Etymology of Ukraine.
Part of the reason for that is that "the Ukraine" refers to it as being Russia's buffer zone -- not something one wants as a reference for an independent country. This is probably why the more recent "original meanings" refer to homeland instead of borderland.
It took me a while to parse your comment... as the IEEE is an international standards body. Then I realized that you weren't talking about nation states, but half of the party system in the US... and then was lost again figuring out how a standards body pushing a security standard for SAs related to political gerrymandering in the US. Did you mean that the Republican party of the US is intentionally trying to make the Internet less secure, and that an international standards body setting down guidelines for big business to follow when architecting new software designs would somehow annoy them because somehow people would suddenly be required to use such standards to develop software like SSL/LTSP/SSH/etc?
If I'd stated that damage on impact was polynomial, I would have been technically correct, but would have drawn blank stares, even on slashdot. Plus, x^1 is polynomial technically. Squared would have been more accurate, but would have just made the sentence more complicated.
So I'll leave the pedantry up to the responses, and let people understand the implication based on what I originally said.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd... the standing desks we've got here are regular desks and lots of outdated reference manuals. Works just fine.
How else is he supposed to attach the photo of some fat slob staring at a keyboard? Duct tape?
That's not going to work. If you've got the drone connected to your laptop via Wifi, unless you want your laptop (and drone) owned in short order, you're going to use an encrypted connection.
And unless this other device can get on the network, it's not going to do any punting.
The entire concept behind this device is that it can keep unwanted devices off of PUBLIC networks, such as those provided by schools, restaurants, hotels, businesses, etc.
So yeah; if someone's flying a drone via a Starbuck's hotspot, this could cause it to land. It won't cause it to crash, because recreational drones that use WiFi have built-in autopilot to handle just such situations, where the controller is no longer accessible. It sets down gently, unless you've reprogrammed the drone intentionally to not do this (in which case you're in contravention of a few laws already).
People can choose to allow or deny access to people and their devices at will.
Glassholes are gonna find that they are as welcomed as smokers in many places.
Ahh... but they'll be able to stand closer to the air intake vents :D
"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
I don't know about that... by that interpretation, any RST packet sent over Wifi would be illegal.
This is the digital equivalent of saying "Hey You! Yeah, Google Glass with MAC ID XXXXYYYY! Get off my lawn!"
The rule for Part 15 devices (which includes Google Glasses) is that they must accept any signal interference and fail gracefully, and they must not cause interference with other signals using the spectrum.
It doesn't cause any interference with the transmissions, it just sends a message on the transport layer that the device should leave.
In the first case thousands if not hundred of thousands of 'natives' got harmed. In the chinese case no one gets harmed.
That depends on the 'one' -- I'm pretty sure the corals and the fisheries that depend upon them aren't considered "not harmed". But that's a really good way to extend your country; I'm surprised we don't see it more often.
That's why they've rolled out the Apple Watch -- you store your phone away somewhere, and just deal with the watch as your interface. The phone comes out if you're taking pictures/video, or looking at pictures/video, or using an app that isn't available on the Watch.
That said, I used to be in the "yay, Apple is staying with a small phone" camp -- now however, eyesight is more of an issue than it used to be, and their old form factor is just a tad too small for comfort. So I'm glad there are options.
You guys are lucky you got such an entertaining livestream.
Mine had this spinning animation and one word:
Loading...
This. I found the article question a bit odd, as it seems to imply you should only learn languages that have, or will become in high demand and land you a job with a good paying salary.
The other thing that playing around with esoteric languages will do is let you review other people's code with a fresh perspective, no matter the language. If you wrap your head around the mindset behind enough languages, it'll be easy to spot where someone has written code in a certain mindset and blinkered themselves to certain issues they my hit in the language they're using.
Oh, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned LISP. Let's all learn to think recursively.
And doing so for a commercial purpose. Which, in theory, could make it criminal.
If I recall correctly, Comcast is currently arguing just this in court -- but for third parties stripping ads from their cable streams.
I think they're going to try really hard to differentiate between the goose and the gander here.
Shh... you're supposed to agree with him! We have a reputation to downplay!
An interesting part of all this is that Netflix already has to play by Canadian rules to some degree, as licensing for Canada isn't the same as for the US, so in Canada, you get NetFlix Canada, which has different content. I'm pretty sure they'd actually be more than happy to play by the Canadian Content rules (they already offer French content, just like Apple) as long as they could get reasonable discounts on Canadian content creation so that it would be competitive.
Google has nothing to worry about really, as there's already a huge amount of Canadian content on YouTube. Of course, if they're asked to regulate to a percentage of total content offered, that would be a significant issue, as YouTube doesn't work that way.
In BC, you can get liquor from a microbrewery, and from various other establishments licensed to sell it. 30 years ago, the BC Liquor Store was the only game in town, but with the advent of microbreweries all over BC, this changed. People were kind of upset that some of the best alcoholic beverages were made in BC, but you had to go to Washington State in order to buy them.
So now, while you still see the BCL stores, you can get your cans/bottles/kegs from all sorts of places.
Other provinces also have the freedom to regulate as they see fit now; most have decided to just go with what's always been done.
