To use freeform syntax, you prepend your command with an equals sign. So even if you cannot turn it off, you can very easily just ignore it as a feature. The idea is to use it where convenient, like tell it to graph a function, and let it take a guess at an appropriate range to graph it over. If you don't like the results, you can edit the displayed Mathematica syntax command it displays, and you still saved yourself a bit of work.
It emphatically is not intended for being used in scripts, but is only intended for use in an interactive session, so you will notice the errors. Indeed using it in scripts is a very bad idea, since Alpha will continue to be updated, and may interpret the same phrase differently at a later date.
That is very true. The worst part of Wolfram|Alpha is that sometimes you know it has the data you want, but you cannot get it to spit out what you want. The fact that it was explicitly designed to not have a an optional strict syntax drives me crazy.
In Mathematica you can try the freeform syntax, and if it fails, fall back on the strict syntax. Hopefully the Wolfram|Alpha API it uses also permits a strict form of accessing the data-sets Alpha uses, so you can query them strictly too if desired. (Some of Alpha's datasets are already part of Mathematica, so they already have a strict form, but other datasets are not.)
Real eastate is an extremely good model for how the DNS system should be run.
In places with significant unused land (for our purposes preserves and protected wilderness would be considered used) it is often possible to obtain ownership of such land by simply claiming it, and using it. (Law varies by nation, but this still occurs, and was far more common in the past).
In all other cases you buy land from an existing holder.
Regardless of one one obtains the land though, one must still pay any property tax, or forfeit the land. Tax is payed to the Sovereign entity that controls the land. -- That maps nicely to the domain name system. Unregistered domains can be obtained freely, but one must pay the annual fee which is equivalent to a fixed fee property tax. Since the TLD's Registry would be the closest equivalent to a government, they would get the fee.
Of course if one wants a registered domain (inhabited land) one can always obtain it by uying it from the owner. That is still true of the DNS.
Notice though that the real estate system does not have anything remotely like the registrars. They just don't fit in correctly. They serve absolutely no purpose. The whole thing came from other companies wanting a slice of Network Solution's domain registration profits. The whole problem is that they should never have been making a profit. They should having been charging only what it took to maintain the registry, including the TLD's main DNS servers.
Let the free market operate for DNS just as it does with real estate, where the market is between (current and prospective) owners of land, not been prospective owners of land and for-profit pseudo-governmental entities.
Fair enough. I most certainly have used LiveCDs to bypass password checks. The case of this specific tool has fewer indisputably acceptable non-(pen-test) use cases.
For example, while it could be used to penetrate a rouge MS SQL Server install in your network, you can disconnect the device forcibly (if it is not one of yours), or physically go to the device, and kill the server. MS SQL Server is not protected against access by the admins of the machine it is running on.
In the end nobody is really harmed by this decision, as those technically inclined enough to be able to use this tool will have no problem installing it from source.
If you use nmap to diagnose routing, you are doing something wrong. Heard of mtr and looking glasses?
Looking glasses are very useful. MTR is also a prefered tool. But nmap does have a few good tricks up its sleeve. As the name suggests, it can help with mapping out networks, which unfortunately is often necessarily when diagnosing routing issues through an unfamiliar public network. After all, many networks don't provide looking glass services, or other ways of getting much information about the network map.
> Wireshark is similarly very useful for debugging. For example, it can quickly help you determine that your software is creating malformed packets, or determine exactly what order your packets are being sent, or exactly what they contain. tcpdump is similar.
As both use libpcap, they would be.
I would certainly hope so, I mean pretty much all packet sniffers seem to be based on libpcap. Of course, not all are created equal. Wireshark's area of expertise in in analyzing packet dumps, rather than merely capturing packets, while tcpdump does much less analysis, but is far more suitable for running remotely.
> Even password cracking tools like jack the ripper can be used for purposes other than hacking or pen-testing. One possible such use (despite being a bit questionable) is ensuring minimum password strength, by running it for a fixed amount of time, and rejecting any passwords it can crack in that timeframe.
