I kind of figured that? I am not an expert, so I don't know either. It's just that I don't see how they're going to get meaningful data (with enough "at rest" devices perhaps?) and separate the signal from the noise. It is a bit interesting but, at the same time, I've oft repeated that it's kind of important that we look to continued uses for retired smart phones - I think that might actually be a more viable method. Slap it on a shelf, connected to the wireless, and then use the one in your pocket as the device that gets the notifications? I'd articulate further but I suspect you'd be more fluent in that than I would.
I just don't see it as feasible, at any meaningful level, with the devices in pockets, in cars, with movement, etc... There's a whole lot of signal and noise issues. It might, and this is why I'm not an expert, be enough noise that it's easy to filter out (high signal to noise ratio) but that just seems improbable - without this system having years and years of massive amounts of real-world data, correlation, and some VERY big compute power behind it. (Distributed computing on the retired smart phones might be feasible.)
Again, I'm going to speculate that you'd be far more adept at refining the above than I would be. If not, I'm not the most articulate, I'll try to elaborate just so long as you don't hold me to very high standards.
So yeah, AS did the right thing, because, yeah, "information should be free".
People keep saying that but they don't ever seem to want to give me their DOB, SSN, bank routing number, bank number, information to their security questions, usernames, passwords, or pictures of their mother's genitals. I keep asking but, no...
I'm beginning to think that the people using that phrase don't really believe it but use it as an excuse.
I don't know where I'd be hypocritical to ask this, but can you show me where this site has advanced the progress of science? What science, specifically, has been advanced by use of the materials retrieved from this site?
While there is some merit to that argument, the reality is that not all of the stuff released was paid for by the government. I do not really hold much of an opinion on the subject other than this: Accept the consequences of your actions. If you are unwilling to accept the consequences, do not perform the action.
Accountability and responsibility are important things to me. It's one of the reasons that I try to avoid posting as an AC. I said it. I own it. I may be wrong. I will learn. I am accountable for my actions. Actions have consequences. If you are unwilling to accept the repercussions for your beliefs then they are not beliefs, they're suggestions.
Wait, what? I was happily shaking my head until I got to this.
Let me see if I understand you well enough, gravity exists because I think it exists? is that what you're saying?
So, if I stop believing in gravity then gravity will no longer go away? And, if it doesn't go away, I suppose that's because I'm not believing hard enough? If I just will it, it will happen? The power of positive thought, something like that?
That's one of the reasons that I use to justify my not-moderating. I get points. I don't use them. I just delete the notice and continue on. I'd rather comment. I'm not always as objective as I could be and so it would be inappropriate for me to moderate - especially on subjects where I'm uninitiated. I'd rather comment than judge. I don't think my judgment should be used to promote or demote. I get plenty of points, I just don't use them.
Mandatory? Hmm... I was just having this conversation yesterday and finished it up today. There's no technical reason why you have to have a phone with DSL. I have had this setup before. It was just DSL, there was no phone number. If I hooked up a phone, I could not make local calls nor could I even reach an operator. I do believe emergency calls would still work - I did not try calling 911 to test that. I did try to call a local number and I did try to contact the operator. No service, at all... It was just DSL, there was nothing more to it.
In my State, it might be a bit different legally. It's communications over the copper lines so there are some interesting rules associated with it. For example, I can use *any* ISP that's willing to service my area - that includes an ISP on the opposite side of the globe. The owners of the copper must lease the lines at near cost to the provider. I can have multiple lines (and do) and have different ISPs for each one (and have) and the service is pretty much done without interruption as if I switch between them. Because it's DSL there's a best effort repair process that the copper line owners must follow or the PUC gets snippy.
I have had a provider tell me that this was not possible. It took some wearing down but it is, in fact, possible and must be offered by law in my State. As I was already paying a goodly sum to have the lines upgraded and a CO put in, I went with DSL instead of cable quite specifically for the protections offered by going with copper. When considering the robustness of the network, it made even more sense for me to choose copper. We have some rather exciting storms and it's not uncommon to find the power lines down and that includes the telephone wires. More than once, the copper's been on the ground but I still had perfectly serviceable broadband.
In fact, it's such a regular occurrence that others, and myself, actually consider our mains electrical connection to be more of a backup than a primary. They will be running fiber, or so I'm told, in the middle of this year. It is unlikely that I'll be switching or will be giving up my copper connection simply because of how robust it is and the protections that are afforded by having it. I'm not even certain that they'd do well with burying the lines - we have frost heaves that make the ground move a whole bunch and fiber's really not that resilient. Not that it matters, they'll be rolling the fiber out on the poles as putting it in the ground would be prohibitively expensive.
I thought the CID standard supported appending an extension to it so that one could route the call back into the appropriate phone - which, as I recall, also could be configured to allow internal roaming? Meaning, you sign into the phone and your extension follows you. When you make an outbound call then it lists the generic number and then appends the appropriate digits so that one can call back that particular extension without needing to go to a menu or human - all done via PBX?
