So if grandma unwittingly downloads some botnet-style application, and you'd prefer the carrier to kill her phone rather than nuke the offending application? That's... erm, bold.:)
Yes.
Killing the offending application means they have the capability to kill ANY application, or conversely likely ADD any application. It basically means that they can go into your phone at any time and do what they want.
Taking the phone off the network (potentially creating exemptions for 911, or the customer service desk) is a much more user friendly approach as it treats your property as your own.
There might be a slight bit more inconvenience, but there would be a hell of a lot more freedom.
Wow, they are actually transmitting the mouse clicks now? Awesome! I thought those just triggered an HTTP GET request or similar. Never figured they actually digitized the mouse click and sent it over to the server.;)
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application?
It can actually be less intrusive. I have no 'right' to use a network, so if I am screwing up the network because of an app I have, kicking me off the network doesn't do anything to MY equipment.
It means I can install whatever I want on my phone and no backdoors are needed.
Think of it like renting a car to someone. You can do whatever the hell you like to your body, but I don't want you smoking in my car. I refuse you the car, but I don't confiscate your cigarettes.
You canna change the laws of physics. You still will need enough power in the transmission to allow it to propagate to the receiving antenna, and the power required to do that is almost completely controlled by the carrier frequency and the distance between transmitter and receiver, with little regard to the frequency width of the transmission (as long as that width is anywhere near reasonable).
He proposing a change to the laws if physics, I think you are confusing terms here. Two topics here, broadcast pattern, and bandwidth.
The household only has to transmit to a single basestation which is in a fixed location. Therefore you can use a highly directional antenna to achieve greater distances with the same power than if you use an omnidirectional isometric antenna.
That reduces the power consumed.
However you still have the issue that the base station will be in a situation where it appears that there will be a high noise floor. (to the base station, it would appear that there would be broadcasters in every direction all shouting over each other) It will be in a fixed frequency band, and therefore everyone will be stepping over everyone else's toes, and with highly directional transmission, one household won't 'hear' another household so the standard methods to avoid channel contention (sense/stop and wait, etc) won't work as it relies on the households ability to actually sense other transmitters.
Time division multiplexing could work, and control messages could be built in to allow for dynamic allocation of timeslots to certain households based on upstream needs. (ie: extra timeslots will be allocated based on requests from households sent during basic control messages).
However, you are quite correct that this second aspect doesn't have any real impact on broadcasting power other than ensuring that there is proper separation between timeslots so that the noise floor is reduced and thus less power is needed.
You are talking about the value of your home DOUBLING and at the same time you are saying that housing prices are NOT skyrocketing?
$250,000 profit in five years... and THAT is supposed to support your arguement that housing isn't astronomical compared to incomes which have remained stagnant? Your five year profit is about the TOTAL income for an average wage earner over 5 years.
I don't even know where to argue with you, because you are providing the exact evidence needed to contradict yourself.
The problem is that the bubble didn't pop. It's still being artificially held up. If anything, it has sprung a leak so the insane increases that we say 5-10 years ago might have a slightly smaller but still positive slope.
Rent houses being in demand do not indicate a healthy economy with respect to Salary vs cost of living.
Having already posted, at least I can respond with a shout of 'Hear Hear'!
I mean, what better way is there for a corp from Delaware to exert influence over Oregon? It's not like states having their own laws makes business impossible despite what people will claim (Yeah, laws will vary from state to state. They do now. I wonder how Europe managed)
What I don't understand is: why aren't we capable of fabricating synthetic hydrocarbons today?
We have the capability, the reason we don't is because it isn't cost effective.
Oil today is literally us just going and picking up something that already exists. Sure it takes a little handling and maybe some processing, but in the end, it's cost to refine is basically pennies on the dollar. Synthetic hydrocarbons are possible, but maybe it costs 2x as much as just sucking the oil from the ground.
Since you are producing a synthetic version of a fungible commodity, if your cost is higher and all other aspects are equal, you won't sell a drop. If two people were standing side by side, and reselling a can of Pepsi one for $1 and one for $2. The guy who was selling the $1 cans would get ALL the business (Assuming all variables were equal)
That's the problem with synthetic hydrocarbons because the typical 'differentiators' for fungible goods are eliminated when you consider hydrocarbons.
Cost is less for traditional Portability is equal Production is robust for traditional sources Pollution is LESS for traditional sources
Only when traditional sources become more scarce either due to increased cost of production, or decreased supply and availability will we see synthetic hydrocarbons.
