Also the FCC is clearly very interested in cell phone jamming, while this article does not say anything about fines to the business owners, only the jamming sellers
I suspect the FCC simply sees a chance to collect revenue here by going after the sellers. It's not worth their time to go after the end users.
It's not clear to me how the FCC has any jurisdiction against a UK company. Also the title is misleading. The FCC proposed a $25k fine. None has actually been levied. To date the FCC has not successfully fined anyone.
> Well, I am not sure that this is the right approach
Der... ya think?
Jamming cellular signals is a federal crime.
What a jackass.
Before you spout off obscenities, first you should understand this depends on what country you're in. Also that in the US, the legalities are not clear as the applicable law was written in 1934 and no real precedent or clarification has been set in the courts yet. In fact, the FCC has not prosecuted a single instance of localized cell-phone jamming. One interpretation is that its perfectly legal if the jamming doesn't extend beyond your private property.
Impeccable advice. I would also add that a legal action against his employer might poorly affect his chances of getting hired onto another company. Employers are reluctant to hire anyone who has shown they are willing to file suit against an employer.
2. If the company has PROOF that YOU did it, it is THEIR responsibility to show it.
The company has presented the evidence that the contact info on the domain registration has his name and information. Obviously they don't understand its not 100% reliable proof is another question. Who has the burden to refute this evidence? Since the company is satisfied, its becomes his burden to refute it.
Go to the registrar and ask for the history or other evidence that would clear your name. At no point should you get hostile, angry, or sic a lawyer on them. Even if a lawyer gets you rehired, you'll end up getting fired later down the road for some another excuse.
Is IE really making the claim that they can incorrectly display your website faster than the competition?
Hmm...
wake me up when we don't have to waste an extra 20% fixing apps for IE
No they are not. RTFA. Most web sites are written against IE, so even if IE renders some little piece it differently than the spec implies it should, IE is showing it how the author intended and is therefore "correct".
So what? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 IE9 gets a 95 and Firefox got 94. Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding. It's also testing compliance for stuff that isn't rarely if ever used, and some stuff that's not even in the current standard (e.g. the CSS2 recommendations that were later removed in CSS2.1, reintroduced in the draft CSS3). It simply doesn't represent the real world.
No I can't. There's no oxygen in the bottle. I can see people being burned by spraying too much out and creating a fireball, but I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which the bottle explodes without already having been on fire long enough to melt through the plastic.
Just because you can't envision how it happens doesn't mean it can't happen. It's not that the flame burns up the stream while your squeezing. Its when you stop squeezing the can and it sucks air and burning fluid up into the can. I have a co-worker whose kid did this and the can exploded and gave him 2nd degree burns plus a few cuts on his hands from the metal.
Suppose it costs the airline an average of $500 per flight to pay the copilot (all salary + benefits + overhead + per diem included), and the average flight has 100 passengers.
I think your estimate is actually a bit high. Lets ballpark salary plus benefits at $200k a year. At 4 flights per day, typical 256 working days a year, that's only $200 a year. Less than the cost of one passenger seat. I think the airline that tries this will probably loose more than one passenger per flight as a result. I think their insurance will likely go up more than this per flight.
Commercial cargo flights and small planes often go with just a pilot.
Just make sure the air marshall on the plane has a pilots license. Have a code word the flight attendants can use on the PA to have him come forward if anything happens. That way you've combined two mostly redundant jobs into a single person. For both jobs, they spend 98% of the flight sitting there with nothing better to do.
The filter in the article is just an ordinary active carbon filter. This is waaay better.
Cool piece of equipment. It's basically an RO filter. The pressure required for operation comes from the user pumping it up with an air pump. It's also small enough to take camping or on long hikes if you have a source of untrusted water nearby.
Even smartcards, which never expose the private key are at risk. If you have a compromised computer, someone can remotely use your smartcard whenever its inserted into the machine. Even hardware tokens with changing values are at risk to a keylogger and a script that fires off before the toekn pin changes.
It all boils down to the fact that if the computer isn't trustworthy, then anything you put in the computer is at risk.
And this is something I don't understand. Why do people harp on a supposed financial advantage for showing that GW is happening? Most of the money in this fight is on the side of fossil fuel companies. Certainly if a scientist wanted to get more money, there would be some way of getting it from the anti-AGW interests. I'm tempted to get biblical myself - something about beams and motes in people's eyes.