I've not poked at the phone system in a *very* long time so I may be in error here but doesn't this insert a potential for false positives and blocking of legitimate calls? It kind of defeats the point if you have to check a second voice mail inbox and filter out the messages. That and, well... There are a lot of people who, like myself, have a deep disliking of talking to a machine unless the call was specifically made in order to talk to a machine.
Add to this, countless phone numbers, spoofing, and the many, many ways you can (or could) route through phone systems - I kind of question the validity and value of this system. It seems unlikely that this will be done without having a bunch of false positives. Then, per the tracing, various countries have different laws and different providers will have different policies. It's not exactly like the movies where you keep 'em online long enough to get a trace. There may be lots of hops in the way in many of them may not be nearly as cooperative as one might hope.
Yeah, I don't know how the site works - having never needed to make use of it, but I do know that I'd look at *who* was endorsing whom and what they had for qualifications to assert an opinion on the abilities. I may be able to say that my mechanic, barber, or housekeeper do fine work but, no matter how much I may like you as a person, I can't not say that you're a quality programmer, chemist, biologist, or airplane pilot.
So, were I to use the site, I'd weight opinions and recommendations carefully. Lots of people don't seem inclined to do that sort of thing - with other things, at least. There's an adage about considering the source of comments, opinions, and such. It's a valid adage and a good thing to do. The number of endorsements is insignificant compared to the quality of those who are doing the endorsing. If they've got 39 people saying they're excellent and none of those people are actually in the field but they have 1 person who's saying they're not so very good but they are a recognized expert in the field then you can bet that I'm going to weigh that one endorsement much heavier than I will the endorsements from the 39 people.
It's possible that they're a great person but still suck.
Dunno? But, it seems to me, more and more of these things that I read about various companies open-sourcing their material makes me think that they're just looking for someone to fix it for them for free. Maybe someone should suggest they be a bit more flexible with QA than to apply arbitrary time limits? Some things just can't be fixed in the code.
You mean to tell me that you don't know that Slashdot has always had articles like this, about games, and such? If anything, the quality of the articles and the comments have improved, significantly, since the sale.
No, Slashdot's always had this sort of thing. I kind of know this 'cause this is actually my second account, having lost track of the first one's email address and password... So, no... It's not ruined. It's not just about IT. In fact, the great thing about Slashdot is that you're not obligated to view articles that get your knickers in a knot. I'm sure you'll be a valued member of whatever community is you wander off to. The lack of your complaints will be golden silence.
No, control your borders. Facebook is culpable in this instance but only because they are physically in France. You are missing the point. My point was addressing the belief that one had to obey the laws of all the other nations. No. No I don't. I will not censor for China *unless* I have a physical presence in their country. If I'm selling a product or service and someone in China orders it, I'm sending it. The payment's processed in my country, the server is hosted in my country, and I'm not about to adhere to China's laws. They can control their borders.
If I have a site, even if it has French advertisers, even if it has French viewers, even if it has French members... So long as that hardware is not in France, France can piss right off. I'm addressing the belief that the OP had that all such things were liable and that it is legal, just, or even remotely worthy of consideration for any such business that might interact with people in France. No. No it's not. I will follow the laws where there is a physical presence or transaction.
If France doesn't like it, they can control their borders. It's pretty straight forward. Yes, Facebook is culpable. However, to address the OP's statement (which includes more than Facebook) I responded. If you can look at what I replied to, and keep it in mind, you'll be able to see the connection. It does necessitate remembering a preceding comment.
Again, if France tries to tell me that I must or may not do something AND I have no physical presence there nor do I process payments there then they can piss off. That goes for China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the rest. However, it does necessitate that you read the preceding comment, the one that I replied to, to understand. Facebook is culpable and needs to adhere to their regulations. What they should do is simply pull their hardware out, close any offices, and dissolve any corporations located there.
Oh no, thank you!;-) We don't get enough of this sort of stuff in the comments any more. When I read your post, my "holy crap" button was pressed. There's actually a lot of potential there - if I'm reading and understanding properly. As you can shunt binaries over it (and presumably split them and recombine them) it's possibly a method to push all sorts of things and, if I'm reading properly, it supports bi-directional communication.
It could be an SMS application but not one that's for reading SMS necessarily but one that uses it as a protocol. The first one that comes to mind is that SMS is often included, unlimited, and/or inexpensive. Picture messaging is not always included in the bundle. Using the protocol, even large pictures could be sent in chunks and reassembled. Then, there's all sorts of ways to tuck data into it - not using your data plan but simply sending the data in binaries and have it interpreted, decompressed, or reassembled at the client end.
As SMS is *usually* fairly reliable it might work well. It won't be speedy, necessarily, but it should be fairly dependable. Why has nobody done much with this? I can think of a dozen ways to make use of this and I'm not even in the industry. Heck, I haven't even given it much thought. Unless I'm missing something, this could actually be valuable to a whole bunch of people. I'm pretty sure it'd piss off the cell companies and they could probably filter for it. Still...