Right now it's only our Military who really wants synthetic hydrocarbons on any major scale but it's mostly because they would prefer a more US controlled source for their diesel.
It's worse in the US where you guys are actually laying off police. Sorry but a officer to person ratio of 700-2500:1 isn't good.
Are you sure? Perhaps the world isn't as dangerous and scary as we have been told. Cop:person ratio isn't as useful as perhaps a cop:crime and a person:crime ratio.
What do we need with more police anyway? How many are really just revenue collections officers?
If I thought I had the skills necessary to do so, I would have. As it stands, I don't.
This country doesn't need yet another person in charge who is unfit for the job.
Yeah I expected that response, which is why I mentioned the ad absurdum.
So everyone that runs is a liar, you won't vote for a liar. Basically stick anyone in front of you, and you won't vote for them, you won't even vote for yourself.
At this rate, I hope you are wearing your peril-sensitive sunglasses, because the concept is remarkably similar.
Not for me. But that's tangential. I'm going to agree with the other people in this thread though that it shouldn't be hidden to the extent that it is.
Have you been to Canada? There is plenty of uninhabited terrain where you won't run into anyone. Maybe Siberia would be another option, or Brazil for that matter.
Then you will fall under the domain of the Canadian, Russian, or Brazilian government. It's one of the MAIN reasons why even though I often disagree with the US government, the concept of a collection of states appeals to me. It's also why I'm a huge advocate for a weaker federal government.
If I don't like it where I live, I can move to a different state which is several orders of magnitude less difficult than moving to a different country. Yes, it does mean that there will be states which do things I disagree with, but it does leave open of at least moving to a place where the people DO agree with me.
As you expand the jurisdiction and scope of the governments with the largest landmasses, the capability to avoid concepts you disagree with decreases tremendously.
It bothers me tremendously that people believe that there is somehow a 'right' way to do government. I don't believe that my way is flawless either, but that's the point, it won't be right for everyone, but we should work to make sure that everyone has the maximum amount of freedom to live under the system they prefer.
I liked living in PA, but disliked their liquor laws and their roads. When I lived in Upstate NY, I loved the area, couldn't stand the property taxes. Now that I live in Virginia, I enjoy the climate the reduced restrictions on my firearm ownership (again, I used to live in NY), but dislike the motives of the Atty. Gen. (Attacking scholars, etc) and some of the other politicians.
It scares me that some people think we can get everything right and then apply it uniformly across 300 million people. Get the basics right on a large scale, and then leave the details to the locals.
What does that mean? Does that mean you don't consent to your government? If so, there's a really easy solution for you. It involves moving, but you'll never have to live under a government you don't consent to again.
Where? There used to be a pressure valve for society. If you didn't like the government, you moved to the frontier. With literally everything claimed on earth right now, (even Antarctica and effectively the sea floor) you don't have much option of 'move'.
Perhaps you meant move and hope no one notices, or move and get ready to fight.
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
I like to unify my communications. I actually have 2 iPhones which are mirrors of each other. I can pick up one and have access to the exact same messages/voicemails/etc.
In this case, I could see the use of having my text messages forwarded to another location where I could then archive them. I'd actually prefer such a system to be hidden from me as I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
I'm not comfortable with the concept that my message backup is currently managed by my phone company (who has no obligation to archive).
The point is, it isn't necessarily someone else's phone this would be installed on.
If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.
I also don't blame Whole Foods for not selling High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't blame vendors for not selling magnet 'health bracelets'. In a similar manner I don't blame Google for not selling this product.
Conversely, this isn't like Google Voice being banned from the Apple store because Google Voice doesn't tread into a legal grey area.
Slashdot Mirror
So if grandma unwittingly downloads some botnet-style application, and you'd prefer the carrier to kill her phone rather than nuke the offending application? That's... erm, bold. :)
Yes.
Killing the offending application means they have the capability to kill ANY application, or conversely likely ADD any application. It basically means that they can go into your phone at any time and do what they want.
Taking the phone off the network (potentially creating exemptions for 911, or the customer service desk) is a much more user friendly approach as it treats your property as your own.
There might be a slight bit more inconvenience, but there would be a hell of a lot more freedom.
Yeah, I caught that as soon as I posted it. I wish there was an easier way to fix posts.
bah, mod me catchphrase retarded.
webapps....