Or you could simply check the passwords against a dictionary before they are being hashed. Most Unix clones allow that by default.
As I said, the example use is a bit questionable. Prehashed checks on a password are preferable when feasible. Of course, the world being what it is, that is not always feasible.
Pen-testing is a valid use. So is hacking. And so is, arguably, cracking.
I was not maintaining a hacking/cracking distinction in my post, not because I do not appreciate such a distinction, but because the rest of the thread had been using only the media definition of 'hacking', which includes all of cracking, and some but not all of what is traditionally seen as hacking.
I certainly agree that all are valid usecases. But if the Fedora Project does not want to support certain valid usescases, so what? There are many other distributions that do support them.
But then, Red Hat/Fedora have had a long history of weird decisions. Making KDE rename Kbattleship & Ksnake is a recent example. On the plus side, I don't use them, so I don't care.
They may have been doing floor by floor inspections while the rest of the construction continued. There is little need for whole-building inspection for each construction phase, let each phase for a floor be inspected when that floor has completed that phase. That floor can then continue on to the next phase.
It is hard to know for sure, but it looked like they were using pre-fab concrete slabs inserted in the lattice.
The not pausing for settling is definitely a valid concern.
That said, many teachers agree that student can work together on homework to figure out the approach to a problem, as long as they are not copying actual solutions (i.e. once the approach becomes clear, they stop and finish the problem independently, before moving on to the next problem). The vast majority of my teachers actively encouraged doing that, but were clear that merely copying solutions was very much unacceptable.
A few of them further specified that if while collaborating on the approach the the group as a whole finds the solution, a notation to that effect should be added to the paper, so the grader does not assume the basically identical answers are a result of copying.
One area none of the teachers ever touched was the collaborative process of checking answers against each other once everybody has completed the assignment. That is because that is a thorny area, and comes very close to the issue of simply coping answers. Done correctly, this process helps students find and understand mistakes they made, resulting in better understanding of the overall material, especially since by the time students get graded material back, and realize they made a mistake, the class has advanced far beyond that point, making students feel less comfortable asking questions, and also often just no longer care.
There are large companies out there that tell you to avoid the STL portions of the standard library whenever possible.
That is usually based on an edict from back in the day when many compilers had issues with templates, and certain uses of the supplied STL would actually choke the compiler. On old compilers, even when the STL worked, the optimizer did a terrible job on templated code, so the code was far less efficient than code that avoided it.
It also stems in part in many places from the fact that the average coder with an associate's degree may never have even touched the STL in any class. I mean I went to very good private four year college, and the level of C++ taught there was not great, considering all that should be taught.
I've learned the intricacies of templates, how to prperly handle const-correctness, and other "advanced" topics outside of school, in my case mostly thanks to the Cline's C++-FAQ-Lite, and my following of the comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated, and comp.std.c++ newsgroups for several months. Oh yeah, Meyers' Effective C++, More Effective C++, and Effective STL were also critical in developming my undertsanding of some of the more dark corners of C++.
The raw numbers are useful, but many people would like to read a quick summary of the highlights of the statistics, rather than having to read through them themselves.
Somebody who is not well acquainted with the specific stats may have trouble telling what is unusual, or combining them together to reach a conclusion. Even those familiar with the statistics would often find it quicker to read the computer generated summary than trying to skim the numbers to determine if they are worth spend more time on.
But I would agree that providing the actual numbers is important, so the summaries can be verified if desired, etc.
The flip side of the coin though is that nmap, wireshark, and tcpdump all have uses beyond pen-testing or hacking. nmap can be used to help diagnose routing issues (I've actually used it for that), as well as for veryifying your network map, and other similar uses.
Wireshark is similarly very useful for debugging. For example, it can quickly help you determine that your software is creating malformed packets, or determine exactly what order your packets are being sent, or exactly what they contain. tcpdump is similar.
