The best kind of security is obscurity! So batten down the hatches by ditching your fancy *nix/BSD servers and get those old Amigas you have stashed in a loft somewhere up and running. Bonus points for using a C64.
I suppose for contract phones, it is a bit stupid. I'm on PAYG at the moment though and if I top-up by £10, £20 or £30 I get X free texts (£30 gives me unlimited, £20 gives me 600). 600 free SMS's are more than enough for me a month, but I still get the £20 credit. So the way I see it, I COULD probably get a similar deal on a contract for £15 a month, but this way I get free texts AND the money I use to get this goes on my phone to be used as and when I please.
Wouldn't a big, directional antennae be just as bad as a big, directional dish? Not saying your suggestion is a bad idea, just saying I don't think they'd go for it. Personally, if internet was that important to me, I'd stick with the dish, or sell up and move somewhere else.
I'm not really "in the know" of what's good or bad when it comes to spam filtering packages, but in the years I've been using gmail, I'd estimate maybe less than 20 emails that have hit my inbox have been spam. It only happens to me once every couple of months and I get around 100 pieces of spam a day, so I'd say that's pretty good. As for the "false positives", only the most dubious of mailing lists seems to get caught (I still regularly check my spam just in case) and when I report them as "not spam", they never get mistaken for spam again, so I can't really complain either. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply just curious as to what makes it bad? Have I just been fortunate enough to not have any major problems or is there something that it should (or shouldn't) do when it comes to corporate use?
Well yeah, most of us here believe that as well. What's more, their figure of X amount of people being able to download it is completely arbitrary anyway.
Stop me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to be roughly what happened....
Skype ripped off some GPL code. After they got caught out, it went to court. After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement. Skype took it to a higher court. Later that day, the story appears on slashdot. The next day, Skype drops the case.
Perhaps I need to RTFA a bit more closely, but I thought the logic (for lack of a better term) behind the RIAA/MPAA's claims of thousands of $$$ per item was because that was a rough estimate of the amount they've lost based on the number of people that downloaded said item from them (So at say $15 per film, they're saying that 20,000 people will have downloaded it, thus $30,000), but it seems they're demanding he pay £600 for the game itself, not what they'd lost due to him distributing it? I don't see how that works at all, surely the most he should be liable for is the £40 the game could cost? Or better yet, the £10 or whatever it is that the DEVELOPERS lost out on?
Actually my ISP charges me £18 a month for an uncapped 24mbit connection. Sure, they have a "fair use" policy, but it's not enforced at all. I've easily downloaded 500Gb a month quite consistently and not a word has been said. Sadly, this is a rarity in the UK.
Try telling that to an overpaid manager that's thinking "hmm, we could spend maybe a few thousand hiring software developers to code up this thing we need, or we could save all that money by stealing this free thing. Worst case scenario is we'll need a couple of lawyers to get us out of that pesky GPL thing"
I completely agree. Unlimited SHOULD be unlimited. If 5% of the ISP's users are downloading a shed load more than the rest on the top tier, then maybe they should re-evaluate their pricing and offered services more suited to them. I'm sure most people here would be happy to pay a little bit more (a LITTLE bit) for a truly unlimited service, but most ISP's simply wont bother catering for that.
This is more of an observation of mine, but it seems that a lot of ISP's here have stopped offering different speed tiers and instead offer packages that simply differ in the download cap. BT being one of the examples only seems to offer 8Mbit services, but they have 4 of them. One is capped at 5Gb a month, another is billed as "heavy usage" and is capped at 8gb per month. The other two are billed as "Unlimited" but with an unclear fair usage policy. However, if they class 8Gb as "heavy", what do you expect they'll class as unfair usage? You're exactly right when you say that BT has done a lot to prevent the spread of high-speed internet and now that high-speed (high speed being several Megabits down) is more or less ubiquitous in most of the UK, they seem to intend on restricting it in other ways.
It depends entirely on the ISP. Some have it quite clearly stated, others have a little * beside the word "unlimited". Oh and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, even the truly uncapped ones have a "fair usage" policy in their T&C's, essentially meaning they can kick you off as and when they feel like it. I think this is true for every ISP on the planet, which is sad.
250Gb isn't that bad at all. There are some ISP's in the UK that have limits of as little as 1Gb a month. Although most do have limits higher than that, they're rarely more than about 30Gb a month, if even that. The few that have no caps (like Virgin) tend to throttle the fuck out of your bandwidth at peak times. It's all a joke, really. Luckily I live near an exchange with some decent ISP's that don't have monthly caps, but it's only a matter of time I suppose.
Well they did announce Tech 5 at that mac expo a while back, so at least it'll be something newish. Lets just hope it's a good engine and not just a good LOOKING engine.
This is the bridge I'm referring to. You can clearly see the motorway below it. The estate to the east is the "highly catholic" estate, while the one to the west is the "highly protestant" one. If you look, you can clearly see the mast where the camera is. What's more, you can see that there's a bit of a hill on the protestant side, facing the bridge, where they all used to hide and throw things from (and there was a big fence right in front of it - a perfect little fortress). You can also see the inlay just beside that where the police used to have to wait nearly every day, for most of the day. If you look EVEN closer, you can still make out some of the markings on the road and footpath from old paint bombs.