Wow, they are actually transmitting the mouse clicks now? Awesome! I thought those just triggered an HTTP GET request or similar. Never figured they actually digitized the mouse click and sent it over to the server. ;)
And I never that all webapps used HTTP!
What about smoke filled dimly lit rooms where a man in a highbacked leather chair muses for several pregnant moments before uttering:
I want it dead.
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application?
It can actually be less intrusive. I have no 'right' to use a network, so if I am screwing up the network because of an app I have, kicking me off the network doesn't do anything to MY equipment.
It means I can install whatever I want on my phone and no backdoors are needed.
Think of it like renting a car to someone. You can do whatever the hell you like to your body, but I don't want you smoking in my car. I refuse you the car, but I don't confiscate your cigarettes.
You canna change the laws of physics. You still will need enough power in the transmission to allow it to propagate to the receiving antenna, and the power required to do that is almost completely controlled by the carrier frequency and the distance between transmitter and receiver, with little regard to the frequency width of the transmission (as long as that width is anywhere near reasonable).
He proposing a change to the laws if physics, I think you are confusing terms here. Two topics here, broadcast pattern, and bandwidth.
The household only has to transmit to a single basestation which is in a fixed location. Therefore you can use a highly directional antenna to achieve greater distances with the same power than if you use an omnidirectional isometric antenna.
That reduces the power consumed.
However you still have the issue that the base station will be in a situation where it appears that there will be a high noise floor. (to the base station, it would appear that there would be broadcasters in every direction all shouting over each other) It will be in a fixed frequency band, and therefore everyone will be stepping over everyone else's toes, and with highly directional transmission, one household won't 'hear' another household so the standard methods to avoid channel contention (sense/stop and wait, etc) won't work as it relies on the households ability to actually sense other transmitters.
Time division multiplexing could work, and control messages could be built in to allow for dynamic allocation of timeslots to certain households based on upstream needs. (ie: extra timeslots will be allocated based on requests from households sent during basic control messages).
However, you are quite correct that this second aspect doesn't have any real impact on broadcasting power other than ensuring that there is proper separation between timeslots so that the noise floor is reduced and thus less power is needed.
You are talking about the value of your home DOUBLING and at the same time you are saying that housing prices are NOT skyrocketing?
$250,000 profit in five years... and THAT is supposed to support your arguement that housing isn't astronomical compared to incomes which have remained stagnant? Your five year profit is about the TOTAL income for an average wage earner over 5 years.
I don't even know where to argue with you, because you are providing the exact evidence needed to contradict yourself.
The problem is that the bubble didn't pop. It's still being artificially held up. If anything, it has sprung a leak so the insane increases that we say 5-10 years ago might have a slightly smaller but still positive slope.
Rent houses being in demand do not indicate a healthy economy with respect to Salary vs cost of living.
Having already posted, at least I can respond with a shout of 'Hear Hear'!
I mean, what better way is there for a corp from Delaware to exert influence over Oregon? It's not like states having their own laws makes business impossible despite what people will claim (Yeah, laws will vary from state to state. They do now. I wonder how Europe managed)
Which also means that you should be VERY careful to avoid making the society cease to be beneficial.
What I don't understand is: why aren't we capable of fabricating synthetic hydrocarbons today?
We have the capability, the reason we don't is because it isn't cost effective.
Oil today is literally us just going and picking up something that already exists. Sure it takes a little handling and maybe some processing, but in the end, it's cost to refine is basically pennies on the dollar. Synthetic hydrocarbons are possible, but maybe it costs 2x as much as just sucking the oil from the ground.
Since you are producing a synthetic version of a fungible commodity, if your cost is higher and all other aspects are equal, you won't sell a drop. If two people were standing side by side, and reselling a can of Pepsi one for $1 and one for $2. The guy who was selling the $1 cans would get ALL the business (Assuming all variables were equal)
That's the problem with synthetic hydrocarbons because the typical 'differentiators' for fungible goods are eliminated when you consider hydrocarbons.
Cost is less for traditional
Portability is equal
Production is robust for traditional sources
Pollution is LESS for traditional sources
Only when traditional sources become more scarce either due to increased cost of production, or decreased supply and availability will we see synthetic hydrocarbons.
Right now it's only our Military who really wants synthetic hydrocarbons on any major scale but it's mostly because they would prefer a more US controlled source for their diesel.
You may not be a laywer, but here is some legal, ethicical, and personal advice for the 'LEO'.
Quit your job. You can't handle it.