Even password cracking tools like jack the ripper can be used for purposes other than hacking or pen-testing. One possible such use (despite being a bit questionable) is ensuring minimum password strength, by running it for a fixed amount of time, and rejecting any passwords it can crack in that timeframe.
The difference is that sqlninja really has no use beyond hacking or pen-testing. It does not even pretend it might have other uses.
That all said, I'm not saying that refusing to package it is the right course of action. Indeed that seems questionable at best. I'm merely pointing out how sqlninja is different from the other tools you mentioned.
It would be entirely possible to have CDMA series phones use a SIM-like card that specifies the ESN and other provisioning information. But a standard GSM SIM would not have the correct information.
But it is kind of pointless to debate now. LTE (part of the GSM series of technology) is the future, and even Verizon (a major CDMA provider) intends to use that in the future
SIM cards are a critical part of GSM technology. While it is entirely possible to make a GSM phone without a swappable SIM card (i.e. solder a SIM chip directly to the board), this is not seen in practice. Even Verizon will not be doing that for LTE, but will be using a standard SIM card, like like any other GSM-series provider.
CDMA really does not have a concept of "Unlocked Phone". CDMA phones can be feild provisioned even by the consumer, as long as the consumer has the MSL, or the SPC.[1] Verizon leaves the MSL as all zeros, while Sprint actually uses this to secure the phones.
Thus Verizon's phones could be considered unlocked. On the other hand, if you know the MSL for your sprint phone, it could be re-provisioned too, without any real difficulty. Sprint has historically been a bit reluctant to tell consumers the MSL, but they have been known to do so, especially since Verizon would be unwilling to allow use of a Sprint-branded phone on their network.
If a consumer knows how to manually provision his own phone for the desired network, then the only thing needed for the phone to work on said network is for the ESN (Electronic Serial Number) of the phone to be entered into his account. However, portions of the ESN indicate the phone model, and in some cases even to he point of being able to differentiate between the Sprint and Verizon model of the same phone.
Both networks reserve the right to refuse to enter an ESN that does not correspond to a phone model they sell. I believe at least one network may actually have the application the Support Reps use refuse to accept ESNs that do not correspond to models they sell.
Footnotes: [1] Two different codes that can be used to provision a phone. The SPC can be used on a completely unprovisioned phone, while the MSL is used for changes. In practice OTA provisioning always uses the MSL. Sprint is willing to give out the SPC to techs or others who know how to hand provision a phone, but is a littl more reluctant to give away the MSL. (however, as mentioned above they have been known to tell consumers the MSL.)
Despite the name similarities, WCDMA is not very closely related to CDMA. WCDMA does use Code Division Multiple Access as part of what would be the OSI layer 1, but the layer 2 information broadcast (once demultiplexed) is merely a modified form of the information broadcast in GSM. It is a 3GPP standard, just like all other GSM family standards.
Standard CDMA is a 3GPP2 standard, and has a very different Layer 2 format. Thus it is not nearly as easy to create a chip that supports CDMA and W-CDMA as it is to create a GSM/W-CMDA chip.
The good news is that LTE is a 3GPP standard, and most US carriers (including Verizon) plan to move to it. Creating an LTE chip that would support all US networks that use LTE would be far simpler (and thus cheaper) than a GSM/CDMA hybrid. (But I have not been able to RTFA, so it may point out problems that I am not currently aware of.) Even Sprint/Nextel is considering LTE as a possibility in the future, despite the money they have already sunk into WiMAX.
In reality this does not function that much different than a boat traveling downwind faster than the wind by not traveling directly down wind, but by jibing back and forth across the path of the wind. In that case the maximum speed is dependent on the boat's parameters, and the wind speed. The same is true of this vehicle.
The exact maximum one can go at any given fixed wind speed is a function of the materials used, which do have limits, but the exact limits are not currently known, since we are continuously discovering new materials with different properties.
