The v6 address space is so enormously huge, you can't enumerate all hosts. Even if you could, it's trivial to block ping scans at the firewall in the same way as unsolicited connections. Furthermore, the Privacy Extensions (made possible by the address space!) give you a different address every few minutes, for the same net effect (it's the same prefix, but a different host portion every time, which is analogous to one NATted public address).
Regarding your earlier post, the internet is in fact supposed to have end-to-end connectivity. Private address spaces were supposed to be non-routable, organization-internal addresses using the IP as a convenience - not bridged to the "real" internet with a nasty hack. The nodes in the middle are supposed to be "dumb", since that's how IP was designed to function. I don't know what software you wrote, but it doesn't change the facts. And yes, I have read the papers.
Every big firm wants, above all, to get rid of the quaint notion that the Internet is a network of intelligent peers. Much better to have dumb terminals all locked in to your service.
While this does seem to be the general trend, companies like Comcast are surprisingly actually pretty good about v6.
It's like Google pretending to champion IPv6 then setting absurd conditions for their IPv6 services. So ISPs which offer native IPv6 by default, such as England's Andrews&Arnold, have to jump through artificial hoops before they're "supported".
To qualify for Google over IPv6, your network must meet a number of requirements. These include:
Low latency, redundant paths to Google using direct peering or reliable transit
Production-quality IPv6 support and reliability
Separate DNS servers for your IPv6 users (not shared with IPv4-only users)
Users who have opted in to IPv6 services and know how to opt out if they experience problems with Google services
Google damn sure doesn't want provider's shitty v6 implementation to cause people problems with their service. Seems like a pretty reasonable desire to me, and pretty reasonable conditions to meet to prove you don't have a shitty implementation.
And it's no coincidence that half of abusive SixXS is half-run by a Google employee.
Um what? Care to provide any support for "abusive SixXS"? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything suggesting it, aside from people who were pissed that they got cut off for abuse. They actually seem to be more responsive than HE about abuse complaints, so I don't get it. Plus, I've never had any trouble with SixXS - at least not in the 3 years or so that I've had a tunnel with them.
Oddly enough - and this'll get me the mod to oblivion - only MS has historically shown neutral support for IPv6, neither trying to control it nor eschewing it. That's because, I expect, Microsoft was traditionally about the powerful desktop and local server (running NT, of course). Now it's jumped on the cloud bandwagon, who knows?
While MSFT has admittedly been pretty decent about v6 support (at least Vista+, their v6 implementation for XP worked, but was lukewarm), Apple had some of the earliest consumer routers that really supported v6 properly. Their phones, tablets, OS, all do as well. As noted before, this utility is a rewrite, and lacking several features that will (presumably) be added back in. The hardware still supports it; if you need v6, just keep the older utility for now.
You're breaking the internet because you don't understand it. There's not really a nicer way to say it. Every host is *SUPPOSED* to be addressable. It's called the end-to-end principle. The fact that NAT prevented unsolicited connections was a consequence of its design, not a feature. Firewalls do it better, and with more control. They even do it by default! The reason the iptables authors are religiously opposed to it is because the internet isn't meant to be like that, and there are perfectly good solutions (in iptables!) to do what you want without a broken end-to-end principle.
For what it's worth, I've been running IPv6 at home for a few years without the slightest trouble. My clients get NATted IPv4 addresses, and a public IPv6 address. They have the same security, since the firewall prevents unsolicited connections. But since it's a firewall and not shitty NAT, I have three SSH servers on port 22 and two webservers on port 80 that are publicly routable. Try doing that with NAT
This isn't an ad homenim, or at least not a fallacious one. Belief in ID is evidence of poor reasoning at best, and willful ignorance in pursuit of belief at worst. The data may be true, or it may not be, but he's lost credibility as a scientist.