There really isn't much money out there to fund AGW research. While companies like Exxon are spending more, but its simply not in the same scale as the govt is providing. For reference, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil. Big Oil seems to be taking the approach that its far cheaper to fund lobbyists and bribe key politicians.
Its also possible that Big Oil, like tobacco wants to keep plausible deniability (honest, we didn't know burning oil cause GW).
Every time you talk with a denier, sooner or later they will accuse scientists of either deliberate deception for personal gain, or abject stupidity. I have never, not once, met one whose argument did not fundamentally rest on one of those two options.
There is certainly a financial bias to do research that proves GW. That's the whole point of this particular investigation - ie that the scientist in question fudged his data to support the prevailing global warming thoughts that would lead of further funding.
I don't deny that the earth is getting warmer (very slightly). I have doubts that the explanations put forth can account for all of it. Namely that its all man-made, and not simply part of a larger cycle. In the grand scheme of things, the 1-degree change over a hundred years the evidence implies is a tiny view of the grand picture.
On the other side of the fence, I suppose reducing the use of fossil fuels simply because of all the other crap besides carbon that it puts out.
It can't be accurate, with a 72% participation rate (http://www.census.gov/). Existing data already collected by the govt and various public and private agencies such as licensing, income and real estate taxes can provide far more accurate data with minimal cost. The notion that we still have to manually count people is ludicrous. The assumption that the govt doesn't already have details on anyone in this country who has ever filed a piece of paper with the state is bogus. It's just a matter of sharing that info with the census bureau. Simply require the states to share information with the govt. As a side benefit, telling the IRS who is in prison for example, might cut down on those fraudulent refund claims.
You're correct that a precedent has been set. The evidence can't be used in court and information gathered in such a manner can not be used as probably cause by itself. An anonymous tip about a car bomb in the area would be sufficient cause to do this non-invasive search and act upon whatever they find. Regardless, this ruling does not inhibit their ability to look for car bombs from a safety standpoint - they just have legal complications if they want to prosecute.
Also note that the intended purpose isn't for random searches in your neighborhood. The main deployments will be at the borders, ports, or other high-security areas where consent to be search is already implied. This is a great technology to employ at the borders to help stifle the influx of drugs and illegals. The technology is also quickly evolving to the point that we could have walk-through corridors at the airports like you see in the movie Total Recall.
While installing it (without my permission), the police find a bag of cocaine in the engine compartment. Can they then use that evidence, clear as it is, against me? No. That would have been a search without a warrant. They'd have to walk away, and find something else I'm doing wrong.
They'd simply arrange for a drug dog to be nearby and 'hit' on the smell, thereby giving them probable cause. It's a common practice for the dog handlers to cue the dog to start barking at cars that look suspicious so they have probably cause to do a vehicle search.
Don't think for a minute that the police are not practiced at coming up rationales that give them probable cause, including oddly your refusal to consent to a search or request for ID that most people wouldn't object to. Just look at the cases of people being arrested for legally refusing to produce ID.
Indeed. Also in order to pursue civil action regarding trade secrets, you are also required to show that you have made an effort to protect protect those trade secrets. For example listing the exact ingredients and preparation methods for a BigMac on the packaging means you can't sue people for making and selling knock-off burgers. You can however prevent them from calling those burgers BigMacs.
I don't mean to debunk anecdotal evidence with more of the same, but I have a Lexmark z2940 wireless printer.... Prints fine using wireless.
Except for the fact that the ink cartridges are either empty or dried up...
You mean the z2420? Looking at Walmart online, the printer costs $39, the black ink cartridge is $30 and a color cartridge is $32. You validated the comments that the original ink cartridges are only partially filled (ala HP) and dry up really fast.
Most of the reviews on this model are horrible, such as CNET giving it 1.5/5 stars and most comments talking about poor printouts and jamming.
Somehow I don't think you've debunked much yet. Let me know if it lives past a year.
Every single Lexmark printer we've bought in the past 6 years died within 18-months (not by my choice obviously). That's including the cheap inkjets and their bigger workgroup lasers. Most of the inkjets simply melted their power supplies. They also sucked that really expensive ink down really quick.