Don't be absurd. Lets say that the wind stopped completely. You are now coasting, and air-resistance/wheel-friction will slow you down, jut like with every other vehicle.
Momentum keeps you from coming to an instant stop, but you will stop.
The maximum speed of a vehicle with that design is roughly a fixed percentage of the wind speed, based on the exact design parameters (coefficients of friction, aerodynamic properties, etc). With the correct parameters you can get the percentage to be greater than 100%.
If there is no friction, you would continue perpetually (if you lived in an infinite flat world anyway, and only Newtonian physics were at play). No physicists would dispute that. Of course a frictionless world is absurd, and in fact the vehicle relies on friction (of tires against pavement) to be able to go faster than the wind.
That is how it works for individuals. Corporate "income" tax is approximately based on profit, although such a statement is excessively simplistic, considering how complicated corporate tax law is.
I'm sure it costs a lot. I'd guess hundreds of dollars per bulb. It also uses 100 W. It is most of two foot in diameter (reflector, which probably also doubles as a heat sink) and weighs over 8 pounds.
Most of the network neutrality proposals explicitly allow Verizon to prioritize the on demand packets.
The logic goes like this: The phone and TV are completely separate services from the Internet Service. (You can get FIOS without the Internet, despite seeming pointless). They are allowed to prioritize them differently from the internet service. They see the situation as the same as Comcat's cable Internet, where the TV and internet are separate services, with the Internet service merely using the spare bandwidth. The fact that Verizon chose to use IP for the TV service is irrelevant, because they could have chosen some other protocol instead, and the users would never know the difference.
The important distinction between FIOS on demand packets and Netflix on demand packets, is that you can get the FIOS on demand packets even if you don't pay for Internet service, but you need internet service to get the Netflix packets.
That is true of anything you report to the FBI. If it is not drug-related, violent, or involving a lot of money, you are very unlikely to ever hear back.
Its not often a problem though, because many federal crimes are also state crimes, so the state police can do the investigating and then offer the case to the US Attorney (who may be more inclined to prosecute if it did not take up the time of the FBI, etc) or prosecute at the state level.
Most so called "cyber crime" are already crime and the appropriate categorization should be used. Why should "cyber" fraud be considered any different than regular fraud? There is no need.
Why should "Hacking" not simply fall under existing categories like invasion of privacy, tortuous interference, damage to property, etc?
The hope would be that some QT apps that pull in chunks of KDE may be able to get away with just pulling in QT instead, making it less likely you will need the KDE libraries, unless you install KDE itself, or one of KDE's core apps.
Quite a bit of the confusion could be fixed for existing languages Simply by improving the IDE.
Imagine if in an IDE, you are writing C code. When you press the equals key, you get a left arrow symbol. The actual source code still has an equal, but it is displayed as a left arrow. Only when you type the second equals does it show up as an equal sign.
Similarly ! might be displayed as the logical not symbol, while != gets shown as the classic not equal symbol. The carrot would show up as a plus in a circle (A common symbol for XOR), etc.
The -> operator would be displayed as a one character right arrow, of course.
But this would all just be display tricks. If after typing a double equals, you hit backspace, it demotes back into a left arrow. If you move the cursor into the middle of a compound character it breaks down into its component parts, until the cursor is moved out. Etc.
That would work well, without having anything be hard to type, since the actual source is ASCII.
Make the * character in C show up as completely different characters in C depending on the function it is performing. (i.e. for multiplication, replace it with a slightly over-sized multiplication dot, for pointer declaring, some other symbol, same for de-referencing.)
What on earth are you saying? There was no part of the A Christmas Carol novella where in Scrooge went bankrupt. I suspect you are talking about one of the unofficial sequels, such as McHugh's "Scrooge & Cratchit".
Slashdot Mirror
To use freeform syntax, you prepend your command with an equals sign. So even if you cannot turn it off, you can very easily just ignore it as a feature. The idea is to use it where convenient, like tell it to graph a function, and let it take a guess at an appropriate range to graph it over. If you don't like the results, you can edit the displayed Mathematica syntax command it displays, and you still saved yourself a bit of work.