It will probably fix the sensors on the projector as well smart guy.
Looks like I'm going to have to start building my baseball cap with a rim covered in high powered IR LEDs.
No one in the theater will notice, except the one's trying to check in on you with low light cameras or NVGs.
Government's goals changes every 2 to 4 years in the US.
I wish it did. No, their goal has always been to regulate more of your life this year than they did last year.
It's worse in the US where you guys are actually laying off police. Sorry but a officer to person ratio of 700-2500:1 isn't good.
Are you sure? Perhaps the world isn't as dangerous and scary as we have been told. Cop:person ratio isn't as useful as perhaps a cop:crime and a person:crime ratio.
What do we need with more police anyway? How many are really just revenue collections officers?
I'm not saying that
If I thought I had the skills necessary to do so, I would have. As it stands, I don't.
This country doesn't need yet another person in charge who is unfit for the job.
Yeah I expected that response, which is why I mentioned the ad absurdum.
So everyone that runs is a liar, you won't vote for a liar. Basically stick anyone in front of you, and you won't vote for them, you won't even vote for yourself.
At this rate, I hope you are wearing your peril-sensitive sunglasses, because the concept is remarkably similar.
Not for me. But that's tangential. I'm going to agree with the other people in this thread though that it shouldn't be hidden to the extent that it is.
Have you been to Canada? There is plenty of uninhabited terrain where you won't run into anyone. Maybe Siberia would be another option, or Brazil for that matter.
Then you will fall under the domain of the Canadian, Russian, or Brazilian government. It's one of the MAIN reasons why even though I often disagree with the US government, the concept of a collection of states appeals to me. It's also why I'm a huge advocate for a weaker federal government.
If I don't like it where I live, I can move to a different state which is several orders of magnitude less difficult than moving to a different country. Yes, it does mean that there will be states which do things I disagree with, but it does leave open of at least moving to a place where the people DO agree with me.
As you expand the jurisdiction and scope of the governments with the largest landmasses, the capability to avoid concepts you disagree with decreases tremendously.
It bothers me tremendously that people believe that there is somehow a 'right' way to do government. I don't believe that my way is flawless either, but that's the point, it won't be right for everyone, but we should work to make sure that everyone has the maximum amount of freedom to live under the system they prefer.
I liked living in PA, but disliked their liquor laws and their roads. When I lived in Upstate NY, I loved the area, couldn't stand the property taxes. Now that I live in Virginia, I enjoy the climate the reduced restrictions on my firearm ownership (again, I used to live in NY), but dislike the motives of the Atty. Gen. (Attacking scholars, etc) and some of the other politicians.
It scares me that some people think we can get everything right and then apply it uniformly across 300 million people. Get the basics right on a large scale, and then leave the details to the locals.
Like I said in my OP, voting for the person who lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar.
Vote for yourself. Or are you going to continue this ad absurdum?
What does that mean? Does that mean you don't consent to your government? If so, there's a really easy solution for you. It involves moving, but you'll never have to live under a government you don't consent to again.
Where? There used to be a pressure valve for society. If you didn't like the government, you moved to the frontier. With literally everything claimed on earth right now, (even Antarctica and effectively the sea floor) you don't have much option of 'move'.
Perhaps you meant move and hope no one notices, or move and get ready to fight.
Neutrinos again? Get back to me when they find something the size of a tennis ball:
Wouldn't that simply be a 4.48GHz radio wave? It's wavelength in a vacuum is approximately the size of a tennisball iirc.
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
I like to unify my communications. I actually have 2 iPhones which are mirrors of each other. I can pick up one and have access to the exact same messages/voicemails/etc.
In this case, I could see the use of having my text messages forwarded to another location where I could then archive them. I'd actually prefer such a system to be hidden from me as I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
I'm not comfortable with the concept that my message backup is currently managed by my phone company (who has no obligation to archive).
The point is, it isn't necessarily someone else's phone this would be installed on.
No stalker could install this on my husband's phone without physical access, either. Next?
So you would be perfectly fine with them installing secret cameras in your house the next time you and your husband are out at work/vacation/dinner?
Don't forget, stalkers are quite often spouses, friends, and other close relations.
If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.
I also don't blame Whole Foods for not selling High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't blame vendors for not selling magnet 'health bracelets'. In a similar manner I don't blame Google for not selling this product.
Conversely, this isn't like Google Voice being banned from the Apple store because Google Voice doesn't tread into a legal grey area.