Re: Cheap Electronics (was Re: Worldcon news)
Keith F. Lynch
> <http://www.xkcd.com/651/>
> (There are text transcripts of most xkcd strips, but unfortunately
> they seem to stop at #580, so I can't send Keith to go read it.)
I guess you missed this posting:
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: Christmas Creep
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:59:45 +0000 (UTC)
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, so you DO check xkcd. Smart man!
Once every week or two, I download all of it that I don't already
have to the Apple laptop. Are there any other online comic strips I
should be doing the same with? They have to be free of DRM, Flash,
JavaScript, ActiveX, and similar junk. Thanks.
I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery. Even
if there is, I doubt it's possible to release it explosively. You
might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier to just
carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to detect
matches, does it?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
cryptoguy
> David Goldfarb <goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > <http://www.xkcd.com/651/>
> > (There are text transcripts of most xkcd strips, but unfortunately
> > they seem to stop at #580, so I can't send Keith to go read it.)
>
> I guess you missed this posting:
>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
> Subject: Re: Christmas Creep
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:59:45 +0000 (UTC)
>
> > OK, so you DO check xkcd. Smart man!
>
> Once every week or two, I download all of it that I don't already
> have to the Apple laptop. Are there any other online comic strips I
> should be doing the same with? They have to be free of DRM, Flash,
> JavaScript, ActiveX, and similar junk. Thanks.
>
> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery. Even
> if there is, I doubt it's possible to release it explosively. You
> might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier to just
> carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to detect
> matches, does it?
> --
> Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
> Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.
Well. there's about as much 'energy' in an apple (the edible kind).
The question is, how fast is it released?
There are videos showing a laptop doing a good imitation of an
incendiary grenade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4DlUUZxFvs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWq6rWzChw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0UWIYswKI
pt
Kip Williams
> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery. Even
> if there is, I doubt it's possible to release it explosively. You
> might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier to just
> carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to detect
> matches, does it?
By the smell? I'm only guessing, but isn't some of their equipment based
on detection of faint odors?
Kip W
cryptoguy
Actually, along with potentially explosive laptops, its legal (last
time I checked) to take matches on planes, but not lighters.
pt
Mike Benveniste
> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery.
Apparently, this claim was first made by Christina Lampe-Onnerud,
founder and CEO of Boston Power:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/the-lady-and-the-liion
Here's the trick. Your standard "pineapple style" grenade weighs
about 700 grams, but only contains about 60 grams of TNT. That
works out to just over 250,000 joules of energy.
I can buy a battery for my Dell Laptop rated at 85 watt-hours.
That works out to 306,000 joules of energy. So the energy is
there. However...
> Even if there is, I doubt it's possible to release it explosively.
... I agree 100%. People are very lax about using the word explosion.
There is no way you can release the energy in a battery as fast as
a TNT detonation.
> You might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier
> to just carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to
> detect matches, does it?
AFAIK, the TSA has never totally prohibited matches. The current
regs allow you to carry on one book of safety matches, but none
in checked luggage. They also now permit people to carry on some
common types of cigarette lighters, because it was proving to be
too expensive to take them away from people.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such
wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact.
Michael Stemper
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery.
>> You might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier
>> to just carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to
>> detect matches, does it?
>
>AFAIK, the TSA has never totally prohibited matches. The current
>regs allow you to carry on one book of safety matches, but none
>in checked luggage. They also now permit people to carry on some
>common types of cigarette lighters, because it was proving to be
>too expensive to take them away from people.
Expensive to whom? Was TSA getting sued for loss of lighters or
something? I find it hard to credit the idea that they cared that
a lot of people were deprived of their lighters.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
cryptoguy
wrote:
> In article <7klvq3F3ahiv...@mid.individual.net>, "Mike Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> writes:
> >"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery.
> >> You might be able to start a fire with it, but it would be easier
> >> to just carry a book of matches. The TSA doesn't have any way to
> >> detect matches, does it?
>
> >AFAIK, the TSA has never totally prohibited matches. The current
> >regs allow you to carry on one book of safety matches, but none
> >in checked luggage. They also now permit people to carry on some
> >common types of cigarette lighters, because it was proving to be
> >too expensive to take them away from people.