It emphatically is not intended for being used in scripts, but is only intended for use in an interactive session, so you will notice the errors. Indeed using it in scripts is a very bad idea, since Alpha will continue to be updated, and may interpret the same phrase differently at a later date.
That is very true. The worst part of Wolfram|Alpha is that sometimes you know it has the data you want, but you cannot get it to spit out what you want. The fact that it was explicitly designed to not have a an optional strict syntax drives me crazy.
In Mathematica you can try the freeform syntax, and if it fails, fall back on the strict syntax. Hopefully the Wolfram|Alpha API it uses also permits a strict form of accessing the data-sets Alpha uses, so you can query them strictly too if desired. (Some of Alpha's datasets are already part of Mathematica, so they already have a strict form, but other datasets are not.)
Real eastate is an extremely good model for how the DNS system should be run.
In places with significant unused land (for our purposes preserves and protected wilderness would be considered used) it is often possible to obtain ownership of such land by simply claiming it, and using it. (Law varies by nation, but this still occurs, and was far more common in the past).
In all other cases you buy land from an existing holder.
Regardless of one one obtains the land though, one must still pay any property tax, or forfeit the land. Tax is payed to the Sovereign entity that controls the land.
--
That maps nicely to the domain name system. Unregistered domains can be obtained freely, but one must pay the annual fee which is equivalent to a fixed fee property tax. Since the TLD's Registry would be the closest equivalent to a government, they would get the fee.
Of course if one wants a registered domain (inhabited land) one can always obtain it by uying it from the owner. That is still true of the DNS.
Notice though that the real estate system does not have anything remotely like the registrars. They just don't fit in correctly. They serve absolutely no purpose. The whole thing came from other companies wanting a slice of Network Solution's domain registration profits. The whole problem is that they should never have been making a profit. They should having been charging only what it took to maintain the registry, including the TLD's main DNS servers.
Let the free market operate for DNS just as it does with real estate, where the market is between (current and prospective) owners of land, not been prospective owners of land and for-profit pseudo-governmental entities.
Fair enough. I most certainly have used LiveCDs to bypass password checks. The case of this specific tool has fewer indisputably acceptable non-(pen-test) use cases.
For example, while it could be used to penetrate a rouge MS SQL Server install in your network, you can disconnect the device forcibly (if it is not one of yours), or physically go to the device, and kill the server. MS SQL Server is not protected against access by the admins of the machine it is running on.
In the end nobody is really harmed by this decision, as those technically inclined enough to be able to use this tool will have no problem installing it from source.
If you use nmap to diagnose routing, you are doing something wrong. Heard of mtr and looking glasses?
Looking glasses are very useful. MTR is also a prefered tool. But nmap does have a few good tricks up its sleeve. As the name suggests, it can help with mapping out networks, which unfortunately is often necessarily when diagnosing routing issues through an unfamiliar public network. After all, many networks don't provide looking glass services, or other ways of getting much information about the network map.
> Wireshark is similarly very useful for debugging. For example, it can quickly help you determine that your software is creating malformed packets, or determine exactly what order your packets are being sent, or exactly what they contain. tcpdump is similar.
As both use libpcap, they would be.
I would certainly hope so, I mean pretty much all packet sniffers seem to be based on libpcap. Of course, not all are created equal. Wireshark's area of expertise in in analyzing packet dumps, rather than merely capturing packets, while tcpdump does much less analysis, but is far more suitable for running remotely.
> Even password cracking tools like jack the ripper can be used for purposes other than hacking or pen-testing. One possible such use (despite being a bit questionable) is ensuring minimum password strength, by running it for a fixed amount of time, and rejecting any passwords it can crack in that timeframe.
Or you could simply check the passwords against a dictionary before they are being hashed. Most Unix clones allow that by default.