That's why I said "I" and not Facebook. Facebook is certainly culpable because they've hardware, personnel, and processing payments in France. However, if you read the post that I was responding to - you'll see it is very much relevant to this particular sub-thread. I was addressing their belief that such was applicable to all businesses and not just Facebook. That's patently absurd. You can read the parent posts if you'd like to get more insight as to what I was addressing.
If you scroll through (I had a *lot* of replies) someone has, at the bottom of their post, a link the the US gov site where you can submit corrections. In my case, it's not that the GPS sends them there. It just shows it as a route. You can make a GPS send it there - but that's actually a bit like work. It's possible to use a GPS and have it happen.
Basically, enable dirt roads, sit down the road from my house, set the destination to the village, and then keep hitting the button for alternative routes. That will, eventually, offer it as a route on some of them. The thing is, on paper maps and some GPS maps, it shows as a road. It's not even consistent between the online version and the maps on my tablets or phones. The paper maps have a lot of variance between them as well. Some are more accurate, some are less, some show it, some don't show anything. Some have a bridge that doesn't exist, some show the bridge on the other road that is not my driveway - that's an actual "route" but I'm not sure I'd call it a road. It's fine for an ATV or a reasonably stout 4WD. That's about it, really. It's sure as hell not appropriate for a bus.;-)
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably try to take a bus through there if I had a bus and didn't care about it. I have accumulated lots of things but a disposable bus is not one of them. On the other hand, I did once have a small bus but that's a very long story and involves a period of my life that I don't usually reference in public forums. To make a long story short; No, the band did not get very far and Neil Young's song "Needle and the Damage Done" is particularly poignant for me. However, it was a blast and I do not now own a bus of any kind.
Yup... I wonder if these people know what they're advocating? It's France and Europe and they're cool. It's Facebook and they're rich, that's not cool. So, absolutely! We'll hold that side of the argument! *sighs*
Wait until it's China saying that we've gotta censor our content to meet their laws. Wait until it's the US saying that a company in France has to meet US laws. That all, of course, changes when/if they're physically in France, have hardware in France, or are processing payments in France. Facebook is doing all of those things. Thus, Facebook is beholden to France's laws in regards to those processes, hardware, and persons. That does not mean I'm liable to France. I have no hardware in France. I do not accept payments *in* France. I do not have employees in France.
I hate Facebook as much as the next guy and don't even have an account - I've even got their silly scripts and whatnot blocked. However, I'm capable of looking beyond Facebook. Thus, I was specifically referencing the OP's Option #2. My response to that is, "Fuck no." I wonder what these people would be saying if the reverse was true and was a French company and US laws? Have they actually thought this through and realized what they're saying? And no, it sure as shit doesn't matter if I have ads, "target" France's citizens, accept money from them, or whatever. No... They can piss up a rope. If they don't like it, control their borders. I'm not putting up a cookie notice. I'm not expending the energy to do so. They can fuck right off if they think I'm going to. They've got borders. That's their limits. Until I am within those borders, they can stuff it.
I don't give a shit. That changes when I put hardware in France or when I collect money in France. Then I'll worry about French laws. They can pound sand. If they don't like it, control their borders.
Even if I sell a product or service - I still don't care. If I sell ads, have a forum, and someone from China posts on my property, in my country, then I'm going to obey my country's rules. I'm not going to censor for China - nor can I understand why people would advocate that I do. If my site's in Chinese, it still doesn't matter. If they order a product or service, and that product or service is lawful in my country, I'm still going to send it to them.
If I'm collecting money *in* France (or China) then, sure. I'm not. (Note: I was careful to avoid saying what Facebook should do. I'm not sure why you said that I was mistaken - I'm aware that Facebook may collect money or have a physical presence in France. My reference is to the grander scale and the option #2 as was posited by the OP. Thus it pertains to that, specifically, and Facebook is only tangentially related. More on this in a moment.) If I do not have a physical presence and I am not collecting money in France - even if I "target" or accept money from French people, then I'm not going to adhere to French laws. No. I will not. There's no assets for them to seize, there's no penalty they can invoke, there's no judgment they can make.
Now, for Facebook specifically... I'd not really brought them into it, they're immaterial as to this discussion. Specifically, regarding option #2, that's absurd at face value. Are you seriously suggesting that if I have ads, for example, and have Chinese visitors or even purchasers of ads, that I'm beholden to the censorship regulations that China has? Really? You think that's a good idea, lawful, and just?
On the other hand, Facebook has a physical presence and accepts money *in* France. Thus, Facebook is obligated to adhere to France's regulations while they're in that position. Were I they, I'd simply move my hardware out. What's a few more milliseconds of lag for a social networking site going to amount to? I'd put up a notice that tells them why there's a slight lag and any down-time. I'd pay whatever penalties were due for the time when I had been present in their country. I'd then close up shop and France can not only have unhappy citizens, they can never see another nickel in taxes. There's not a whole lot France can do about it if they choose to do that. Other than proximity and speed of packet transit, there's no compelling reason to have any office, payment processing, or hardware in France.