There's all sorts of positive and negative things about the climate/atmosphere/etc. But we need to take responsibility for the negative (and positive, to be fair) aspects of changes we make as humans. This goes for dams, bombs, pollution, and global warming. When a hurricane happens and destroys the ecosystem for a while, we simply have to deal with it. But when an oil spill happens, we are morally obliged to deal with its consequences for the environment as best we can.
Furthermore, we don't even begin to truly understand the environment. While the natural changes are destructive, they are "known" to the biosphere - which is as it is because it can survive the natural environment. Our changes are a new, unseen variable. If the climate changes by several degrees in a few millenia, evolution can take place. But if it changes by several degrees in a century or two, that's really too short for the ecosystem to adapt.
And we are part of that ecosystem. Proximally, we wouldn't have any trouble with it. But distally, as the species we rely on (trees, farm animals, crops, etc) and the species they rely on, and the species they rely on... feel the effects of the changes, we will notice very quickly.
But that's the thing. The scientists aren't saying anything other than "since carbon dioxide is causing global warming, we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce global warming". Whatever you think about AGW, if it were true, this would be the solution. It's being misconstrued as policy recommendation (which would be the method to do it, i.e. cap and trade or something similar), but it's just a statement of causality.
First of all, as noted elsewhere, the Pertussis bacterium can not survive outside of humans for very long, and so can be eradicated like a virus. But that's irrelevant.
You make the assumption that everybody can be vaccinated. Immunocompromised kids, or kids allergic to egg proteins or other components of the vaccine, or kids that are simply too young can't be immunized. As a society, we made the decision decades ago that those kids shouldn't be placed at risk because your perfectly-vaccinateable kids didn't get the shot.
Like somebody else said, it's pure-and-simple child abuse. Imagine a parent wasn't sure food was really the right choice for their kid, or maybe had some vague believed risks. Or, hell, let's be less abstract - a parent who thought that "mystic healing pyramids" or something were going to cure her kid's broken leg, ear infection, or pneumonia. Nobody (except mystic healing pyramids people) will object to the government taking her kids away because she's not getting them appropriate medical treatment. Except with vaccines, you get the extra bonus of putting everybody else's kids at risk, too!
Vaccines are appropriate medical treatment. There was never a question about that, other than one found to be made by a profiteering "doctor". It's awful lenient, actually, to merely require vaccines for admission into public school, since kids interact outside of school, but it so far has been sufficient.
In short, I care because your kids are putting mine, and everyone's, at risk. You know why you don't have a healthy fear of pertussis?? Because your parent's generation vaccinated all their kids! Before the vaccine, kids died of whooping cough all the time! Now that parents aren't vaccinating their kids, they're dying of whooping cough all the time! Except those parents could have done something about it.
The Californian was nervous about what they saw (the Titanic making a hard port and stopping, the flares). They were nervous enough to attempt a signalling by Morse lamp, but it didn't occur to them to wake the radio operator, and for that they deserve flack. But check out my comment replying to your sibling - I ran the numbers, and it seems implausible that the Californian could have saved all, or even a significant majority of the people on that ship. There's no question their presence would have helped, but they wouldn't be the factor changing the - well, Titanic-level disaster into one more like the Costa Concordia (thousands saved, a few dead). At best it would have been a small majority saved, but still a Titanic-level calamity.
Hypothermia killed most people in the water within minutes, so that would've been a bad idea to risk.
The ship sank in about 2 hours - for a lot of that time (about a half hour) they didn't really "get it" (which is obviously a huge problem as well), and for about the last hour, the ship was tilting far enough that rescue may very well have been impossible. If I were the captain of a mid-size steamer, I'd be very reluctant to be anywhere near an ocean liner whose stern was literally coming out of the water. In any case, even if the Californian had rushed directly to aid, it would have still taken almost an hour to get there (the Californian topped out at about 22km/h, and the Titanic was about 19km away). By that time, it would have been so clear that the Titanic was going down that the (much shorter and half-as-long) Californian wouldn't want to be taken down with it. Any assistance would not have been a direct ship-to-ship transfer, and they would have been stuck with ferrying boats around, which they only had an hour to do, or having people jump in and swim, which would have killed hundreds of people anyway due to the cold and the distance. Had they decided to ferry the lifeboats back and forth, they would have needed to either get the boats back up to the deck, or send a thousand people down on ladders one-by-one. And then repeat it all on the other ship.