As I said, the example use is a bit questionable. Prehashed checks on a password are preferable when feasible. Of course, the world being what it is, that is not always feasible.
Pen-testing is a valid use. So is hacking. And so is, arguably, cracking.
I was not maintaining a hacking/cracking distinction in my post, not because I do not appreciate such a distinction, but because the rest of the thread had been using only the media definition of 'hacking', which includes all of cracking, and some but not all of what is traditionally seen as hacking.
I certainly agree that all are valid usecases. But if the Fedora Project does not want to support certain valid usescases, so what? There are many other distributions that do support them.
But then, Red Hat/Fedora have had a long history of weird decisions. Making KDE rename Kbattleship & Ksnake is a recent example. On the plus side, I don't use them, so I don't care.
I think you meant renaming KTron to KSnakeDuel.
They may have been doing floor by floor inspections while the rest of the construction continued. There is little need for whole-building inspection for each construction phase, let each phase for a floor be inspected when that floor has completed that phase. That floor can then continue on to the next phase.
It is hard to know for sure, but it looked like they were using pre-fab concrete slabs inserted in the lattice.
The not pausing for settling is definitely a valid concern.
That said, many teachers agree that student can work together on homework to figure out the approach to a problem, as long as they are not copying actual solutions (i.e. once the approach becomes clear, they stop and finish the problem independently, before moving on to the next problem). The vast majority of my teachers actively encouraged doing that, but were clear that merely copying solutions was very much unacceptable.
A few of them further specified that if while collaborating on the approach the the group as a whole finds the solution, a notation to that effect should be added to the paper, so the grader does not assume the basically identical answers are a result of copying.
One area none of the teachers ever touched was the collaborative process of checking answers against each other once everybody has completed the assignment. That is because that is a thorny area, and comes very close to the issue of simply coping answers. Done correctly, this process helps students find and understand mistakes they made, resulting in better understanding of the overall material, especially since by the time students get graded material back, and realize they made a mistake, the class has advanced far beyond that point, making students feel less comfortable asking questions, and also often just no longer care.
There are large companies out there that tell you to avoid the STL portions of the standard library whenever possible.
That is usually based on an edict from back in the day when many compilers had issues with templates, and certain uses of the supplied STL would actually choke the compiler. On old compilers, even when the STL worked, the optimizer did a terrible job on templated code, so the code was far less efficient than code that avoided it.
It also stems in part in many places from the fact that the average coder with an associate's degree may never have even touched the STL in any class. I mean I went to very good private four year college, and the level of C++ taught there was not great, considering all that should be taught.
I've learned the intricacies of templates, how to prperly handle const-correctness, and other "advanced" topics outside of school, in my case mostly thanks to the Cline's C++-FAQ-Lite, and my following of the comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated, and comp.std.c++ newsgroups for several months. Oh yeah, Meyers' Effective C++, More Effective C++, and Effective STL were also critical in developming my undertsanding of some of the more dark corners of C++.
The raw numbers are useful, but many people would like to read a quick summary of the highlights of the statistics, rather than having to read through them themselves.
Somebody who is not well acquainted with the specific stats may have trouble telling what is unusual, or combining them together to reach a conclusion. Even those familiar with the statistics would often find it quicker to read the computer generated summary than trying to skim the numbers to determine if they are worth spend more time on.
But I would agree that providing the actual numbers is important, so the summaries can be verified if desired, etc.
The flip side of the coin though is that nmap, wireshark, and tcpdump all have uses beyond pen-testing or hacking. nmap can be used to help diagnose routing issues (I've actually used it for that), as well as for veryifying your network map, and other similar uses.
Wireshark is similarly very useful for debugging. For example, it can quickly help you determine that your software is creating malformed packets, or determine exactly what order your packets are being sent, or exactly what they contain. tcpdump is similar.