No, I'm not going to host something because some country got their knickers in a knot - nor am I going to refuse to host something. I will not let Saudi Arabia determine what I can and can not do with my hardware. The onus is on them to ensure that their citizens behave according to their laws. If I put hardware in their country or if I process payments in their country, then I'll follow their laws. Until then, they know where to find me.
What I'm missing is how will they know if it's an earthquake or just a car driving by? How will they know if it's in a pocket or not the big one? I didn't read the article, I'm no heretic, but it looks like they just want to install this on the cell phone that you're using as opposed to an old, no longer used, cell that can be put into a stationary position.
Making use of old cell phones for something like that makes some sense to me. This? No... I'm obviously missing something because this makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm not admitting to anything but I may have been to a May Pole celebration or two. Or three... Or four... However, word to the wise, some women are meant for dating, some are not. There's a certain point where insanity is no longer a 'feature.' Where that line is and how one finds it is a trip for each individual. But, well... Hmm... Yeah, some of the folks I've encountered at these events are not exactly dating material. That does not mean they're not fun. It just means you don't bring them back to your house.
It's okay, depending on the map - the map may tell 'em that it's a road too. If you saw the other replies, it may even say that there's a washed out bridge. Those usually have elevation lines on them so they're a bit crowded in that area - it's on the side of a mountain. Err... A hill, really. Well, I just checked Wikipedia and I guess it's a mountain.
All-in-all, I guess the big takeaway is that maps are going to need a whole lot of work in the near future - especially as people are clamoring for autonomous vehicles. I think they're in for a bit of a surprise and that the things will not be nearly as ubiquitous as they think, as quickly as they think. It's gonna be a while. An amusing misconception is the stat that more than 50% of Americans now live in cities. That's not actually accurate. There are more than 50% now living in *urban areas.* An urban area, as defined by the census, may have as few as 1500 people in the incorporated township or 2500 people if they have a residential facility (like a jail, college, nursing home, etc...)
As an aside: I noticed your username. Do you rally? It's a hobby of mine, a stupidly expensive hobby of mine, and so I'm a bit curious. No, no I'm not a professional or anything. LOL Not even close. We're just a bunch of old duffers up my way. There are some professionals. I am not one of them. I'm particularly fond of the NEFR and there's one on The Golden Road that's really nice. Yes, I'm a bit old and didn't grow up in the sport so I've taken courses - I preferred O'Neil's course out of the few that I've taken. I do wish they'd offer something longer - like a two week course.
I have a really nice, older, Saab with a blown engine. *sad trombone* I'm actually considering buying a WRX that's already done up and just needs tuning. I'd worry that I'd care about the car too much and not actually push myself as much as I can. It's not about winning, I don't even come close, but about actually improving. I think I'd like to try a Baja someday. Your name and the comment about DV make me wonder if you might actually be into the sport. I've posted pics before but I'll have to find some more. I know they're on a drive somewhere.
So... Anyone can transmit on these systems and it is just cost that holds them back? Would transmit ability be good for the other firefighters who are not the chief or assistant chief? 'Cause, if so, I'll just buy my local volunteer department the equipment. I thought it was license restrictions - they had to be a ham to transmit on those frequencies? If it's just a matter of money, it's covered and I'll get them new radios. I might even have it done before I get back in the spring.
Why? Err... They're the *volunteer* fire department. In a tiny village in Maine. They've got three firetrucks and a rescue truck and some smaller trucks and ATVs. When people get lost, go through the ice, or get hurt - they're there. They drop what they're doing and they go running. Every year, if you donate or not, they'll clean your chimney.
As for trunking, the State and police use that. My scanner manages to figure that out. I just sync it to the download from Radio Reference and I've got all that - or I can scan and find more. But, if this is just a matter of cost, I'll just buy them all units that can transmit. Maybe they'll be able to say who's able to respond to a "tone out." Maybe it will help. However, I kind of want these folks to have the tools they need and it's not entirely altruistic when I say so.
I've gone in and asked what they could use to make their jobs easier and safer and they came back with a list. I just asked them how much it was to get that stuff and they gave me a number. I just gave them the funds. It was a bit costly but worth it. They can now swap O2 bottles, have better helmets, better jackets and boots, and a few other things that I'm going to skip. Radios were not on the list. And yes, yes that stuff was *really* much more expensive than I'd thought. I knew it would be costly but not that much.
When they placed their order, I asked them to get me an axe. Obviously, I paid for it myself. That was one with the fiberglass handle (I think it's fiberglass) and was an absurd price. What they did do, which is kind of cool, is they took the axe down into Farmington and had it etched with their logo and a message of thanks. It was a nice touch and when I pointed out that I'd not be able to use the axe they had already anticipated it and had a second one hidden away which they gave to me. So, I have one that I can really use and one that hangs on my wall. Either way, the axe was over $200 as I recall.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of figured that? I am not an expert, so I don't know either. It's just that I don't see how they're going to get meaningful data (with enough "at rest" devices perhaps?) and separate the signal from the noise. It is a bit interesting but, at the same time, I've oft repeated that it's kind of important that we look to continued uses for retired smart phones - I think that might actually be a more viable method. Slap it on a shelf, connected to the wireless, and then use the one in your pocket as the device that gets the notifications? I'd articulate further but I suspect you'd be more fluent in that than I would.