There's no question that more people would have survived, but it would have been more like a 50-50 or even a 60-40 split instead of the 32-68 split it was (save-lost). It still would have been a calamity of unthinkable magnitude.
Bottom line, the Titanic needed more boats, and more urgency about using them. Everything else would have helped, but not enough.
All the "information" is in a timeline. Ugh. At least it's a pretty nifty HTML5 one.
I was about to spout my mouth off, but figured I'd read the article before I made a fool out of myself. But the article didn't have anything, so here goes.
The Titanic was near another ship - the Californian could have made it in time before the ship sank, but the radio operator went to bed. In those days, there was no requirement for 24/7 manning of the radio station, which was the single largest thing to come out of the sinking (in terms of radio). It's hard to fault them for it, though, since radio was still pretty new. The next-closest ship that did hear them (the Carpathia) hauled ass, at great risk, and got there a few hours after the sinking. Radio, as a technology, worked. Again, since this was the event that basically defined radio as a serious method for emergency communications, it's hard to fault people for not realizing it in advance.
Part of the rules for the calling frequency (500 KHz) was that everybody would stop talking for a few minutes every half-hour, so people could hear if there was a station in distress that was far away, or running out of power, and being swamped out by local traffic. Not an issue for the Titanic, but still a good idea.
All in all, the radio stuff is interesting, but what the Titanic needed were more lifeboats and a more serious response by the crew and passengers. Even if the Californian had made it there while the ship was still afloat, there were thousands of people on that ship, no way to get them off, and freezing cold water so they couldn't just jump in and be pulled out.
Shutting off service is what's being referred to as "bricking" here. The IMEI is blacklisted at the carrier. The phone technically works, just no network will authenticate it.
I can't tell if you're trolling or simply stupid. I'm desperately hoping the former.
I would have thought it was obvious that, since cell phones need to use the cell network to be cell phones, the cell network can block the phone, rendering it useless as a cell phone. Boomboxes require no such cooperation from a third party in order to work, so it's not feasible for them to do anything about it. This is more like if you had the ability to report your car as stolen, and then the plates wouldn't "authenticate" (against any cop who pulls them over for anything, or sees something suspicious and has the dispatcher run the plates).
They do tend to have meters per transformer ("pole pig"), which is pretty granular, as well as at other points in the distribution network. They use them to diagnose flaws in the system, but they're also used for finding fraud.
In your rant about the government, you neglected to remember (or maybe just didn't know) that meter fraud has ALWAYS happened, and ALWAYS been illegal. The government already prosecutes people for theft of service.
In fact, smarter meters are harder to trick, so it's likely that these smart meters have LESS fraud.
Given your rant about the "maximizing profits" by variable rate billing, I can safely assume you don't know the first thing about the electrical system in this country. It may feel very truthy that they're screwing you over, but read up on it sometime.
Speaking of moving the goalpost, why does data about Christianity percentages in Europe have anything to do with "the Creationism stupidity"?
The numbers I posted suggest that, in at least western Europe, it's a small minority of the population - and thus not one necessarily in the public consciousness. I don't live there, but I can imagine that it's not really a topic of public discussion in the way it is here in the US.
In practice, I find that most people pirate the too-expensive books. It gets you a searchable PDF (usually) or sometimes just scanned images, but that's no less helpful than the book.
Note taking is supposed to be synthesis - a combination of the lecture, the textbook section that the lecture addresses, and your own intuition. As such they are arguably original - perhaps "inspired by" the book. In any case, education is a fair-use exception. But this company is making money off of books, not teaching or taking a class. IANAL.
