sathackr

If you are logged into your Google account on both the VPN-connected device and a phone with location settings turned on, Google will use the location feature of your phone to locate your usage on the VPN connected device as well.

To me it gets 'shitty' when they do this without disclosure. I have no problem with placing an order with GH and having them place the order for me, but when they masquerade as the restaurant and try to hide that from the customer is where the problem comes in.

Scuba(normally) does not use any higher concentration of oxygen than air. The compressors used just pump high pressure air into the tanks.

Using a scuba tank filled with air does not pose any additional explosion risk due to oxygen. The only additional explosion risk is due to the relatively high pressures involved (2000-5000psi) and the risks surrounding the use of any compressed gas.

There are blends of gasses available that do present an additional explosion hazard, but those are generally not available to someone without the training required to safely handle. For that matter a scuba shop following the rules won't even fill a tank of air for you without verifying your certification.

But how does the NIC know that, 11 hops away, there is a layer 2 device, which cannot communicate with the NIC(switches do not typically have the ability to communicate directly with the devices generating the packets), that only supports a 1500 byte frame?

Now you need Path MTU discovery, which as the article indicates, has its own set of issues. (Overhead from trial and error, ICMP being blocked due to security concerns, etc...)

GPON is both time divided and frequency divided.

There are typically 3 wavelengths.(frequency division). Two for data(downstream and upstream) and one for video (downstream).

The downstream channels(both video and data) are broadcast and not time divided. The streams are filtered by the ONT. The upstream data channel is time divided to permit multiple devices transmitting without collision.

Duplex fiber where a separate strand for TX/RX can use the same frequency.

Simplex fiber, that is point to point, may in fact be able to use the same frequency, but it's not done in practice. Possibly due to the difficulty in directing the outgoing and incoming signals to different pieces of hardware(receiver and transmitter)

GPON networks(typically used by Fios, etc...) have multiple passive splitters on the strand. For example, a common PON splitter would have 1 strand in from the OLT(optical line terminal, essentially the head-end), 32 strands out. The light received from the OLT is split x32 and sent to each downstream port. The devices on the downstream ports(ONU/ONT, Optical Network Terminal) receive this signal and also transmit it on the same strand. That transmitted signal must be coupled back into the single upstream port, from every attached ONT. I imagine there is significant difficulty getting the light to traverse the splitter and exit only via the upstream port. So a different wavelength is used so that it doesn't matter if the light is received by the other units, and also it can be more easily filtered (by wavelength instead of direction).

My knowledge of optics is not sufficient to fully explain why it's easier to filter by wavelength instead of direction.

Both cable and FTTH(single-strand fiber to the home, such as Fios) are full-duplex via frequency division.

Cable operates in RF bands, and frequencies are denoted in MHZ and sometimes GHZ(included in the linked answer)

Fiber operates in optical bands and frequencies are denoted in nanometers(wavelength) -- downstream data, downstream video, and upstream data are all operated on different wavelengths on the same piece of glass, and they are received at both the transmitting end and the receiving end.

They are typically separated and filtered by optical prisms to ensure the correct wavelength hits the correct receiver(most receivers are wide-band and will receive a wide range of optical wavelengths)

The medium is typically shared at a neighborhood level, in that a single optical strand may be split 16 or more times to serve multiple houses. Bandwidth is shared on that strand by the houses served by it, typically via TDM(time division multiplexing)

End users don't typically notice this because the line rates are higher than the maximum bandwidth package sold. IE downstream rate 2.5Gb/s, upstream 1.5Gb/s, max package available is 1Gb/s.

Edit: removed incorrect statement regarding gepon/csma

Pulling the terrorist card is pretty cheap and probably why the downvotes. LEO cannot be expected to be prescient of every crime or we will become a surveillance state much worse than we already are.

I agree that common courtesy would dictate that you inform the public, but it's not a requirement and not something that should become law.

Drones over 249g are required to be registered have a registration number affixed.

Your point is valid, in that every other motor vehicle that operates on public property has a requirement to be able to be positively identified to a owning entity. But there is no requirement that this be identifiable from great distance.

A drone in the air does create a unique challenge that a transponder would help resolve. But just like any other form of identification, it's an 'honor system' in that I could just put any vessel ID number on my boat, could steal a tag, or transmit a fake transponder ID if I were engaging in illegal activity. A trivial matter if I am advanced enough to be conducting operations with unmanned aircraft.

So I'm not sure that resolving someone's curiosity about my legal activity is a compelling enough reason to require me to attach a broadcasting identification device to my drone, or otherwise identify myself or my aircraft to law enforcement 'just because they should know'

It was a general statement that applies to the scenario being discussed in the article.

If you want to get pedantic, you're also required to file a flight plan if there is some restriction in place requiring such for the area you are flying in. For example a TFR, or operation in an ADIZ or SFRA/FRZ(Washington DC). Or if you are flying internationally.

If there is no property being damaged, no law being violated, why does law enforcement need to be involved at all?

Law enforcement doesn't have to have an answer or info about every single event.

If I'm driving a car down the highway, law enforcement doesn't need to know where I am going or why. I'm not breaking any laws and not infringing on anyone's rights.

As a pilot I can go fly my plane at any altitude I wish as long as I am not entering any controlled airspace. I don't have to ask or tell anyone what I'm doing.

So why do they need to know why I'm flying my drone and where I'm going?

I'm still not grasping it either, to the point that I feel we may eventually learn they are neither, something else that looks to us sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave.

Not sure which switches you are using.

I have hundreds of Unifi switches deployed. There is no downtime with normal setting changes(port/vlan assignment, link speed/duplex changes, etc...)