You could easily just badly document or fail to document passwords and configuration info and stuff. As long as you're around and working with the systems daily, everything runs smoothly. If you get fired, there's confusion with the new guy and your memory fades... it's not like they can really tell exactly what isn't a matter of the new guy not being up to speed for weeks. And you're not responsible for giving them consulting services for free after they fire you. If they can't figure out the non-standard port numbers you used, then that's their problem.
Childs took an idiotic stand where he admitted he knew the passwords and refused to hand them over. That's not the most lenient case, that's the worst case I can think of other than destroying data.
Even worse, he deliberately setup the routers so he'd have to manually reconfigure them if/when they rebooted - in other words a deadmans switch.
No, its to address the same problem that Apple had. Shady developers were registering the same application hundreds of times under slightly different names, looking to increase the likelyhood that some dumb schmuck would like the name enough to spend a few bucks for the app. It got so bad with Apple that the vast majority of their apps in their store were the same rehashed garbage drowning out the handful of decent apps. Setting a fee to register an app or extension helps the "signal-to-noise" ratio quite a bit by making it financially unviable to do this type of mass spamming.
$5 is pretty low in my opinion and probably doesn't even cover the cost Google is incurring to manage the registration and checkout process.
As for the protecting the quality of the code, isn't the mantra that there are all these people out there reviewing the code for malicious intent?
They are not lying, as the ads are factually true - that is the max you can ever expect to see. Of course its misleading and somewhat deceptive to only advertise the potential peak speeds. They simply are not giving you useful information or even agreeing to provide a minimum level of service. I applaud the FCC for trying to address this, but I suspect like many other things they'll fuck it up or put in enough loopholes to make their efforts ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
Also the FCC is clearly very interested in cell phone jamming, while this article does not say anything about fines to the business owners, only the jamming sellers
I suspect the FCC simply sees a chance to collect revenue here by going after the sellers. It's not worth their time to go after the end users.
href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/texas-beauty-schools-cell-phone-jammer-leads-to-25k-fine.ars">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/texas-beauty-schools-cell-phone-jammer-leads-to-25k-fine.ars
It's not clear to me how the FCC has any jurisdiction against a UK company. Also the title is misleading. The FCC proposed a $25k fine. None has actually been levied. To date the FCC has not successfully fined anyone.
> Well, I am not sure that this is the right approach
Der... ya think?
Jamming cellular signals is a federal crime.
What a jackass.
Before you spout off obscenities, first you should understand this depends on what country you're in. Also that in the US, the legalities are not clear as the applicable law was written in 1934 and no real precedent or clarification has been set in the courts yet. In fact, the FCC has not prosecuted a single instance of localized cell-phone jamming. One interpretation is that its perfectly legal if the jamming doesn't extend beyond your private property.
Impeccable advice. I would also add that a legal action against his employer might poorly affect his chances of getting hired onto another company. Employers are reluctant to hire anyone who has shown they are willing to file suit against an employer.
2. If the company has PROOF that YOU did it, it is THEIR responsibility to show it.
The company has presented the evidence that the contact info on the domain registration has his name and information. Obviously they don't understand its not 100% reliable proof is another question. Who has the burden to refute this evidence? Since the company is satisfied, its becomes his burden to refute it.
Go to the registrar and ask for the history or other evidence that would clear your name. At no point should you get hostile, angry, or sic a lawyer on them. Even if a lawyer gets you rehired, you'll end up getting fired later down the road for some another excuse.
Is IE really making the claim that they can incorrectly display your website faster than the competition?
Hmm...
wake me up when we don't have to waste an extra 20% fixing apps for IE
No they are not. RTFA. Most web sites are written against IE, so even if IE renders some little piece it differently than the spec implies it should, IE is showing it how the author intended and is therefore "correct".
IE 9 still can't pass Acid3.
So what? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 IE9 gets a 95 and Firefox got 94. Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding. It's also testing compliance for stuff that isn't rarely if ever used, and some stuff that's not even in the current standard (e.g. the CSS2 recommendations that were later removed in CSS2.1, reintroduced in the draft CSS3). It simply doesn't represent the real world.
In particular, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Criticism which summarizes the farce that is the Acid3 test.