Actually, although there are some European countries that are similar (Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia are better, Turkey is worse), the US is way down there, at least with regards to France, Germany, the UK, etc. source
At least creationism is one thing fundamentalist Muslims and Christians agree on...
Well in so much as we can know anything about the outside world (which is an interesting, if unsolvable, question for epistemology), we can know that the world follows predictable patterns. And we can know what those patterns are.
Essentially, if we accept that the external world exists and we perceive it roughly as it "is", we can "know" things by science without relying on magical thinking.
Interestingly one of the first people to pose the problem of the external world, Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), did manage to "prove" the existence of God - unfortunately, it was more like "well, I just know because I can feel it".
I'm a college student. I hate that my textbooks are hundreds of dollars, and would love open textbooks.
But it seems like the companies arguing that the stuff in the book, in the order it's in, is copyrighted - which seems reasonable to me. If true, it doesn't matter if you use libre text and images - you're still "filling in" the template provided by the textbook. It's similar to a song cover - you're reproducing "your" version of the song, but it's still copyright of the original artist.
They do actually pay people to come up with the best stuff to include, and the order in which to present it...
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, people said the same thing about color. Color film (vs B&W) is a more "real-life" experience. Evidence suggests that "real-life" experience has a lot to do with movies - from color, to picture quality, to positional audio. 3D is a (if not the) next logical step.
To be honest, I thought Avatar was a masterfully executed film, if a bit cliched. It's certainly cohesive and "all-encompassing" in a way that few movies are. It's a shame the plot was so pedestrian. The 3D made the movie impressive, but since it seemed like a tech demo more than a proper flick, it came at the expense of me wanting to watch it again in 2D. By comparison, black&white never stopped me watching Casablanca, or Citizen Kane.
But there's all sorts of movies that are a lot of fun, if "safe". I can't exactly call them bad, in the same way that I can't call any of those Sundance films bad despite the fact that they're so boring. It's just a different kind of movie.
You may have been alluding to this, but it's standard procedure (even in civilian aircraft) to dump fuel when landing after a failure on takeoff. It reduces the landing weight (which is usually lower than the takeoff weight by a surprising amount; the extra weight is fuel intended to be burned), but also reduces the size of a fire ignited by a crash. Thus, one of the first things he would have done if he'd had engine problems would be dumping fuel.
Slashdot has been an enormous factor in making me the nerd I am. That sounds cheesy, but I seriously started reading when I was 14. It was a big deal to me to find a huge community of other people who really saw the world like I did, unlike anyone else in my (small) high school.
But I really can't justify sticking around if the "stories" are just "Isn't Plantronics great?" videos. This is nonsense. I understand that Slashdot needs to make money, but if you guys can't keep doing that off of (normal) ads, then just shut it down. It's not worth this painful death.
I put up with trolls. I put up with Idle. I put up with the shitty Ajax. I didn't much mind the "itwbenett" stuff, where people were just submitting their online articles, as long as they were interesting. I even put up with the sponsored "ask slashdot", since it was clearly marked and had the potential to be somewhat interesting. I wasn't that guy bitching about every little thing- things change, but it's not a big deal.
We all know about Plantronics. They even make a decent product. But I don't go to Slashdot to read paid-for content posted by companies about what companies say about their products.
This is too much. If you're seriously going to have a half-dozen "stories" a day that are just ads for some gadget or service or so on, then I won't be here.
In case this wasn't clear enough, you known that line that companies cross that pisses their users off and sends them into a death spiral, a la Digg? You just crossed it. Step back very quickly or you'll have big problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better than that, traffic logging is on by default in Kismet, the software they were using. It's more like they forgot to switch the option off.