>
> Expensive to whom? Was TSA getting sued for loss of lighters or
> something? I find it hard to credit the idea that they cared that
> a lot of people were deprived of their lighters.
It was costing them $4,000,000/year to dispose of the 22,000 lighters
they were confiscating every day.That's 50cents each. Apparently, they
constituted 80% of items confiscated.
There's an article about it here:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1048
pt
Jette Goldie
Last time I flew (which was April this year) you were allowed *1* box
or book of safety matches (the kind you can't strike against a rough
surface) *or* 1 disposable lighter, which can't be put in your carry
on bag, but must be kept on your person.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Keith F. Lynch
> Last time I flew (which was April this year) you were allowed *1*
> box or book of safety matches (the kind you can't strike against a
> rough surface) *or* 1 disposable lighter,
I know that smoking has been banned on all domestic US flights. Is
it still allowed on UK flights? On UK-branded international flights?
Smoking was allowed on the British Air flight to the 1995 Worldcon.
> which can't be put in your carry on bag, but must be kept on your
> person.
What about women whose clothes have no pockets, who carry everything
in a handbag or purse?
Keith F. Lynch
> It was costing them $4,000,000/year to dispose of the 22,000
> lighters they were confiscating every day. That's 50cents each.
I've been criticized for calling government employees idiots. But in
this case I think I'm more than justified.
Why didn't they simply carry them over to the arrivals part of the
same airport, next to a "free lighters" sign? Given that everyone
whose lighter had been confistacted would want one, as would some
other people, all of the lighters would be taken, and none would
remain to be disposed of by the TSA.
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It was costing them $4,000,000/year to dispose of the 22,000
> > lighters they were confiscating every day. That's 50cents each.
>
> I've been criticized for calling government employees idiots. But in
> this case I think I'm more than justified.
>
> Why didn't they simply carry them over to the arrivals part of the
> same airport, next to a "free lighters" sign? Given that everyone
> whose lighter had been confistacted would want one, as would some
> other people, all of the lighters would be taken, and none would
> remain to be disposed of by the TSA.
You haven't thought things through.
"OK, Achmed, here's the scheme. The altered lighters are filled with
C4. On use, they light a fuse which then detonates the explosive. Make
*sure* they get confiscated."
pt
Mike Benveniste
> Why didn't they simply carry them over to the arrivals part of the
> same airport, next to a "free lighters" sign?
Because it wasn't worth their jobs. In this case, the common sense
solution would have violated several laws and triggered a massive
multi-agency squabble.
Once "surrendered," the lighters became government property and
subject to all of the various laws and regulation on disposal of same.
The main issue was that butane lighters, unless empty, are considered
hazardous material under environmental rules. Otherwise the TSA could
have just tossed them into the nearest trash bin along with the soda
bottles and coffee cups.
There were at least 3 other legal obstacles of somewhat lesser
concern:
-- Federal employees simply can't give away unwanted stuff to an
individual; they must follow laws and GSA regulations. There's even
a special set of laws and regs for disposal of surplus property for
public airports.
-- If one of the giveaways proved defective, the employee, the TSA,
and likely the airport would face a litigation risk.
-- Airport gift shops typically contract for non-competes on various
types of merchandise in their lease. Allowing the feds to give away
lighters would have violated their contractual rights. (Even during
the ban, shops in several airports continued to sell lighters.)
Various state agencies and charities were more than willing
to take the more valuable stuff and sell it off-site or on
eBay. But no one wanted the lighters. Here's one document which
gives a hint at the amount of red tape involved:
http://snipurl.com/stlkm (PDF at fbo.gov)
Individuals, OTOH, could and did give their lighters to fellow
smokers or leave them on the rims of ashtrays. As far as I know,
none were arrested nor sued.
Michael Stemper
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It was costing them $4,000,000/year to dispose of the 22,000
>> lighters they were confiscating every day. That's 50cents each.
I don't know why they couldn't have just thrown them in the
waste backet. Presumably, the article to which you provided
a link explains this, but my employer's net-nanny blocks access
to that site, with the reason being: "tobacco".