You can imagine the rest.
No I can't. There's no oxygen in the bottle. I can see people being burned by spraying too much out and creating a fireball, but I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which the bottle explodes without already having been on fire long enough to melt through the plastic.
Just because you can't envision how it happens doesn't mean it can't happen. It's not that the flame burns up the stream while your squeezing. Its when you stop squeezing the can and it sucks air and burning fluid up into the can. I have a co-worker whose kid did this and the can exploded and gave him 2nd degree burns plus a few cuts on his hands from the metal.
Suppose it costs the airline an average of $500 per flight to pay the copilot (all salary + benefits + overhead + per diem included), and the average flight has 100 passengers.
I think your estimate is actually a bit high. Lets ballpark salary plus benefits at $200k a year. At 4 flights per day, typical 256 working days a year, that's only $200 a year. Less than the cost of one passenger seat. I think the airline that tries this will probably loose more than one passenger per flight as a result. I think their insurance will likely go up more than this per flight.
Commercial cargo flights and small planes often go with just a pilot.
Just make sure the air marshall on the plane has a pilots license. Have a code word the flight attendants can use on the PA to have him come forward if anything happens. That way you've combined two mostly redundant jobs into a single person. For both jobs, they spend 98% of the flight sitting there with nothing better to do.
Well, the accusation of libel and defamation and not copyright infringement.
From the summary: "Chilling Effects, a site dedicated to publicizing attempts at squelching free speech"
Try reading the actual letter instead of the misleading summary. It's not a takedown notice.
The filter in the article is just an ordinary active carbon filter. This is waaay better.
Cool piece of equipment. It's basically an RO filter. The pressure required for operation comes from the user pumping it up with an air pump. It's also small enough to take camping or on long hikes if you have a source of untrusted water nearby.
Even smartcards, which never expose the private key are at risk. If you have a compromised computer, someone can remotely use your smartcard whenever its inserted into the machine. Even hardware tokens with changing values are at risk to a keylogger and a script that fires off before the toekn pin changes.
It all boils down to the fact that if the computer isn't trustworthy, then anything you put in the computer is at risk.
And this is something I don't understand. Why do people harp on a supposed financial advantage for showing that GW is happening? Most of the money in this fight is on the side of fossil fuel companies. Certainly if a scientist wanted to get more money, there would be some way of getting it from the anti-AGW interests. I'm tempted to get biblical myself - something about beams and motes in people's eyes.
There really isn't much money out there to fund AGW research. While companies like Exxon are spending more, but its simply not in the same scale as the govt is providing. For reference, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil. Big Oil seems to be taking the approach that its far cheaper to fund lobbyists and bribe key politicians.
Its also possible that Big Oil, like tobacco wants to keep plausible deniability (honest, we didn't know burning oil cause GW).
Every time you talk with a denier, sooner or later they will accuse scientists of either deliberate deception for personal gain, or abject stupidity. I have never, not once, met one whose argument did not fundamentally rest on one of those two options.
There is certainly a financial bias to do research that proves GW. That's the whole point of this particular investigation - ie that the scientist in question fudged his data to support the prevailing global warming thoughts that would lead of further funding.
I don't deny that the earth is getting warmer (very slightly). I have doubts that the explanations put forth can account for all of it. Namely that its all man-made, and not simply part of a larger cycle. In the grand scheme of things, the 1-degree change over a hundred years the evidence implies is a tiny view of the grand picture.
On the other side of the fence, I suppose reducing the use of fossil fuels simply because of all the other crap besides carbon that it puts out.
It can't be accurate, with a 72% participation rate (http://www.census.gov/). Existing data already collected by the govt and various public and private agencies such as licensing, income and real estate taxes can provide far more accurate data with minimal cost. The notion that we still have to manually count people is ludicrous. The assumption that the govt doesn't already have details on anyone in this country who has ever filed a piece of paper with the state is bogus. It's just a matter of sharing that info with the census bureau. Simply require the states to share information with the govt. As a side benefit, telling the IRS who is in prison for example, might cut down on those fraudulent refund claims.
You're correct that a precedent has been set. The evidence can't be used in court and information gathered in such a manner can not be used as probably cause by itself. An anonymous tip about a car bomb in the area would be sufficient cause to do this non-invasive search and act upon whatever they find. Regardless, this ruling does not inhibit their ability to look for car bombs from a safety standpoint - they just have legal complications if they want to prosecute.