No, what I know is that for the last couple of years I was living there, I was able to walk across this bridge without worrying too much about bricks and bottles being flung my way. Sure, they may have moved elsewhere, but the purpose of making the bridge accessible to everyone was well served and at the very least it means that all of the police manpower that had to frequently go to this bridge (they would always be called out there, half the time they'd be waiting just around the corner because something happened so frequently there, however they obviously couldn't be there 24/7 - hence the point of CCTV) can be put elsewhere.
Well if it's nearly dead, why is it still listed on Wikipedia as a legitimate use for the term "Billion"? If it's nearly dead, why does it still cause confusion today? It's like how we officially use the metric system to adhere to EU law, yet we still go down the pub for a pint, dealers still sell ounces and most people drive in miles, not kilometres.
Well that's just it, a lot of the time they DON'T know, they just assume because you walked from a certain direction (i.e. one side of the bridge to the other) that you MUST be a certain one. I mean some people make it "obvious" by wearing Celtic or Rangers shirts (one is predominantly Catholic, one is predominantly Protestant, for the uninformed), some people simply open their mouths (thick English accent? You must be protestant) and others let slip that they're called Patrick or Billy or something to that end. But at the end of the day it IS stupid and these days, most of the ones causing trouble do it simply because it's fun. I've personally encountered people I've KNOWN to be protestant wearing a Celtic (extremely catholic) top, going around asking people what team they support just to catch them out so they have a "reason" to attack them. Hell, half of the riots are planned well in advance so all their mates can join in, stock up supplies of petrol bombs, bricks and so on... In case you're wondering, I moved away from Northern Ireland and have no intention of ever going back. Can't think why.
Well I'm not going to disagree there, there's obviously going to be places where the system works better than others, but it seems this article is trying to say that ALL CCTV is useless, which is obviously not the case.
They should have some sort of zero tolerance campaign where they immediately go out and lift anyone caught doing ANYTHING even remotely illegal on CCTV and put some nasty fines on them (nothing major, just like £50-80 a pop) for basic offences, maybe that will put the fear of CCTV into them (Because CCTV is the eyes of God, apparently).
Slashdot Mirror
The best kind of security is obscurity! So batten down the hatches by ditching your fancy *nix/BSD servers and get those old Amigas you have stashed in a loft somewhere up and running. Bonus points for using a C64.
I suppose for contract phones, it is a bit stupid. I'm on PAYG at the moment though and if I top-up by £10, £20 or £30 I get X free texts (£30 gives me unlimited, £20 gives me 600). 600 free SMS's are more than enough for me a month, but I still get the £20 credit.
So the way I see it, I COULD probably get a similar deal on a contract for £15 a month, but this way I get free texts AND the money I use to get this goes on my phone to be used as and when I please.
This is going to take a while...
Wouldn't a big, directional antennae be just as bad as a big, directional dish?
Not saying your suggestion is a bad idea, just saying I don't think they'd go for it.
Personally, if internet was that important to me, I'd stick with the dish, or sell up and move somewhere else.
I'm not really "in the know" of what's good or bad when it comes to spam filtering packages, but in the years I've been using gmail, I'd estimate maybe less than 20 emails that have hit my inbox have been spam. It only happens to me once every couple of months and I get around 100 pieces of spam a day, so I'd say that's pretty good.
As for the "false positives", only the most dubious of mailing lists seems to get caught (I still regularly check my spam just in case) and when I report them as "not spam", they never get mistaken for spam again, so I can't really complain either.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply just curious as to what makes it bad? Have I just been fortunate enough to not have any major problems or is there something that it should (or shouldn't) do when it comes to corporate use?
If that were the case, then surely anyone stealing anything is liable to pay a stupid sum of money for it?
Well yeah, most of us here believe that as well. What's more, their figure of X amount of people being able to download it is completely arbitrary anyway.
I meant 2,000 people, not 20,000.
Stop me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to be roughly what happened....
Skype ripped off some GPL code.
After they got caught out, it went to court.
After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement.
Skype took it to a higher court.
Later that day, the story appears on slashdot.
The next day, Skype drops the case.
Coincidence?
Perhaps I need to RTFA a bit more closely, but I thought the logic (for lack of a better term) behind the RIAA/MPAA's claims of thousands of $$$ per item was because that was a rough estimate of the amount they've lost based on the number of people that downloaded said item from them (So at say $15 per film, they're saying that 20,000 people will have downloaded it, thus $30,000), but it seems they're demanding he pay £600 for the game itself, not what they'd lost due to him distributing it?
I don't see how that works at all, surely the most he should be liable for is the £40 the game could cost? Or better yet, the £10 or whatever it is that the DEVELOPERS lost out on?
Actually my ISP charges me £18 a month for an uncapped 24mbit connection.
Sure, they have a "fair use" policy, but it's not enforced at all. I've easily downloaded 500Gb a month quite consistently and not a word has been said.
Sadly, this is a rarity in the UK.