I just don't see it as feasible, at any meaningful level, with the devices in pockets, in cars, with movement, etc... There's a whole lot of signal and noise issues. It might, and this is why I'm not an expert, be enough noise that it's easy to filter out (high signal to noise ratio) but that just seems improbable - without this system having years and years of massive amounts of real-world data, correlation, and some VERY big compute power behind it. (Distributed computing on the retired smart phones might be feasible.)
Again, I'm going to speculate that you'd be far more adept at refining the above than I would be. If not, I'm not the most articulate, I'll try to elaborate just so long as you don't hold me to very high standards.
So yeah, AS did the right thing, because, yeah, "information should be free".
People keep saying that but they don't ever seem to want to give me their DOB, SSN, bank routing number, bank number, information to their security questions, usernames, passwords, or pictures of their mother's genitals. I keep asking but, no...
I'm beginning to think that the people using that phrase don't really believe it but use it as an excuse.
I don't know where I'd be hypocritical to ask this, but can you show me where this site has advanced the progress of science? What science, specifically, has been advanced by use of the materials retrieved from this site?
While there is some merit to that argument, the reality is that not all of the stuff released was paid for by the government. I do not really hold much of an opinion on the subject other than this: Accept the consequences of your actions. If you are unwilling to accept the consequences, do not perform the action.
Accountability and responsibility are important things to me. It's one of the reasons that I try to avoid posting as an AC. I said it. I own it. I may be wrong. I will learn. I am accountable for my actions. Actions have consequences. If you are unwilling to accept the repercussions for your beliefs then they are not beliefs, they're suggestions.
Here, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...
It's a bit long but pretty good. It's The Fabric of the Cosmos, from NOVA, featuring Brian Greene. It's well worth the time investment.
He kind of embodies one of my favorite sayings.
"Me, no. I'm never wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."
Wait, what? I was happily shaking my head until I got to this.
Let me see if I understand you well enough, gravity exists because I think it exists? is that what you're saying?
So, if I stop believing in gravity then gravity will no longer go away? And, if it doesn't go away, I suppose that's because I'm not believing hard enough? If I just will it, it will happen? The power of positive thought, something like that?
I don't even... Do you even science?
That's one of the reasons that I use to justify my not-moderating. I get points. I don't use them. I just delete the notice and continue on. I'd rather comment. I'm not always as objective as I could be and so it would be inappropriate for me to moderate - especially on subjects where I'm uninitiated. I'd rather comment than judge. I don't think my judgment should be used to promote or demote. I get plenty of points, I just don't use them.
Mandatory? Hmm... I was just having this conversation yesterday and finished it up today. There's no technical reason why you have to have a phone with DSL. I have had this setup before. It was just DSL, there was no phone number. If I hooked up a phone, I could not make local calls nor could I even reach an operator. I do believe emergency calls would still work - I did not try calling 911 to test that. I did try to call a local number and I did try to contact the operator. No service, at all... It was just DSL, there was nothing more to it.
In my State, it might be a bit different legally. It's communications over the copper lines so there are some interesting rules associated with it. For example, I can use *any* ISP that's willing to service my area - that includes an ISP on the opposite side of the globe. The owners of the copper must lease the lines at near cost to the provider. I can have multiple lines (and do) and have different ISPs for each one (and have) and the service is pretty much done without interruption as if I switch between them. Because it's DSL there's a best effort repair process that the copper line owners must follow or the PUC gets snippy.
I have had a provider tell me that this was not possible. It took some wearing down but it is, in fact, possible and must be offered by law in my State. As I was already paying a goodly sum to have the lines upgraded and a CO put in, I went with DSL instead of cable quite specifically for the protections offered by going with copper. When considering the robustness of the network, it made even more sense for me to choose copper. We have some rather exciting storms and it's not uncommon to find the power lines down and that includes the telephone wires. More than once, the copper's been on the ground but I still had perfectly serviceable broadband.
In fact, it's such a regular occurrence that others, and myself, actually consider our mains electrical connection to be more of a backup than a primary. They will be running fiber, or so I'm told, in the middle of this year. It is unlikely that I'll be switching or will be giving up my copper connection simply because of how robust it is and the protections that are afforded by having it. I'm not even certain that they'd do well with burying the lines - we have frost heaves that make the ground move a whole bunch and fiber's really not that resilient. Not that it matters, they'll be rolling the fiber out on the poles as putting it in the ground would be prohibitively expensive.
I thought the CID standard supported appending an extension to it so that one could route the call back into the appropriate phone - which, as I recall, also could be configured to allow internal roaming? Meaning, you sign into the phone and your extension follows you. When you make an outbound call then it lists the generic number and then appends the appropriate digits so that one can call back that particular extension without needing to go to a menu or human - all done via PBX?