The v6 address space is so enormously huge, you can't enumerate all hosts. Even if you could, it's trivial to block ping scans at the firewall in the same way as unsolicited connections. Furthermore, the Privacy Extensions (made possible by the address space!) give you a different address every few minutes, for the same net effect (it's the same prefix, but a different host portion every time, which is analogous to one NATted public address).
Regarding your earlier post, the internet is in fact supposed to have end-to-end connectivity. Private address spaces were supposed to be non-routable, organization-internal addresses using the IP as a convenience - not bridged to the "real" internet with a nasty hack. The nodes in the middle are supposed to be "dumb", since that's how IP was designed to function. I don't know what software you wrote, but it doesn't change the facts. And yes, I have read the papers.
Every big firm wants, above all, to get rid of the quaint notion that the Internet is a network of intelligent peers. Much better to have dumb terminals all locked in to your service.
While this does seem to be the general trend, companies like Comcast are surprisingly actually pretty good about v6.
It's like Google pretending to champion IPv6 then setting absurd conditions for their IPv6 services. So ISPs which offer native IPv6 by default, such as England's Andrews&Arnold, have to jump through artificial hoops before they're "supported".
Bullshit. From their website:
To qualify for Google over IPv6, your network must meet a number of requirements. These include:
Low latency, redundant paths to Google using direct peering or reliable transit
Production-quality IPv6 support and reliability
Separate DNS servers for your IPv6 users (not shared with IPv4-only users)
Users who have opted in to IPv6 services and know how to opt out if they experience problems with Google services
Google damn sure doesn't want provider's shitty v6 implementation to cause people problems with their service. Seems like a pretty reasonable desire to me, and pretty reasonable conditions to meet to prove you don't have a shitty implementation.
And it's no coincidence that half of abusive SixXS is half-run by a Google employee.
Um what? Care to provide any support for "abusive SixXS"? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything suggesting it, aside from people who were pissed that they got cut off for abuse. They actually seem to be more responsive than HE about abuse complaints, so I don't get it. Plus, I've never had any trouble with SixXS - at least not in the 3 years or so that I've had a tunnel with them.
Oddly enough - and this'll get me the mod to oblivion - only MS has historically shown neutral support for IPv6, neither trying to control it nor eschewing it. That's because, I expect, Microsoft was traditionally about the powerful desktop and local server (running NT, of course). Now it's jumped on the cloud bandwagon, who knows?
While MSFT has admittedly been pretty decent about v6 support (at least Vista+, their v6 implementation for XP worked, but was lukewarm), Apple had some of the earliest consumer routers that really supported v6 properly. Their phones, tablets, OS, all do as well. As noted before, this utility is a rewrite, and lacking several features that will (presumably) be added back in. The hardware still supports it; if you need v6, just keep the older utility for now.
I don't know why you were modded up.
You're breaking the internet because you don't understand it. There's not really a nicer way to say it. Every host is *SUPPOSED* to be addressable. It's called the end-to-end principle. The fact that NAT prevented unsolicited connections was a consequence of its design, not a feature. Firewalls do it better, and with more control. They even do it by default! The reason the iptables authors are religiously opposed to it is because the internet isn't meant to be like that, and there are perfectly good solutions (in iptables!) to do what you want without a broken end-to-end principle.
For what it's worth, I've been running IPv6 at home for a few years without the slightest trouble. My clients get NATted IPv4 addresses, and a public IPv6 address. They have the same security, since the firewall prevents unsolicited connections. But since it's a firewall and not shitty NAT, I have three SSH servers on port 22 and two webservers on port 80 that are publicly routable. Try doing that with NAT
This isn't an ad homenim, or at least not a fallacious one. Belief in ID is evidence of poor reasoning at best, and willful ignorance in pursuit of belief at worst. The data may be true, or it may not be, but he's lost credibility as a scientist.
Seriously? IT'S BAD BECAUSE WE'RE DOING IT!