Even password cracking tools like jack the ripper can be used for purposes other than hacking or pen-testing. One possible such use (despite being a bit questionable) is ensuring minimum password strength, by running it for a fixed amount of time, and rejecting any passwords it can crack in that timeframe.
The difference is that sqlninja really has no use beyond hacking or pen-testing. It does not even pretend it might have other uses.
That all said, I'm not saying that refusing to package it is the right course of action. Indeed that seems questionable at best. I'm merely pointing out how sqlninja is different from the other tools you mentioned.
It would be entirely possible to have CDMA series phones use a SIM-like card that specifies the ESN and other provisioning information. But a standard GSM SIM would not have the correct information.
But it is kind of pointless to debate now. LTE (part of the GSM series of technology) is the future, and even Verizon (a major CDMA provider) intends to use that in the future
SIM cards are a critical part of GSM technology. While it is entirely possible to make a GSM phone without a swappable SIM card (i.e. solder a SIM chip directly to the board), this is not seen in practice. Even Verizon will not be doing that for LTE, but will be using a standard SIM card, like like any other GSM-series provider.
CDMA really does not have a concept of "Unlocked Phone". CDMA phones can be feild provisioned even by the consumer, as long as the consumer has the MSL, or the SPC.[1] Verizon leaves the MSL as all zeros, while Sprint actually uses this to secure the phones.
Thus Verizon's phones could be considered unlocked. On the other hand, if you know the MSL for your sprint phone, it could be re-provisioned too, without any real difficulty. Sprint has historically been a bit reluctant to tell consumers the MSL, but they have been known to do so, especially since Verizon would be unwilling to allow use of a Sprint-branded phone on their network.
If a consumer knows how to manually provision his own phone for the desired network, then the only thing needed for the phone to work on said network is for the ESN (Electronic Serial Number) of the phone to be entered into his account. However, portions of the ESN indicate the phone model, and in some cases even to he point of being able to differentiate between the Sprint and Verizon model of the same phone.
Both networks reserve the right to refuse to enter an ESN that does not correspond to a phone model they sell. I believe at least one network may actually have the application the Support Reps use refuse to accept ESNs that do not correspond to models they sell.
Footnotes:
[1]
Two different codes that can be used to provision a phone. The SPC can be used on a completely unprovisioned phone, while the MSL is used for changes. In practice OTA provisioning always uses the MSL. Sprint is willing to give out the SPC to techs or others who know how to hand provision a phone, but is a littl more reluctant to give away the MSL. (however, as mentioned above they have been known to tell consumers the MSL.)
Despite the name similarities, WCDMA is not very closely related to CDMA. WCDMA does use Code Division Multiple Access as part of what would be the OSI layer 1, but the layer 2 information broadcast (once demultiplexed) is merely a modified form of the information broadcast in GSM. It is a 3GPP standard, just like all other GSM family standards.
Standard CDMA is a 3GPP2 standard, and has a very different Layer 2 format. Thus it is not nearly as easy to create a chip that supports CDMA and W-CDMA as it is to create a GSM/W-CMDA chip.
The good news is that LTE is a 3GPP standard, and most US carriers (including Verizon) plan to move to it. Creating an LTE chip that would support all US networks that use LTE would be far simpler (and thus cheaper) than a GSM/CDMA hybrid. (But I have not been able to RTFA, so it may point out problems that I am not currently aware of.) Even Sprint/Nextel is considering LTE as a possibility in the future, despite the money they have already sunk into WiMAX.
43067 Searches here. :)
That would depend on the wind speed.
In reality this does not function that much different than a boat traveling downwind faster than the wind by not traveling directly down wind, but by jibing back and forth across the path of the wind.
In that case the maximum speed is dependent on the boat's parameters, and the wind speed. The same is true of this vehicle.
The exact maximum one can go at any given fixed wind speed is a function of the materials used, which do have limits, but the exact limits are not currently known, since we are continuously discovering new materials with different properties.