I've not poked at the phone system in a *very* long time so I may be in error here but doesn't this insert a potential for false positives and blocking of legitimate calls? It kind of defeats the point if you have to check a second voice mail inbox and filter out the messages. That and, well... There are a lot of people who, like myself, have a deep disliking of talking to a machine unless the call was specifically made in order to talk to a machine.
Add to this, countless phone numbers, spoofing, and the many, many ways you can (or could) route through phone systems - I kind of question the validity and value of this system. It seems unlikely that this will be done without having a bunch of false positives. Then, per the tracing, various countries have different laws and different providers will have different policies. It's not exactly like the movies where you keep 'em online long enough to get a trace. There may be lots of hops in the way in many of them may not be nearly as cooperative as one might hope.
Am I missing something?
~$ sudo make windows
make: *** No rule to make target 'windows'. Stop.
Yeah, I don't know how the site works - having never needed to make use of it, but I do know that I'd look at *who* was endorsing whom and what they had for qualifications to assert an opinion on the abilities. I may be able to say that my mechanic, barber, or housekeeper do fine work but, no matter how much I may like you as a person, I can't not say that you're a quality programmer, chemist, biologist, or airplane pilot.
So, were I to use the site, I'd weight opinions and recommendations carefully. Lots of people don't seem inclined to do that sort of thing - with other things, at least. There's an adage about considering the source of comments, opinions, and such. It's a valid adage and a good thing to do. The number of endorsements is insignificant compared to the quality of those who are doing the endorsing. If they've got 39 people saying they're excellent and none of those people are actually in the field but they have 1 person who's saying they're not so very good but they are a recognized expert in the field then you can bet that I'm going to weigh that one endorsement much heavier than I will the endorsements from the 39 people.
It's possible that they're a great person but still suck.
Dunno? But, it seems to me, more and more of these things that I read about various companies open-sourcing their material makes me think that they're just looking for someone to fix it for them for free. Maybe someone should suggest they be a bit more flexible with QA than to apply arbitrary time limits? Some things just can't be fixed in the code.
You mean to tell me that you don't know that Slashdot has always had articles like this, about games, and such? If anything, the quality of the articles and the comments have improved, significantly, since the sale.
No, Slashdot's always had this sort of thing. I kind of know this 'cause this is actually my second account, having lost track of the first one's email address and password... So, no... It's not ruined. It's not just about IT. In fact, the great thing about Slashdot is that you're not obligated to view articles that get your knickers in a knot. I'm sure you'll be a valued member of whatever community is you wander off to. The lack of your complaints will be golden silence.
No, control your borders. Facebook is culpable in this instance but only because they are physically in France. You are missing the point. My point was addressing the belief that one had to obey the laws of all the other nations. No. No I don't. I will not censor for China *unless* I have a physical presence in their country. If I'm selling a product or service and someone in China orders it, I'm sending it. The payment's processed in my country, the server is hosted in my country, and I'm not about to adhere to China's laws. They can control their borders.
If I have a site, even if it has French advertisers, even if it has French viewers, even if it has French members... So long as that hardware is not in France, France can piss right off. I'm addressing the belief that the OP had that all such things were liable and that it is legal, just, or even remotely worthy of consideration for any such business that might interact with people in France. No. No it's not. I will follow the laws where there is a physical presence or transaction.
If France doesn't like it, they can control their borders. It's pretty straight forward. Yes, Facebook is culpable. However, to address the OP's statement (which includes more than Facebook) I responded. If you can look at what I replied to, and keep it in mind, you'll be able to see the connection. It does necessitate remembering a preceding comment.
Again, if France tries to tell me that I must or may not do something AND I have no physical presence there nor do I process payments there then they can piss off. That goes for China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the rest. However, it does necessitate that you read the preceding comment, the one that I replied to, to understand. Facebook is culpable and needs to adhere to their regulations. What they should do is simply pull their hardware out, close any offices, and dissolve any corporations located there.
Oh no, thank you! ;-) We don't get enough of this sort of stuff in the comments any more. When I read your post, my "holy crap" button was pressed. There's actually a lot of potential there - if I'm reading and understanding properly. As you can shunt binaries over it (and presumably split them and recombine them) it's possibly a method to push all sorts of things and, if I'm reading properly, it supports bi-directional communication.
It could be an SMS application but not one that's for reading SMS necessarily but one that uses it as a protocol. The first one that comes to mind is that SMS is often included, unlimited, and/or inexpensive. Picture messaging is not always included in the bundle. Using the protocol, even large pictures could be sent in chunks and reassembled. Then, there's all sorts of ways to tuck data into it - not using your data plan but simply sending the data in binaries and have it interpreted, decompressed, or reassembled at the client end.
As SMS is *usually* fairly reliable it might work well. It won't be speedy, necessarily, but it should be fairly dependable. Why has nobody done much with this? I can think of a dozen ways to make use of this and I'm not even in the industry. Heck, I haven't even given it much thought. Unless I'm missing something, this could actually be valuable to a whole bunch of people. I'm pretty sure it'd piss off the cell companies and they could probably filter for it. Still...