There's all sorts of positive and negative things about the climate/atmosphere/etc. But we need to take responsibility for the negative (and positive, to be fair) aspects of changes we make as humans. This goes for dams, bombs, pollution, and global warming. When a hurricane happens and destroys the ecosystem for a while, we simply have to deal with it. But when an oil spill happens, we are morally obliged to deal with its consequences for the environment as best we can.
Furthermore, we don't even begin to truly understand the environment. While the natural changes are destructive, they are "known" to the biosphere - which is as it is because it can survive the natural environment. Our changes are a new, unseen variable. If the climate changes by several degrees in a few millenia, evolution can take place. But if it changes by several degrees in a century or two, that's really too short for the ecosystem to adapt.
And we are part of that ecosystem. Proximally, we wouldn't have any trouble with it. But distally, as the species we rely on (trees, farm animals, crops, etc) and the species they rely on, and the species they rely on... feel the effects of the changes, we will notice very quickly.
But that's the thing. The scientists aren't saying anything other than "since carbon dioxide is causing global warming, we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce global warming". Whatever you think about AGW, if it were true, this would be the solution. It's being misconstrued as policy recommendation (which would be the method to do it, i.e. cap and trade or something similar), but it's just a statement of causality.
Your post is essentially 100% wrong.
First of all, as noted elsewhere, the Pertussis bacterium can not survive outside of humans for very long, and so can be eradicated like a virus. But that's irrelevant.
You make the assumption that everybody can be vaccinated. Immunocompromised kids, or kids allergic to egg proteins or other components of the vaccine, or kids that are simply too young can't be immunized. As a society, we made the decision decades ago that those kids shouldn't be placed at risk because your perfectly-vaccinateable kids didn't get the shot.
Like somebody else said, it's pure-and-simple child abuse. Imagine a parent wasn't sure food was really the right choice for their kid, or maybe had some vague believed risks. Or, hell, let's be less abstract - a parent who thought that "mystic healing pyramids" or something were going to cure her kid's broken leg, ear infection, or pneumonia. Nobody (except mystic healing pyramids people) will object to the government taking her kids away because she's not getting them appropriate medical treatment. Except with vaccines, you get the extra bonus of putting everybody else's kids at risk, too!
Vaccines are appropriate medical treatment. There was never a question about that, other than one found to be made by a profiteering "doctor". It's awful lenient, actually, to merely require vaccines for admission into public school, since kids interact outside of school, but it so far has been sufficient.
In short, I care because your kids are putting mine, and everyone's, at risk. You know why you don't have a healthy fear of pertussis?? Because your parent's generation vaccinated all their kids! Before the vaccine, kids died of whooping cough all the time! Now that parents aren't vaccinating their kids, they're dying of whooping cough all the time! Except those parents could have done something about it.
The Californian was nervous about what they saw (the Titanic making a hard port and stopping, the flares). They were nervous enough to attempt a signalling by Morse lamp, but it didn't occur to them to wake the radio operator, and for that they deserve flack. But check out my comment replying to your sibling - I ran the numbers, and it seems implausible that the Californian could have saved all, or even a significant majority of the people on that ship. There's no question their presence would have helped, but they wouldn't be the factor changing the - well, Titanic-level disaster into one more like the Costa Concordia (thousands saved, a few dead). At best it would have been a small majority saved, but still a Titanic-level calamity.
Hypothermia killed most people in the water within minutes, so that would've been a bad idea to risk.