Ontario's always been an odd fish, with way stricter regulations, often just because "that's the way it's always been done, and deregulation is a slippery slope." So you get things like mandatory Grade 13 for students going into Ontario universities (but those from outside the province don't need to take it), mandatory business closure on boxing day (even though the reason for this is lost in the mists of time for most), all the OPP-related regulations (I always found it odd that the RCMP polices so much of the country, but can't police Ontario, where it (was) headquartered), etc. Look into dairy regulations in Ontario, and you'll find they're even worse than liquor regulations, due to the fact that they used to be in heavy competition with Quebec back before confederacy....
But... that picture belongs in a museum! /indy
Just look at what the other unix vendors do... for example, Apple. For years, they've forked their Desktop and Server OSes.
Oh wait, they merged them a few years back and now only provide the server functionality as an add-on package.
Well, Microsoft provides a separate fork for Server and Desktop, don't they?
Pedantry always accepted ;)
And you're absolutely right about the major issue here being "Will I have to give up something I value if I really accept these results." Of course, people will care the moment one of those femto-second lasers causes a miniature black hole to appear in the middle of a supermarket because someone didn't fully understand the theory (see the barcode wars of the 70's and early 80's if you don't get this humor).
I think there are two issues here; one is people trying to use science as a tool to prove their religious or political point. The second is more troubling -- we have got to the point where people specialize so much that while scientific evidence may be reproducible in theory, in reality there are only a limited number of facilities in the world that can reproduce the experiments, and only a limited number of individuals with the background knowledge and skills to pull it off. This of course doesn't apply to things like relativity, but any time that someone can't reproduce the results of an experiment themselves, they have to turn to consensus of those who did. There's no way around that, other than running a "best approximation" experiment that contains a massive range of deviation.
Another thing to remember is that any scientific investigation is an approximation based on limited human understanding -- people tend to have this built-in desire to tell stories, and the scientific method is all about telling a reproducible story. Whether the reproduction is accurate enough is fully down to the means of measuring that accuracy, which in the end is done by human beings, albeit sometimes with the use of tools.
Added on to this, you have numerous scientific theories which are only partially proven, either due to halting issues, or due to lack of tools that can make accurate enough measurements -- and those theories are the basis for other processes which are required for other scientific experiments. If the original theory is proven to be false at some point (like atoms being the smallest particles in the universe), every experiment which takes that as a given fact (due often to scientific consensus, not due to a stated limitation in the experiment itself) has then to be re-run with the new data to be anything other than a nice story.
and it even can do some things better than TCP
Like what? I've been trying to figure that out, I can't see anything.
Improved use of routing tables/efficient distribution for mass-consumable data (movies, facebook logos, etc). For any problem the Internet was actually designed to solve, it is either equal, or less efficient than TCP over IP.
Basically, this could be a better protocol for any CDNs, but loses all efficiency gains pretty much everywhere else -- which reinforces Eravnrekaree's original point.
I get what you're saying, but I don't get how NDN is supposed to replace TCP/IP. Sure, it replaces many things done with UDP, and it even can do some things better than TCP, but it's not going to be replacing IPvX any time soon, just as TCP and UDP and ICMP etc. can happily co-exist.
What I find interesting is that there's been an implementation of NDN/IP for YEARS -- it's called Freenet. Something tells me that the sponsoring groups wouldn't like to see this particular implementation be the first thing to try out their new network layer however....
The whole idea that there is no actual Russian invasion falls a little flat when there are captured and dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and the official Russian line is that those soldiers, apparently with all of their military equipment and supplies, voluntarily invaded Ukraine on their vacations. You would think that Russia wouldn't want their soldiers taking tanks and artillery on vacation with them, but maybe they just do things a little differently in Russia.
By the way, it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". I would expect 8 former intelligence officials to know that, or at least be consistent in their so-called "memo".
I thought Russia had changed that line once they got a reasonable foothold over the weekend?
As for Ukraine vs "the Ukraine" --
"There are different hypotheses as to the etymology of the name Ukraine. According to the older and most widespread hypothesis, it means "borderland",[21] while more recently some linguistic studies claim a different meaning: "homeland" or "region, country".[22] "The Ukraine" was once the usual form in English[23] but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become much less common in the English-speaking world and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article." -- Wikipedia Etymology of Ukraine.
Part of the reason for that is that "the Ukraine" refers to it as being Russia's buffer zone -- not something one wants as a reference for an independent country. This is probably why the more recent "original meanings" refer to homeland instead of borderland.
you can't guess the device type from the sizes requested.
Sure you can; the security point is that you can't KNOW the device type from the sizes requested. You have to guess.
However, it seems to me that using element fingerprinting, this element would be a pretty strong indicator to narrow down who you were.
What happens if a grue shouts "xyzzy"?
He built that city on rock and roll.
I truly doubt there's a Golden Gate Bridge in it, but there might be a starship....
It took me a while to parse your comment... as the IEEE is an international standards body. Then I realized that you weren't talking about nation states, but half of the party system in the US... and then was lost again figuring out how a standards body pushing a security standard for SAs related to political gerrymandering in the US. Did you mean that the Republican party of the US is intentionally trying to make the Internet less secure, and that an international standards body setting down guidelines for big business to follow when architecting new software designs would somehow annoy them because somehow people would suddenly be required to use such standards to develop software like SSL/LTSP/SSH/etc?
If I'd stated that damage on impact was polynomial, I would have been technically correct, but would have drawn blank stares, even on slashdot. Plus, x^1 is polynomial technically. Squared would have been more accurate, but would have just made the sentence more complicated.
So I'll leave the pedantry up to the responses, and let people understand the implication based on what I originally said.