Try telling that to an overpaid manager that's thinking "hmm, we could spend maybe a few thousand hiring software developers to code up this thing we need, or we could save all that money by stealing this free thing. Worst case scenario is we'll need a couple of lawyers to get us out of that pesky GPL thing"
I completely agree. Unlimited SHOULD be unlimited. If 5% of the ISP's users are downloading a shed load more than the rest on the top tier, then maybe they should re-evaluate their pricing and offered services more suited to them.
I'm sure most people here would be happy to pay a little bit more (a LITTLE bit) for a truly unlimited service, but most ISP's simply wont bother catering for that.
This is more of an observation of mine, but it seems that a lot of ISP's here have stopped offering different speed tiers and instead offer packages that simply differ in the download cap. BT being one of the examples only seems to offer 8Mbit services, but they have 4 of them. One is capped at 5Gb a month, another is billed as "heavy usage" and is capped at 8gb per month. The other two are billed as "Unlimited" but with an unclear fair usage policy. However, if they class 8Gb as "heavy", what do you expect they'll class as unfair usage?
You're exactly right when you say that BT has done a lot to prevent the spread of high-speed internet and now that high-speed (high speed being several Megabits down) is more or less ubiquitous in most of the UK, they seem to intend on restricting it in other ways.
It depends entirely on the ISP. Some have it quite clearly stated, others have a little * beside the word "unlimited".
Oh and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, even the truly uncapped ones have a "fair usage" policy in their T&C's, essentially meaning they can kick you off as and when they feel like it.
I think this is true for every ISP on the planet, which is sad.
250Gb isn't that bad at all. There are some ISP's in the UK that have limits of as little as 1Gb a month.
Although most do have limits higher than that, they're rarely more than about 30Gb a month, if even that.
The few that have no caps (like Virgin) tend to throttle the fuck out of your bandwidth at peak times.
It's all a joke, really. Luckily I live near an exchange with some decent ISP's that don't have monthly caps, but it's only a matter of time I suppose.
Are all of the above comments trying to say that Doom 5 is....*gasps*....doomed?
Well they did announce Tech 5 at that mac expo a while back, so at least it'll be something newish.
Lets just hope it's a good engine and not just a good LOOKING engine.
Oh and this is just so people have a better idea of what I was talking about:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=BT36&ie=UTF8&ll=54.654318,-5.93061&spn=0.000639,0.001891&t=h&z=20
This is the bridge I'm referring to. You can clearly see the motorway below it. The estate to the east is the "highly catholic" estate, while the one to the west is the "highly protestant" one.
If you look, you can clearly see the mast where the camera is. What's more, you can see that there's a bit of a hill on the protestant side, facing the bridge, where they all used to hide and throw things from (and there was a big fence right in front of it - a perfect little fortress).
You can also see the inlay just beside that where the police used to have to wait nearly every day, for most of the day.
If you look EVEN closer, you can still make out some of the markings on the road and footpath from old paint bombs.
That's a silly way to put it, you're basically saying that ALL crimes are permitted where there isn't anyone watching (police or otherwise).
No, what I know is that for the last couple of years I was living there, I was able to walk across this bridge without worrying too much about bricks and bottles being flung my way. Sure, they may have moved elsewhere, but the purpose of making the bridge accessible to everyone was well served and at the very least it means that all of the police manpower that had to frequently go to this bridge (they would always be called out there, half the time they'd be waiting just around the corner because something happened so frequently there, however they obviously couldn't be there 24/7 - hence the point of CCTV) can be put elsewhere.
Well if it's nearly dead, why is it still listed on Wikipedia as a legitimate use for the term "Billion"? If it's nearly dead, why does it still cause confusion today?
It's like how we officially use the metric system to adhere to EU law, yet we still go down the pub for a pint, dealers still sell ounces and most people drive in miles, not kilometres.
Well, when you put it like that....sure, why not?
Well that's just it, a lot of the time they DON'T know, they just assume because you walked from a certain direction (i.e. one side of the bridge to the other) that you MUST be a certain one.
I mean some people make it "obvious" by wearing Celtic or Rangers shirts (one is predominantly Catholic, one is predominantly Protestant, for the uninformed), some people simply open their mouths (thick English accent? You must be protestant) and others let slip that they're called Patrick or Billy or something to that end.
But at the end of the day it IS stupid and these days, most of the ones causing trouble do it simply because it's fun.
I've personally encountered people I've KNOWN to be protestant wearing a Celtic (extremely catholic) top, going around asking people what team they support just to catch them out so they have a "reason" to attack them.
Hell, half of the riots are planned well in advance so all their mates can join in, stock up supplies of petrol bombs, bricks and so on...
In case you're wondering, I moved away from Northern Ireland and have no intention of ever going back. Can't think why.
Well I'm not going to disagree there, there's obviously going to be places where the system works better than others, but it seems this article is trying to say that ALL CCTV is useless, which is obviously not the case.
They should have some sort of zero tolerance campaign where they immediately go out and lift anyone caught doing ANYTHING even remotely illegal on CCTV and put some nasty fines on them (nothing major, just like £50-80 a pop) for basic offences, maybe that will put the fear of CCTV into them (Because CCTV is the eyes of God, apparently).