Keith's idea is also good:
>Why didn't they simply carry them over to the arrivals part of the
>same airport, next to a "free lighters" sign? Given that everyone
>whose lighter had been confistacted would want one, as would some
>other people, all of the lighters would be taken, and none would
>remain to be disposed of by the TSA.
To some extent, that does unofficially happen. I've quite often
seen multiple lighters on railings, benches, and so on in the
smoking sections outside the MSP terminal. I assume that these
have been abandoned by people about to go somewhere. I've never
picked one up because, when I'm there, I'm also about to go
somewhere.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.
Jette Goldie
> Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> Last time I flew (which was April this year) you were allowed *1*
>> box or book of safety matches (the kind you can't strike against a
>> rough surface) *or* 1 disposable lighter,
>
> I know that smoking has been banned on all domestic US flights. Is
> it still allowed on UK flights? On UK-branded international flights?
>
> Smoking was allowed on the British Air flight to the 1995 Worldcon.
>
Smoking is banned on ANY flight in the UK, and indeed ALL airlines
that either land in or connect with the UK or US or most of Europe.
There are some small purely domestic airlines in Eastern Europe that
still allow in-flight smoking, but their partner airlines that
actually connect internationally are smoke-free.
>> which can't be put in your carry on bag, but must be kept on your
>> person.
>
> What about women whose clothes have no pockets, who carry everything
> in a handbag or purse?
For purposes of the security check you take them out of your pocket
anyway so they can go through the X-ray machine in one of those small
trays. A woman's "purse" is an honorary "pocket" in that case.
Robert Sneddon
<m...@murkyether.com> writes
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm skeptical that there's that much energy in a laptop battery.
>
>Here's the trick. Your standard "pineapple style" grenade weighs about
>700 grams, but only contains about 60 grams of TNT. That
>works out to just over 250,000 joules of energy.
>
>I can buy a battery for my Dell Laptop rated at 85 watt-hours. That
>works out to 306,000 joules of energy. So the energy is
>there.
A rechargeable A-cell battery has more than twice as much stored energy
(2AH @ 1.2V = 8640J) than a clip of seven rounds of .45ACP pistol ammo
(0.5 x 0.016kg x (250m/s)^2 x 7 = 500J x 7 = 3500J) could deliver to a
target as kinetic energy. It's just that the battery can't deliver all
its electrochemical energy in seven 2mS bursts that prevents it from
being more dangerous that it appears (kids can buy them! In packs!)
>> Even if there is, I doubt it's possible to release it explosively.
>
>... I agree 100%. People are very lax about using the word explosion.
>There is no way you can release the energy in a battery as fast as
>a TNT detonation.
It's not the stored energy in the batteries that's the real worry for
the TSA and the FAA, it's the lithium metal used in their construction.
The worst-case scenario is that a bunch of lithium batteries in
someone's hold luggage shorts out and starts a fire. The automatic
firefighting gear in the hold is not guaranteed to be able to extinguish
a lithium-metal fire if there is enough of it present. One possible
result is that an aircraft operating on a transoceanic route several
hours from an emergency field could have an uncontainable fire burning
through the hull and compromising control runs. This is one of those Bad
Things that gives aircraft operators nightmares.
The use of more and more lithium batteries in the cabin (mobile phones,
laptops etc.) is also causing worry but in that case it's possible for
the cabin crew to take more effective actions to deal with such a fire.
It's not the threat of terrorism per se that's causing the authorities
to start restricting the number of lithium batteries carried on board
aircraft.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Keith F. Lynch
> It's not the stored energy in the batteries that's the real worry
> for the TSA and the FAA, it's the lithium metal used in their
> construction.
Rechargable batteries don't contain lithium metal, but only
lithium ions.
> The worst-case scenario is that a bunch of lithium batteries in
> someone's hold luggage shorts out and starts a fire. The automatic
> firefighting gear in the hold is not guaranteed to be able to
> extinguish a lithium-metal fire if there is enough of it present.
So long as everything around the fire can be kept cool, perhaps with
plenty of water, the fire can burn itself out without doing serious
damage to the airplane. Some upholstry will be ruined, and passengers
may need to go on oxygen until the smoke clears, but the plane will
keep flying.
Better yet, just dump a bucket of dry sand on the fire.