Also note that the intended purpose isn't for random searches in your neighborhood. The main deployments will be at the borders, ports, or other high-security areas where consent to be search is already implied. This is a great technology to employ at the borders to help stifle the influx of drugs and illegals. The technology is also quickly evolving to the point that we could have walk-through corridors at the airports like you see in the movie Total Recall.
While installing it (without my permission), the police find a bag of cocaine in the engine compartment. Can they then use that evidence, clear as it is, against me? No. That would have been a search without a warrant. They'd have to walk away, and find something else I'm doing wrong.
They'd simply arrange for a drug dog to be nearby and 'hit' on the smell, thereby giving them probable cause. It's a common practice for the dog handlers to cue the dog to start barking at cars that look suspicious so they have probably cause to do a vehicle search.
Don't think for a minute that the police are not practiced at coming up rationales that give them probable cause, including oddly your refusal to consent to a search or request for ID that most people wouldn't object to. Just look at the cases of people being arrested for legally refusing to produce ID.
How far till we are 'chipped' at birth?
What makes you think you weren't? You really think that's a smallpox vaccine scar on your arm? (queue the X-Files theme).
Indeed. Also in order to pursue civil action regarding trade secrets, you are also required to show that you have made an effort to protect protect those trade secrets. For example listing the exact ingredients and preparation methods for a BigMac on the packaging means you can't sue people for making and selling knock-off burgers. You can however prevent them from calling those burgers BigMacs.
I don't mean to debunk anecdotal evidence with more of the same, but I have a Lexmark z2940 wireless printer .... Prints fine using wireless.
Except for the fact that the ink cartridges are either empty or dried up...
You mean the z2420? Looking at Walmart online, the printer costs $39, the black ink cartridge is $30 and a color cartridge is $32. You validated the comments that the original ink cartridges are only partially filled (ala HP) and dry up really fast.
Most of the reviews on this model are horrible, such as CNET giving it 1.5/5 stars and most comments talking about poor printouts and jamming.
Somehow I don't think you've debunked much yet. Let me know if it lives past a year.
Every single Lexmark printer we've bought in the past 6 years died within 18-months (not by my choice obviously). That's including the cheap inkjets and their bigger workgroup lasers. Most of the inkjets simply melted their power supplies. They also sucked that really expensive ink down really quick.
You could easily just badly document or fail to document passwords and configuration info and stuff. As long as you're around and working with the systems daily, everything runs smoothly. If you get fired, there's confusion with the new guy and your memory fades... it's not like they can really tell exactly what isn't a matter of the new guy not being up to speed for weeks. And you're not responsible for giving them consulting services for free after they fire you. If they can't figure out the non-standard port numbers you used, then that's their problem.
Childs took an idiotic stand where he admitted he knew the passwords and refused to hand them over. That's not the most lenient case, that's the worst case I can think of other than destroying data.
Even worse, he deliberately setup the routers so he'd have to manually reconfigure them if/when they rebooted - in other words a deadmans switch.
No, its to address the same problem that Apple had. Shady developers were registering the same application hundreds of times under slightly different names, looking to increase the likelyhood that some dumb schmuck would like the name enough to spend a few bucks for the app. It got so bad with Apple that the vast majority of their apps in their store were the same rehashed garbage drowning out the handful of decent apps. Setting a fee to register an app or extension helps the "signal-to-noise" ratio quite a bit by making it financially unviable to do this type of mass spamming.
$5 is pretty low in my opinion and probably doesn't even cover the cost Google is incurring to manage the registration and checkout process.
As for the protecting the quality of the code, isn't the mantra that there are all these people out there reviewing the code for malicious intent?
this isn't lying. Where's the story
Are you astroturfing? Of course it's a lie.
They are not lying, as the ads are factually true - that is the max you can ever expect to see. Of course its misleading and somewhat deceptive to only advertise the potential peak speeds. They simply are not giving you useful information or even agreeing to provide a minimum level of service. I applaud the FCC for trying to address this, but I suspect like many other things they'll fuck it up or put in enough loopholes to make their efforts ineffective.