That's why I said "I" and not Facebook. Facebook is certainly culpable because they've hardware, personnel, and processing payments in France. However, if you read the post that I was responding to - you'll see it is very much relevant to this particular sub-thread. I was addressing their belief that such was applicable to all businesses and not just Facebook. That's patently absurd. You can read the parent posts if you'd like to get more insight as to what I was addressing.
If you scroll through (I had a *lot* of replies) someone has, at the bottom of their post, a link the the US gov site where you can submit corrections. In my case, it's not that the GPS sends them there. It just shows it as a route. You can make a GPS send it there - but that's actually a bit like work. It's possible to use a GPS and have it happen.
Basically, enable dirt roads, sit down the road from my house, set the destination to the village, and then keep hitting the button for alternative routes. That will, eventually, offer it as a route on some of them. The thing is, on paper maps and some GPS maps, it shows as a road. It's not even consistent between the online version and the maps on my tablets or phones. The paper maps have a lot of variance between them as well. Some are more accurate, some are less, some show it, some don't show anything. Some have a bridge that doesn't exist, some show the bridge on the other road that is not my driveway - that's an actual "route" but I'm not sure I'd call it a road. It's fine for an ATV or a reasonably stout 4WD. That's about it, really. It's sure as hell not appropriate for a bus. ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably try to take a bus through there if I had a bus and didn't care about it. I have accumulated lots of things but a disposable bus is not one of them. On the other hand, I did once have a small bus but that's a very long story and involves a period of my life that I don't usually reference in public forums. To make a long story short; No, the band did not get very far and Neil Young's song "Needle and the Damage Done" is particularly poignant for me. However, it was a blast and I do not now own a bus of any kind.
Yup... I wonder if these people know what they're advocating? It's France and Europe and they're cool. It's Facebook and they're rich, that's not cool. So, absolutely! We'll hold that side of the argument! *sighs*
Wait until it's China saying that we've gotta censor our content to meet their laws. Wait until it's the US saying that a company in France has to meet US laws. That all, of course, changes when/if they're physically in France, have hardware in France, or are processing payments in France. Facebook is doing all of those things. Thus, Facebook is beholden to France's laws in regards to those processes, hardware, and persons. That does not mean I'm liable to France. I have no hardware in France. I do not accept payments *in* France. I do not have employees in France.
I hate Facebook as much as the next guy and don't even have an account - I've even got their silly scripts and whatnot blocked. However, I'm capable of looking beyond Facebook. Thus, I was specifically referencing the OP's Option #2. My response to that is, "Fuck no." I wonder what these people would be saying if the reverse was true and was a French company and US laws? Have they actually thought this through and realized what they're saying? And no, it sure as shit doesn't matter if I have ads, "target" France's citizens, accept money from them, or whatever. No... They can piss up a rope. If they don't like it, control their borders. I'm not putting up a cookie notice. I'm not expending the energy to do so. They can fuck right off if they think I'm going to. They've got borders. That's their limits. Until I am within those borders, they can stuff it.
I don't give a shit. That changes when I put hardware in France or when I collect money in France. Then I'll worry about French laws. They can pound sand. If they don't like it, control their borders.
Even if I sell a product or service - I still don't care. If I sell ads, have a forum, and someone from China posts on my property, in my country, then I'm going to obey my country's rules. I'm not going to censor for China - nor can I understand why people would advocate that I do. If my site's in Chinese, it still doesn't matter. If they order a product or service, and that product or service is lawful in my country, I'm still going to send it to them.
If I'm collecting money *in* France (or China) then, sure. I'm not. (Note: I was careful to avoid saying what Facebook should do. I'm not sure why you said that I was mistaken - I'm aware that Facebook may collect money or have a physical presence in France. My reference is to the grander scale and the option #2 as was posited by the OP. Thus it pertains to that, specifically, and Facebook is only tangentially related. More on this in a moment.) If I do not have a physical presence and I am not collecting money in France - even if I "target" or accept money from French people, then I'm not going to adhere to French laws. No. I will not. There's no assets for them to seize, there's no penalty they can invoke, there's no judgment they can make.
Now, for Facebook specifically... I'd not really brought them into it, they're immaterial as to this discussion. Specifically, regarding option #2, that's absurd at face value. Are you seriously suggesting that if I have ads, for example, and have Chinese visitors or even purchasers of ads, that I'm beholden to the censorship regulations that China has? Really? You think that's a good idea, lawful, and just?
On the other hand, Facebook has a physical presence and accepts money *in* France. Thus, Facebook is obligated to adhere to France's regulations while they're in that position. Were I they, I'd simply move my hardware out. What's a few more milliseconds of lag for a social networking site going to amount to? I'd put up a notice that tells them why there's a slight lag and any down-time. I'd pay whatever penalties were due for the time when I had been present in their country. I'd then close up shop and France can not only have unhappy citizens, they can never see another nickel in taxes. There's not a whole lot France can do about it if they choose to do that. Other than proximity and speed of packet transit, there's no compelling reason to have any office, payment processing, or hardware in France.
