I'm calling bullshit. There are no sexually-explicit sites that target children.
And I'm calling bullshit on you. I've seen sites that look like legitimate Barbie, Mattel, etc. sites only to be forwarded to hardcore porn. If I can find any examples I'll post them.
I applaud Nintendo for trying to protect kids, and for stepping up and admitting they were wrong this time.
So you can't be a jock if your a mormon? Well, I'm a nerd and a mormon. I knew plenty of mormon jocks in high school. Of course, if I had my way, I would have McBride excommunicated from the church, and tarred & feathered for good measure.:-) Just because he's a mormon doesn't mean he's a good mormon. There, now I'll step down from my soapbox and go back to playing with my Linux servers. DIE SCO, DIE!!!!
That still won't prevent an ISP from monitoring where you are going on the Internet. As long as the data passes through their network, they can see everything you do. Don't like that? Then create an encrypted tunnel to some proxy server that you trust.
Have you ever been there? I live near Lindon. Not everyone is a dumbass like SCO is. I'm excitingly waiting for the day when IBM flattens SCO into the ground.
You are partially correct.... You cannot exceed 1 watt into the antenna. The antenna adds gain to give you a total signal strength. In a point-to-multipoint you can go a maximum of 4W EIRP. In a point-to-point situation you can go a maximum of 8W EIRP. Check out 80211planet.com, fcc.gov, and google for more info (search for EIRP).
if I needed a new version of Redhat for my linux box, I would be forced to go buy it (and pay quite a bit for free software).
Only if you go out and buy a retail version. Go to cheapbytes.com and get a copy there. I buy all my linux cd's there when I don't feel like downloading them. $5-$10 for a distro.
No, they are likely using 20+ dBi dishes with 1 full watt of power, which is clearly in violation of the FCC rules. They either don't know better, or do not understand the rules.
And you clearly do not understand FCC rules.
You can put out 1WATT of power into the antenna. From there you are allowed to put out a maximum of 36dB (that's 36dB total, not in addition to the 30dB into the antenna) for an EIRP of 4WATTS. But that is only for point-to-multipoint links. For point-to-point links you are allowed to go up to 48dB EIRP.
Or not, the 2.4 Ghz is a large band, and I don't think 802.11b and cell phones are not on the same freq range, so if the front end of the the 802.11b front ends are well built and the cell phones do not dearavate to much they could co-exist with out effecting each other.
Not only that but most cordless phones and other non 802.11b 2.4Ghz devices broadcast on a vertical polarization. If you buy horizontal polarized 802.11b equipment, then it is not an issue.
Seriously, though, I got flamed up, down, left and right for suggesting such a thing in a newsgroup. Wireless networks are fine for specific applications such as point to point links, but distribution of broadband to subscribers really isn't the ideal use for it.
Well that is simply not true. Wireless networks are great for broadband distribution to customers (and I am talking about 802.11b not 3g or something else). Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are the fastest growing broadband providers in the US right now.
I know several hundred Wisps who are doing this and they are all very profitable with well-designed networks.
Can I prove you wrong? Google for Primestar 802.11b antenna dish. I did it and got 9-10 miles with 80% signal strength with a 30mW USB adapter. It is very easily done with yagi antennas.
Not true. I have a 200mw card and I've seen 250mW cards. They are not uncommon. Besides, with amplifiers you are allowed to output one watt up to the antenna. From there you can boost it to 4 Watts (which is the legal fcc limit for 2.4Ghz).
Nokia does make CDMA phones. I have one. It is the 3285. Pretty nice phone. Nokia also makes at least 6 other CDMA phones: 8270, 6370, 6185i, 5185i, 5180i, 5170i.
Once again, someone opened their mouth without having a clue about what they were talking about.
You sue whoever screwed up. If your only acting as the general contractor and the framers make a mistake, you sue the framers. If your building the whole thing yourself, your SOL.
My family is about 2 weeks away from finishing our home. We have built 90% of it ourselves. It is not as hard as most people think (but its not a walk in the park either!) We have saved over $100,000 by building it ourselves.
If you build your own home you don't need to worry about it falling over, because that's what a building inspector is for. He makes sure you do everything right.
No eToys did not do the right thing here. etoy had their name a year or two before eToys was incorporated. When eToys filed a trademark, etoy tried to file one to, because they were afraid something like this might happen. eToys didn't even care about etoy until some stupid old man got pissed off, because he couldn't tell the difference between etoy.com and etoys.com. I mean, come on... How many people wouldn't be able to figure out that etoy.com was not a toy store, unless they were complete idiots?
eToys is in the wrong. They are using bullying tactics(sp?) because they have more money then etoy.
What I would like to know is why a judge thinks he can impose judgement outside of the US? $10,000 if etoy doesn't stop using their domain name? How in the world could they enforce this? This judge is just more proof of how bad our justice system is screwed up.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm calling bullshit. There are no sexually-explicit sites that target children.
And I'm calling bullshit on you. I've seen sites that look like legitimate Barbie, Mattel, etc. sites only to be forwarded to hardcore porn. If I can find any examples I'll post them.
I applaud Nintendo for trying to protect kids, and for stepping up and admitting they were wrong this time.