Why isn't the armed shoplifting suspect paying for this? It's his actions that were the catalyst for the damage by police.

I don't think any of us are in a sufficient position of knowledge to determine if the police action was justified.

But it seems to me the suspect that picked the house to hole up in should be the primary responsible party.

It's a liability issue.

Say someone gets hurt from a seatbelt. If it's designed exactly as required by regulation, there is an immunity for the company (IANAL so I don't know the legal term for this)

IF you try to make it better, and do make it better for most cases, but worse for some edge case, then you have a liability issue in that your 'negligence' caused injury that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

The stance on civil liability in America often stifles innovation in many areas regarding life safety. Tesla is learning this quickly.

People's lives are being sacrificed now, teaching us how to build safer cars. Some large percentage of the time, seatbelts prevent death or reduce the injury. Some small percentage of the time, they induce further injury or death.

Do we stop using seatbelts until they are 100% effective? Was it a mistake to start putting seatbelts in cars before it could be proven that they absolutely wouldn't kill anyone?

Well I started thinking about it more.

If it's orbiting at the speed of the moon, it's going slower than geostationary orbit speed. So its tendency will be to fall towards the earth. But since it's attached to the moon, this won't happen.

Not sure how much station keeping would be needed to hold this in place.

Also will have to deal with collision risks with objects in geostationary orbit. Though I don't think geostationary orbit is a particularly important factor. Could probably be a few thousand Km above geostationary orbit without any significant adjustment to their plan.

If one end is tethered to the moon, and the other end is in geostationary orbit...you're gonna have a bad day. The moon is not in geostationary orbit.

Not an orbital scientist but doesn't seem that will work out very well.

It would never go to trial.

The ones arrested that have the means would hire private lawyers and receive deferred prosecution agreements or simply charges dropped.

The ones without the means would be assigned public defenders who would give them 1 hour of time every 2 weeks, just enough to wear them out and accept a plea deal in lieu of going to court.

The 1% that didn't have the means but fought anyways would go to court/trial, and would also have charges dropped before it went that far.

Yep. You can do the same thing sitting outside on the street with a high gain antenna. Or one of the many rarely updated, vulnerability-ridden Android phones that are inside the building in people pockets.

Guess I should have read further in.

Impressive, but the linked article didn't uses a high gain antenna array like was used to communicate with deep space probes.

They specifically wanted something with a low barrier to entry. Take a look at the antenna they used. Pretty impressive imo.

This. Easiest way to circumvent the 4th amendment. Get the dog to bark.

He said somewhere else on the site that because of the location he may only get 3 hours of sun in a day and sometimes months with no(I assume direct) sun in the winter.

So solar wasn't an option here though likely would have been cheaper and definitely easier.

I had to close 4 different pop-overs just to view the site on mobile.

No I don't want you to send me notifications. No I don't want to subscribe. Please change your social media floater so that it doesn't take up 30% of the vertical screen

They say: "Could anybody imagine a $54 billion machinery company coming after a coffee company? I don't think that's even in the cards," said Truby. "The first biggest thing they want us to do is not print the name Cat and Cloud on anything again. I think that is unbelievable. I don't think that's going to hold up."

Caterpillar says: Caterpillar Inc. says its only concern is over apparel, providing Action News with this statement:

"Caterpillar serves customers around the world, many of whom earn their livelihood with one or two machines and often a good pair of work boots. We value all of them and strive to provide exceptional products and services. This means we have a responsibility to protect and maintain the brand they love and rely on every day - including our existing trademarks.

"We are not suing Cat & Cloud, not targeting a small business and not focused on Cat & Cloud's primary interest: coffee. We've simply asked the U.S. Trademark Office to remove Cat & Cloud's trademark registration on footwear and apparel only, products for which Caterpillar has longstanding trademarks and a considerable business. We hope to resolve this issue quickly."

It would seem they are entering the same industry, thus the action by caterpillar seems warranted. Caterpillar is not just a heavy machinery company, and it would seem Cat and Cloud is not selling just coffee.

[citation needed]

Not that I dispute what you say, but I don't buy it hook-line-and-sinker.

If cars only contained drivers it wouldn't be that bad.

If only there were some way that someone besides the driver could manipulate the in car system.

My Chevrolet handles this well, using the passenger seat occupancy sensor. If someone is sitting in a passenger seat, it gives the option "I am the passenger" to allow access to normally blocked-while-moving screens.

And the behavior the parent described is just annoying. The device has the capability to know if the car is in motion or not. Permanently locking out the function until the car is turned off and on is dumb.

I won't pretend to know what was in the minds of the people at the time. Maybe there were multiple reasons and not one single "real reason."

Looking at the world today I think most people would prefer that a device that can cause such massive destruction simply not exist. I can only imagine what will happen once the ones that have been 'lost' start showing up in the wrong hands. The destruction was bad enough when in the 'right hands' (scare quotes, because I don't feel so great about what we(USA) did either.)

We can play what-if all day but we will never know what would have happened if things didn't happen as they did. I just hope that the actual version of what happened doesn't get 'corrected' in history books so that our future descendants can learn from our mistakes.

I agree. But it seems to be something lacking in the general population today. They're unable to grasp the theory of the 1945 mind that had just seen one world war and was in the middle of a second world war that involved the wholesale slaughter of an entire population.

The world was a different place then yet people are passing judgement on decisions made then but colored with the 20/20 vision that hindsight provides and a life lived in the mostly stable world we have today.

Feel free to rewind to nearly any known history period and the entire world would be barbaric compared to today's standards, but that doesn't make the people that lived and fought during that time wrong.