Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:c++? (Score 5, Informative) 321

by Jeeeb (#49169031) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Classic OOP Compiled Language: Objective-C Or C++?

Objective-C is an ugly, clunky language, and the only reason Apple uses it is to intentionally make your code incompatible with other platforms.

I'm not a particular fan of Objective-C either but this is just wrong. Apple inherited Objective-C when they bought NextStep and used it as the foundation of OS X. OS-X got its start in life as a partial rewrite of the NS shell and the addition of some compatibility layers (Classic Mac OS, Java, .etc.) to make up for the lack of applications. At this stage, there would have to be really really major benefits to a rewrite to justify the direct cost, not to mention the opportunity cost.

Comment: Re:The admission is a no-brainer` (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49168997) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications
A "rubber duck" is not a 5/8 wave antenna. It is, sometimes, a helical antenna, sometimes not. I use some ducks that are basically nothing more than stiff wire. "Rubber duck" implies nothing about the construction OR length of the antenna other than it has a rubber (usually) coating and is shorter than optimal.

If you think that 6" or 8" is 5/8 wave on 2m, then I'm sorry. And apparently you have way too much invested in this topic to discuss it in civil manner. Good day.

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49168965) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

As you can see, the Clause in question cares not about citizenship, or even humanity,

And the CU ruling grants neither citizenship nor humanity to corporations. It reaffirms that corporations have many of the same rights as persons, such as free speech, because corporations are made up of persons. It created nothing new.

I think you're misconstruing some judgements

I'm construing nothing. I referred you to a source which happens to agree with other sources as to the actual effect of CU. It does happen to disagree with the biases of people who hate corporations.

"Natural citizens" is a red herring.

Comment: Re:FCC? (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49167163) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

There you go again, trying to sidetrack and obfuscate the central issue. Neither the NTIA nor any other federal law or regulation allows Stingrays to be legally used in the manner that law enforcement has used them.

Show me where I said it does or admit that you lied. I never said did. I've told I never said it did. Yet you keep on...

The SOLE thing I replied to was the comment about getting the FCC to deal with federal use of this. That's the ONLY issue I replied to.

You are free to rant on about the government, but stop deliberately misinterpreting what I've said.

Comment: Re:The admission is a no-brainer` (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49167101) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

... 5/8 HAM rubberduck..."

A rubber duck antenna is not 5/8 wave. It is an intentionally shortened antenna used only because it is inconvenient to have a real, resonant antenna on a handheld.

A 5/8 wave antenna for 2m is (936/144)*(5/8) feet, or 49 inches long, and I doubt that you have such a length of wire on your HT. At 70cm, it's 936/440 * (5/8) or 15.9 inches long.

A 5.8 wave 2m will actually not work as well at 70cm as at 2m even though one is the third harmonic (almost) of the other, because at 70cm the antenna becomes 15/8 wave (I have no idea where you got 23/8 wave), or almost 2 full wavelengths long. A 1/4 wave 2m antenna will be about 3/4 wave at 70cm, which is about the same impedance.

Comment: Re:The admission is a no-brainer` (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49166853) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

I would really like to have that demonstrated to me. My telephone cares little which way I point it.

Your telephone is not an antenna on a cell system. I could have been more explicit by saying "the antenna on a cell system tower", but I assumed most people would know what I was talking about when I referred to plural antennas.

You cell phone is half the connection, and while it is approximately omnidirectional, the antennas at the other, higher power transmitter end, are not.

Maybe the donut is flattened on one axis, but we all know that there aren't tens of thousands of antenna on the tower, each one mounted on independent gimbals, tracking each user.

You missed the critical word "phased". Please refer to here, here, or here for more info. Suffice to say, your hyperbole that one would need tens of thousands of antennas on gimbals to provide directional access to multiple users is quite hilarious.

Your low powered transmitter on your handheld device is not going to be a source of interference to anyone. First, it's low powered. Second, it transmits on the handset side of the frequencies, so even of you are standing next to another cell phone it won't be received by that phone, which is receiving on the tower frequencies. Third, a major design criterion of the cell system is the reuse of frequencies and the allocation of a specific set to cover a certain area. If a StingRay comes to town, it will use a different set of frequencies. It isn't trying to overpower another cell on the same frequencies, it is using its own set at higher power. The phones preferentially connect to the higher power signal. Why? Because it is more likely they can use lower power to communicate and thus save battery life.

Comment: Re:FCC? (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49166719) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise

I have said no such thing. In fact, whenever people like you try to twist what I've actually said into this lie, I've corrected you in public.

Once again, I find myself wasting time responding to people who either cannot understand the difference between "not subject to FCC rules" and "not subject to any rules", or who deliberately ignore the difference so they can lie about what I've said.

That's especially stupid to try, given that you have just let slip that I've actually said they are subject to NTIA rules.

I have to wonder if either you're that stubborn & obtuse, or do you get paid to shill?

Given that you've repeatedly, deliberately misrepresented what I've said, I'd have to ask you if you are being paid by someone.

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 5, Informative) 187

by Obfuscant (#49166671) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.

You referring to Citizen's United here? Try this:

The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886.

In 1819, the members of SCOTUS and the party of the President that appointed them were:

  • John Marshal (Chief Justice), Federalist
  • Bushrod Washington, Federalist
  • Henry Brockholst Livingston, Democratic-Republican Party
  • Gabriel Duvall, Democratic-Republican Party
  • William Johnson, Democratic-Republican Party
  • Thomas Todd, Democratic-Republican Party
  • Joseph Story, Federalist

Now, you might try to claim that four of the seven were "Democratic-Republicans", but keep in mind that they were appointed by Thomas Jefferson, and the other three by James Madison (the Federalist). Both were pretty familiar with both the intent and the language of the Constitution, so they undoubtedly appointed people who held the same knowledge and views.

By the way, many of the people who make up a corporation are "real citizens", as real as you are, and certainly all of them who formed Citizen's United were "real citizens," with all the rights you claim for yourself.

Comment: Re:Can disrupt? How about INTENDED to disrupt! (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49166477) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

1) I thought some operators were locals.

Feds admit that Stingray...

2) NTIA may well help manage spectrum, and the Feds certainly can use their reserved spectrum however they wish. But that does not grant them immunity to use any spectrum they wish, however they wish.

Please show me where I said otherwise. There is a significant difference between "not subject to the laws of X" and "not subject to any laws."

Comment: Re:The admission is a no-brainer` (Score 1) 187

by Obfuscant (#49166435) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

Radio waves are generally transmitted in a spherical - or, more accurately, a donut shaped - direction. There ARE beam antenna, but who is going to attach a honking huge beam to a pocket sized transmitter? So - wherever this thing is turned on, it is GUARANTEED to interfere with normal usage, in all directions, out to the maximum range of the transmitter.

Except the antennas on cell systems are not omnidirectional, and they haven't been for many years. They are both directional and phased, which means they can direct the signal towards the intended receiver.

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 5, Insightful) 480

this is on Obama's watch and he has been totally negligent.

Because we are TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE!

Its because hes a coward and would rather let the menace rage out of control than take it on.

Indeed, instead of containing them we should just go in guns blazing, because that's always the best way to counter problematic ideologies. It always works out so well. It's also easy for the armchair general to send soldiers to die for whatever cause they deem worthy.

"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Working...