Don't be absurd. Lets say that the wind stopped completely. You are now coasting, and air-resistance/wheel-friction will slow you down, jut like with every other vehicle.
Momentum keeps you from coming to an instant stop, but you will stop.
The maximum speed of a vehicle with that design is roughly a fixed percentage of the wind speed, based on the exact design parameters (coefficients of friction, aerodynamic properties, etc). With the correct parameters you can get the percentage to be greater than 100%.
If there is no friction, you would continue perpetually (if you lived in an infinite flat world anyway, and only Newtonian physics were at play). No physicists would dispute that. Of course a frictionless world is absurd, and in fact the vehicle relies on friction (of tires against pavement) to be able to go faster than the wind.
That is true for the broadcast programming, but the on-demand programming is a form of IPTV, and is considered an integral part of the TV offering.
My post could have been more clear about that, but it is not incorrect.
That is how it works for individuals. Corporate "income" tax is approximately based on profit, although such a statement is excessively simplistic, considering how complicated corporate tax law is.
The light he was talking about is probably this monstrosity: http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/LEDChamberLighting.pdf
I'm sure it costs a lot. I'd guess hundreds of dollars per bulb. It also uses 100 W. It is most of two foot in diameter (reflector, which probably also doubles as a heat sink) and weighs over 8 pounds.
Most of the network neutrality proposals explicitly allow Verizon to prioritize the on demand packets.
The logic goes like this: The phone and TV are completely separate services from the Internet Service. (You can get FIOS without the Internet, despite seeming pointless). They are allowed to prioritize them differently from the internet service. They see the situation as the same as Comcat's cable Internet, where the TV and internet are separate services, with the Internet service merely using the spare bandwidth. The fact that Verizon chose to use IP for the TV service is irrelevant, because they could have chosen some other protocol instead, and the users would never know the difference.
The important distinction between FIOS on demand packets and Netflix on demand packets, is that you can get the FIOS on demand packets even if you don't pay for Internet service, but you need internet service to get the Netflix packets.
That is true of anything you report to the FBI. If it is not drug-related, violent, or involving a lot of money, you are very unlikely to ever hear back.
Its not often a problem though, because many federal crimes are also state crimes, so the state police can do the investigating and then offer the case to the US Attorney (who may be more inclined to prosecute if it did not take up the time of the FBI, etc) or prosecute at the state level.
Most so called "cyber crime" are already crime and the appropriate categorization should be used. Why should "cyber" fraud be considered any different than regular fraud? There is no need.
Why should "Hacking" not simply fall under existing categories like invasion of privacy, tortuous interference, damage to property, etc?
The hope would be that some QT apps that pull in chunks of KDE may be able to get away with just pulling in QT instead, making it less likely you will need the KDE libraries, unless you install KDE itself, or one of KDE's core apps.
Quite a bit of the confusion could be fixed for existing languages Simply by improving the IDE.
Imagine if in an IDE, you are writing C code. When you press the equals key, you get a left arrow symbol. The actual source code still has an equal, but it is displayed as a left arrow. Only when you type the second equals does it show up as an equal sign.
Similarly ! might be displayed as the logical not symbol, while != gets shown as the classic not equal symbol. The carrot would show up as a plus in a circle (A common symbol for XOR), etc.
The -> operator would be displayed as a one character right arrow, of course.
But this would all just be display tricks. If after typing a double equals, you hit backspace, it demotes back into a left arrow. If you move the cursor into the middle of a compound character it breaks down into its component parts, until the cursor is moved out. Etc.
That would work well, without having anything be hard to type, since the actual source is ASCII.
Make the * character in C show up as completely different characters in C depending on the function it is performing. (i.e. for multiplication, replace it with a slightly over-sized multiplication dot, for pointer declaring, some other symbol, same for de-referencing.)
What on earth are you saying? There was no part of the A Christmas Carol novella where in Scrooge went bankrupt. I suspect you are talking about one of the unofficial sequels, such as McHugh's "Scrooge & Cratchit".