Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Jan 2007 05:44 MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > On 13 Jan 2007 22:32:46 +0200, Phil Carmody > <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: > > >Hmmm, can't find that story. I can find this one though: > ><<< > >Chargers LB shot by off-duty officer > > > What part of FORMER NFL player do you not understand? It's quite alright if you can't find the reference to back up your claim. It appears you have a reputation for that here already and thus no further tarnishing has taken place. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 07:42 In article <45A92EB9.3FD8E32A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> I do it today with the my 14,400 modem. >> > >> >Can you not even get anything faster than that ? >> >> Why? 14400 is faster than anything I've used before. I >> don't need anything faster. > >You lack imagination. Quite the opposite. I only use the internet to transfer a small number of ASCII characters. 14400 is more than sufficient for that. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 07:45 In article <CsGdncRAvqXihDTYnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eoaqte$8qk_008(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <GJidnUY_c-B5fTXYRVnytgA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eoal64$8ss_004(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <eo87pn$nji$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <eo7v28$8ss_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <eo6tdr$vsa$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>>In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>>>>>>>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>>>>>>>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I used to do that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>With broadband it's not necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You also need much better hearing. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why? I've never met broadband. It's sound pattern differences that >>>>>>predict that some behaviour will change. >>>>> >>>>>The frequency content extends well past the 20KHz that the human ear is >>>>>limited to. In DSL, there is no real signal at all down where audio >>>>>band >>>>>modems run. >>>> >>>> There isn't any way to hang a converter or something on and >>>> make patterns into sounds? How about lights? >>> >>>You would need to seriously slow down the data flow for it to be >>>meaningful >>>which would kind of defeat the purpose. >>> >>> >> You don't have to have a 1-sound::1-bit ratio. Like I said, >> the best way is to listen to changes of patterns. For instance, >> I can get used to what a successful connection "sounds" like. >> I do it today with the my 14,400 modem. I have no idea what >> the sounds mean but I do know if the melody has changed from >> the usual melody. My experience tells me that, if I hear a >> certain "sour" melody, I shouldn't even try to get into >> newsgroups, but just hangup and call again. > >As I said, technology has advanced in leaps and bounds now. The effort you >would have to go to, to establish this sort of medieval set up over a >broadband connection far outweighs any benefit - real or imagined. You cannot monitor what is going back and forth over the line _while you are working online_. > >With my broadband connection, I have not had a failed connection in two and >a half years, and my router is connected pretty much 24 hours a day. My gear is only powered up when I'm using it. > >I remember with dial up, having the modem speaker on so you could hear the >connection tones was of some value if you didn't have any graphical display >on the PC but since about 1998 it has been better handled graphically. With >Broadband the whole concept goes away. The router does not call up in the >same manner. So how do you detect that something is sniffing your bits or dumping on your system without having to waste CPU cycles or any other system resource? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 07:48 In article <eob3j7$4d2$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <GJidnUY_c-B5fTXYRVnytgA(a)pipex.net>, >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eoal64$8ss_004(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >[...] >>> There isn't any way to hang a converter or something on and >>> make patterns into sounds? How about lights? >> >>You would need to seriously slow down the data flow for it to be meaningful >>which would kind of defeat the purpose. > >That would depend on the purpose. You can have an indication of the SNR, >error rate or other data about the signal that would have some use. You >could also make a sound for every outgoing packet. I'd probably have a different tone for each kind of packet. That way each kind of activity would have a different tune. Any change would become interesting. > The clicking and >buzzing would tell you there is activity. With a little decoding, if you >are running XP you could hear when it phones home. In this case, one would want to hear when it phones somebody else. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 08:05
In article <M-WdnVK9qJOtgzTYnZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eoanun$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> >> I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think >> it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I >> trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only >> one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. >> > >Every now and then it helps to re-assess opinions and ideas such as this. If >you honestly think that Bush is the _only_ person in Washington dealing with >the national security problem you have to wonder why no one else seems to be >concerned about this I have wondered and have tried to figure out why. The only conclusion left is that the Democrat leadership is insane. >and maybe, just maybe, it could be a misconception you >have formed. I reexamine all the time. I also know how denial works. The past two months I've been trying to figure out why European-type thinking is broken. I've pretty much figured the diagnosis. I have no idea if a cure is even possible other than allowing things to become broken hard. > >Sometimes, when the majority of people disagree with you they are actually >correct. The extremists don't care what your idea of majority thinks. In fact, it's a minority if you consider the world population rather than your small party opinions. /BAH |