The ship sank in about 2 hours - for a lot of that time (about a half hour) they didn't really "get it" (which is obviously a huge problem as well), and for about the last hour, the ship was tilting far enough that rescue may very well have been impossible. If I were the captain of a mid-size steamer, I'd be very reluctant to be anywhere near an ocean liner whose stern was literally coming out of the water. In any case, even if the Californian had rushed directly to aid, it would have still taken almost an hour to get there (the Californian topped out at about 22km/h, and the Titanic was about 19km away). By that time, it would have been so clear that the Titanic was going down that the (much shorter and half-as-long) Californian wouldn't want to be taken down with it. Any assistance would not have been a direct ship-to-ship transfer, and they would have been stuck with ferrying boats around, which they only had an hour to do, or having people jump in and swim, which would have killed hundreds of people anyway due to the cold and the distance. Had they decided to ferry the lifeboats back and forth, they would have needed to either get the boats back up to the deck, or send a thousand people down on ladders one-by-one. And then repeat it all on the other ship.
There's no question that more people would have survived, but it would have been more like a 50-50 or even a 60-40 split instead of the 32-68 split it was (save-lost). It still would have been a calamity of unthinkable magnitude.
Bottom line, the Titanic needed more boats, and more urgency about using them. Everything else would have helped, but not enough.
All the "information" is in a timeline. Ugh. At least it's a pretty nifty HTML5 one.
I was about to spout my mouth off, but figured I'd read the article before I made a fool out of myself. But the article didn't have anything, so here goes.
The Titanic was near another ship - the Californian could have made it in time before the ship sank, but the radio operator went to bed. In those days, there was no requirement for 24/7 manning of the radio station, which was the single largest thing to come out of the sinking (in terms of radio). It's hard to fault them for it, though, since radio was still pretty new. The next-closest ship that did hear them (the Carpathia) hauled ass, at great risk, and got there a few hours after the sinking. Radio, as a technology, worked. Again, since this was the event that basically defined radio as a serious method for emergency communications, it's hard to fault people for not realizing it in advance.
Part of the rules for the calling frequency (500 KHz) was that everybody would stop talking for a few minutes every half-hour, so people could hear if there was a station in distress that was far away, or running out of power, and being swamped out by local traffic. Not an issue for the Titanic, but still a good idea.
All in all, the radio stuff is interesting, but what the Titanic needed were more lifeboats and a more serious response by the crew and passengers. Even if the Californian had made it there while the ship was still afloat, there were thousands of people on that ship, no way to get them off, and freezing cold water so they couldn't just jump in and be pulled out.
Shutting off service is what's being referred to as "bricking" here. The IMEI is blacklisted at the carrier. The phone technically works, just no network will authenticate it.
I can't tell if you're trolling or simply stupid. I'm desperately hoping the former.
I would have thought it was obvious that, since cell phones need to use the cell network to be cell phones, the cell network can block the phone, rendering it useless as a cell phone. Boomboxes require no such cooperation from a third party in order to work, so it's not feasible for them to do anything about it. This is more like if you had the ability to report your car as stolen, and then the plates wouldn't "authenticate" (against any cop who pulls them over for anything, or sees something suspicious and has the dispatcher run the plates).
Which, funnily enough, is exactly what happens.
They do tend to have meters per transformer ("pole pig"), which is pretty granular, as well as at other points in the distribution network. They use them to diagnose flaws in the system, but they're also used for finding fraud.
In your rant about the government, you neglected to remember (or maybe just didn't know) that meter fraud has ALWAYS happened, and ALWAYS been illegal. The government already prosecutes people for theft of service.
In fact, smarter meters are harder to trick, so it's likely that these smart meters have LESS fraud.
Given your rant about the "maximizing profits" by variable rate billing, I can safely assume you don't know the first thing about the electrical system in this country. It may feel very truthy that they're screwing you over, but read up on it sometime.
Speaking of moving the goalpost, why does data about Christianity percentages in Europe have anything to do with "the Creationism stupidity"?
The numbers I posted suggest that, in at least western Europe, it's a small minority of the population - and thus not one necessarily in the public consciousness. I don't live there, but I can imagine that it's not really a topic of public discussion in the way it is here in the US.
In practice, I find that most people pirate the too-expensive books. It gets you a searchable PDF (usually) or sometimes just scanned images, but that's no less helpful than the book.