No, I'm not going to host something because some country got their knickers in a knot - nor am I going to refuse to host something. I will not let Saudi Arabia determine what I can and can not do with my hardware. The onus is on them to ensure that their citizens behave according to their laws. If I put hardware in their country or if I process payments in their country, then I'll follow their laws. Until then, they know where to find me.
What I'm missing is how will they know if it's an earthquake or just a car driving by? How will they know if it's in a pocket or not the big one? I didn't read the article, I'm no heretic, but it looks like they just want to install this on the cell phone that you're using as opposed to an old, no longer used, cell that can be put into a stationary position.
Making use of old cell phones for something like that makes some sense to me. This? No... I'm obviously missing something because this makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm not admitting to anything but I may have been to a May Pole celebration or two. Or three... Or four... However, word to the wise, some women are meant for dating, some are not. There's a certain point where insanity is no longer a 'feature.' Where that line is and how one finds it is a trip for each individual. But, well... Hmm... Yeah, some of the folks I've encountered at these events are not exactly dating material. That does not mean they're not fun. It just means you don't bring them back to your house.
It's okay, depending on the map - the map may tell 'em that it's a road too. If you saw the other replies, it may even say that there's a washed out bridge. Those usually have elevation lines on them so they're a bit crowded in that area - it's on the side of a mountain. Err... A hill, really. Well, I just checked Wikipedia and I guess it's a mountain.
All-in-all, I guess the big takeaway is that maps are going to need a whole lot of work in the near future - especially as people are clamoring for autonomous vehicles. I think they're in for a bit of a surprise and that the things will not be nearly as ubiquitous as they think, as quickly as they think. It's gonna be a while. An amusing misconception is the stat that more than 50% of Americans now live in cities. That's not actually accurate. There are more than 50% now living in *urban areas.* An urban area, as defined by the census, may have as few as 1500 people in the incorporated township or 2500 people if they have a residential facility (like a jail, college, nursing home, etc...)
As an aside: I noticed your username. Do you rally? It's a hobby of mine, a stupidly expensive hobby of mine, and so I'm a bit curious. No, no I'm not a professional or anything. LOL Not even close. We're just a bunch of old duffers up my way. There are some professionals. I am not one of them. I'm particularly fond of the NEFR and there's one on The Golden Road that's really nice. Yes, I'm a bit old and didn't grow up in the sport so I've taken courses - I preferred O'Neil's course out of the few that I've taken. I do wish they'd offer something longer - like a two week course.
I have a really nice, older, Saab with a blown engine. *sad trombone* I'm actually considering buying a WRX that's already done up and just needs tuning. I'd worry that I'd care about the car too much and not actually push myself as much as I can. It's not about winning, I don't even come close, but about actually improving. I think I'd like to try a Baja someday. Your name and the comment about DV make me wonder if you might actually be into the sport. I've posted pics before but I'll have to find some more. I know they're on a drive somewhere.
So... Anyone can transmit on these systems and it is just cost that holds them back? Would transmit ability be good for the other firefighters who are not the chief or assistant chief? 'Cause, if so, I'll just buy my local volunteer department the equipment. I thought it was license restrictions - they had to be a ham to transmit on those frequencies? If it's just a matter of money, it's covered and I'll get them new radios. I might even have it done before I get back in the spring.
Why? Err... They're the *volunteer* fire department. In a tiny village in Maine. They've got three firetrucks and a rescue truck and some smaller trucks and ATVs. When people get lost, go through the ice, or get hurt - they're there. They drop what they're doing and they go running. Every year, if you donate or not, they'll clean your chimney.
As for trunking, the State and police use that. My scanner manages to figure that out. I just sync it to the download from Radio Reference and I've got all that - or I can scan and find more. But, if this is just a matter of cost, I'll just buy them all units that can transmit. Maybe they'll be able to say who's able to respond to a "tone out." Maybe it will help. However, I kind of want these folks to have the tools they need and it's not entirely altruistic when I say so.
I've gone in and asked what they could use to make their jobs easier and safer and they came back with a list. I just asked them how much it was to get that stuff and they gave me a number. I just gave them the funds. It was a bit costly but worth it. They can now swap O2 bottles, have better helmets, better jackets and boots, and a few other things that I'm going to skip. Radios were not on the list. And yes, yes that stuff was *really* much more expensive than I'd thought. I knew it would be costly but not that much.
When they placed their order, I asked them to get me an axe. Obviously, I paid for it myself. That was one with the fiberglass handle (I think it's fiberglass) and was an absurd price. What they did do, which is kind of cool, is they took the axe down into Farmington and had it etched with their logo and a message of thanks. It was a nice touch and when I pointed out that I'd not be able to use the axe they had already anticipated it and had a second one hidden away which they gave to me. So, I have one that I can really use and one that hangs on my wall. Either way, the axe was over $200 as I recall.