I have no idea what your talking about. I only use FireFox (on both XP and Linux) and Slashdot renders fine for me on both OS's.
I'd say that 95% of the websites out there render fine in Firefox on XP. In linux it's probably around 80%.
So you can't be a jock if your a mormon? Well, I'm a nerd and a mormon. I knew plenty of mormon jocks in high school. Of course, if I had my way, I would have McBride excommunicated from the church, and tarred & feathered for good measure. :-) Just because he's a mormon doesn't mean he's a good mormon. There, now I'll step down from my soapbox and go back to playing with my Linux servers. DIE SCO, DIE!!!!
That still won't prevent an ISP from monitoring where you are going on the Internet. As long as the data passes through their network, they can see everything you do. Don't like that? Then create an encrypted tunnel to some proxy server that you trust.
Have you ever been there? I live near Lindon. Not everyone is a dumbass like SCO is. I'm excitingly waiting for the day when IBM flattens SCO into the ground.
You are partially correct.... You cannot exceed 1 watt into the antenna. The antenna adds gain to give you a total signal strength. In a point-to-multipoint you can go a maximum of 4W EIRP. In a point-to-point situation you can go a maximum of 8W EIRP. Check out 80211planet.com, fcc.gov, and google for more info (search for EIRP).
if I needed a new version of Redhat for my linux box, I would be forced to go buy it (and pay quite a bit for free software).
Only if you go out and buy a retail version. Go to cheapbytes.com and get a copy there. I buy all my linux cd's there when I don't feel like downloading them. $5-$10 for a distro.
No, they are likely using 20+ dBi dishes with 1 full watt of power, which is clearly in violation of the FCC rules. They either don't know better, or do not understand the rules.
And you clearly do not understand FCC rules.
You can put out 1WATT of power into the antenna. From there you are allowed to put out a maximum of 36dB (that's 36dB total, not in addition to the 30dB into the antenna) for an EIRP of 4WATTS. But that is only for point-to-multipoint links. For point-to-point links you are allowed to go up to 48dB EIRP.
Or not, the 2.4 Ghz is a large band, and I don't think 802.11b and cell phones are not on the same freq range, so if the front end of the the 802.11b front ends are well built and the cell phones do not dearavate to much they could co-exist with out effecting each other.
Not only that but most cordless phones and other non 802.11b 2.4Ghz devices broadcast on a vertical polarization. If you buy horizontal polarized 802.11b equipment, then it is not an issue.
Seriously, though, I got flamed up, down, left and right for suggesting such a thing in a newsgroup. Wireless networks are fine for specific applications such as point to point links, but distribution of broadband to subscribers really isn't the ideal use for it.
Well that is simply not true. Wireless networks are great for broadband distribution to customers (and I am talking about 802.11b not 3g or something else). Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are the fastest growing broadband providers in the US right now.
I know several hundred Wisps who are doing this and they are all very profitable with well-designed networks.
Can I prove you wrong? Google for Primestar 802.11b antenna dish. I did it and got 9-10 miles with 80% signal strength with a 30mW USB adapter. It is very easily done with yagi antennas.
Not true. I have a 200mw card and I've seen 250mW cards. They are not uncommon. Besides, with amplifiers you are allowed to output one watt up to the antenna. From there you can boost it to 4 Watts (which is the legal fcc limit for 2.4Ghz).
CDMA Nokia phones don't pass the quality controls of Sprint
Oh ya... that's true. NOT! Sprint has quality control. That's a good one!
TWO: Nokia wouldn't use the Sprint WAP browser (Maybe the phone wasn't powerfull enough?)
I doubt that the cpu power had anything to do with it. If I was Nokia I wouldn't use someone else's browser, either.
Nokia does make CDMA phones. I have one. It is the 3285. Pretty nice phone. Nokia also makes at least 6 other CDMA phones: 8270, 6370, 6185i, 5185i, 5180i, 5170i.
Once again, someone opened their mouth without having a clue about what they were talking about.
Stupid moron!
You sue whoever screwed up. If your only acting as the general contractor and the framers make a mistake, you sue the framers. If your building the whole thing yourself, your SOL.
My family is about 2 weeks away from finishing our home. We have built 90% of it ourselves. It is not as hard as most people think (but its not a walk in the park either!) We have saved over $100,000 by building it ourselves.
If you build your own home you don't need to worry about it falling over, because that's what a building inspector is for. He makes sure you do everything right.
No eToys did not do the right thing here. etoy had their name a year or two before eToys was incorporated. When eToys filed a trademark, etoy tried to file one to, because they were afraid something like this might happen. eToys didn't even care about etoy until some stupid old man got pissed off, because he couldn't tell the difference between etoy.com and etoys.com. I mean, come on... How many people wouldn't be able to figure out that etoy.com was not a toy store, unless they were complete idiots?
eToys is in the wrong. They are using bullying tactics(sp?) because they have more money then etoy.
What I would like to know is why a judge thinks he can impose judgement outside of the US? $10,000 if etoy doesn't stop using their domain name? How in the world could they enforce this? This judge is just more proof of how bad our justice system is screwed up.
Are there any other projects like distributed.net out there? (P.S. FP!!)