Note taking is supposed to be synthesis - a combination of the lecture, the textbook section that the lecture addresses, and your own intuition. As such they are arguably original - perhaps "inspired by" the book. In any case, education is a fair-use exception. But this company is making money off of books, not teaching or taking a class. IANAL.
Actually, although there are some European countries that are similar (Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia are better, Turkey is worse), the US is way down there, at least with regards to France, Germany, the UK, etc. source
At least creationism is one thing fundamentalist Muslims and Christians agree on...
Well in so much as we can know anything about the outside world (which is an interesting, if unsolvable, question for epistemology), we can know that the world follows predictable patterns. And we can know what those patterns are.
Essentially, if we accept that the external world exists and we perceive it roughly as it "is", we can "know" things by science without relying on magical thinking.
Interestingly one of the first people to pose the problem of the external world, Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), did manage to "prove" the existence of God - unfortunately, it was more like "well, I just know because I can feel it".
I'm a college student. I hate that my textbooks are hundreds of dollars, and would love open textbooks.
But it seems like the companies arguing that the stuff in the book, in the order it's in, is copyrighted - which seems reasonable to me. If true, it doesn't matter if you use libre text and images - you're still "filling in" the template provided by the textbook. It's similar to a song cover - you're reproducing "your" version of the song, but it's still copyright of the original artist.
They do actually pay people to come up with the best stuff to include, and the order in which to present it...
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, people said the same thing about color. Color film (vs B&W) is a more "real-life" experience. Evidence suggests that "real-life" experience has a lot to do with movies - from color, to picture quality, to positional audio. 3D is a (if not the) next logical step.
To be honest, I thought Avatar was a masterfully executed film, if a bit cliched. It's certainly cohesive and "all-encompassing" in a way that few movies are. It's a shame the plot was so pedestrian. The 3D made the movie impressive, but since it seemed like a tech demo more than a proper flick, it came at the expense of me wanting to watch it again in 2D. By comparison, black&white never stopped me watching Casablanca, or Citizen Kane.
But there's all sorts of movies that are a lot of fun, if "safe". I can't exactly call them bad, in the same way that I can't call any of those Sundance films bad despite the fact that they're so boring. It's just a different kind of movie.
You may have been alluding to this, but it's standard procedure (even in civilian aircraft) to dump fuel when landing after a failure on takeoff. It reduces the landing weight (which is usually lower than the takeoff weight by a surprising amount; the extra weight is fuel intended to be burned), but also reduces the size of a fire ignited by a crash. Thus, one of the first things he would have done if he'd had engine problems would be dumping fuel.
He's been at it for a few weeks. Check out his comments. I can't quite figure it out either.
Slashdot has been an enormous factor in making me the nerd I am. That sounds cheesy, but I seriously started reading when I was 14. It was a big deal to me to find a huge community of other people who really saw the world like I did, unlike anyone else in my (small) high school.
But I really can't justify sticking around if the "stories" are just "Isn't Plantronics great?" videos. This is nonsense. I understand that Slashdot needs to make money, but if you guys can't keep doing that off of (normal) ads, then just shut it down. It's not worth this painful death.
I put up with trolls. I put up with Idle. I put up with the shitty Ajax. I didn't much mind the "itwbenett" stuff, where people were just submitting their online articles, as long as they were interesting. I even put up with the sponsored "ask slashdot", since it was clearly marked and had the potential to be somewhat interesting. I wasn't that guy bitching about every little thing- things change, but it's not a big deal.
We all know about Plantronics. They even make a decent product. But I don't go to Slashdot to read paid-for content posted by companies about what companies say about their products.
This is too much. If you're seriously going to have a half-dozen "stories" a day that are just ads for some gadget or service or so on, then I won't be here.
In case this wasn't clear enough, you known that line that companies cross that pisses their users off and sends them into a death spiral, a la Digg? You just crossed it. Step back very quickly or you'll have big problems.