Keith F. Lynch
> I don't know why they couldn't have just thrown them in the waste
> backet. Presumably, the article to which you provided a link
> explains this, but my employer's net-nanny blocks access to that
> site, with the reason being: "tobacco".
You don't have net access at home?
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's not the stored energy in the batteries that's the real worry
>> for the TSA and the FAA, it's the lithium metal used in their
>> construction.
>
>Rechargable batteries don't contain lithium metal, but only
>lithium ions.
Well, they are still restricted for some reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Restrictions_on_transportation
----------
As of January 2008, the US Department of Transportation issued a new
rule that permits passengers on board commercial aircraft to carry
lithium batteries in their checked baggage IF the batteries are
installed in a device. Types of batteries affected by this rule are
those containing lithium, including Li-ion, lithium polymer, and lithium
cobalt oxide chemistries. Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25
grams Equivalent Lithium Content (ELC) are exempt from the rule and are
forbidden in air travel.[75]
The purpose of this restriction is that it greatly reduces the chances
of the batteries becoming short-circuited and causing a fire. A limited
number of replacement batteries can be carried in hand luggage providing
they are kept in their original protective packaging or in individual
containers or plastic bags.
----------
>> The worst-case scenario is that a bunch of lithium batteries in
>> someone's hold luggage shorts out and starts a fire. The automatic
>> firefighting gear in the hold is not guaranteed to be able to
>> extinguish a lithium-metal fire if there is enough of it present.
>
>So long as everything around the fire can be kept cool, perhaps with
>plenty of water, the fire can burn itself out without doing serious
>damage to the airplane. Some upholstry will be ruined, and passengers
>may need to go on oxygen until the smoke clears, but the plane will
>keep flying.
>
>Better yet, just dump a bucket of dry sand on the fire.
Is the cargo hold even accessible from the passenger compartment?
--
"Your national security advisor has just been executed.
He's a very good negotiator.
He bought you another half hour."
Egor Korshunov "Air Force One"
Ben Yalow
>Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's not the stored energy in the batteries that's the real worry
>> for the TSA and the FAA, it's the lithium metal used in their
>> construction.
>Rechargable batteries don't contain lithium metal, but only
>lithium ions.
And they still catch fire pretty easily, compared to other technologies.
It looks like there's about one aircraft fire every few months (more than
40 incidents since 1991).
See
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Feds-Reject-Ban-On-In-Flight-Lithium-Batteries-100809.aspx
>> The worst-case scenario is that a bunch of lithium batteries in
>> someone's hold luggage shorts out and starts a fire. The automatic
>> firefighting gear in the hold is not guaranteed to be able to
>> extinguish a lithium-metal fire if there is enough of it present.
>So long as everything around the fire can be kept cool, perhaps with
>plenty of water, the fire can burn itself out without doing serious
>damage to the airplane. Some upholstry will be ruined, and passengers
>may need to go on oxygen until the smoke clears, but the plane will
>keep flying.
>Better yet, just dump a bucket of dry sand on the fire.
And how do you do that if the battery is in hold luggage? There's no
access by the flight crew until the aircraft lands. So you depend on the
fire gear in the hold -- but it can't handle a major fire.
That's why you aren't allowed to have batteries in checked luggage
anymore. They're only allowed in the passenger cabin, where there's FA
access for trying to extinguish the fire.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>> I don't know why they couldn't have just thrown them in the waste
>> backet. Presumably, the article to which you provided a link
>> explains this, but my employer's net-nanny blocks access to that
>> site, with the reason being: "tobacco".
>
>You don't have net access at home?
Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
place of employment.
Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> You don't have net access at home?
> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
> place of employment.
> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable. And you don't need
any new hardware or software.
Ben Yalow
>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> You don't have net access at home?
>> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
>> place of employment.
>> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
>> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
>> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
>> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
>You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
>dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable. And you don't need
>any new hardware or software.
As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually more
expensive. And likely to go away soon, except for a few ISPs that keep it
up as a legacy.
For example, Panix only provides dialup capability in those areas where
Megapop provides access. And that's only a fraction of the country. And
Megapop/Starnet is one of the few dialup providers left.
With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix users
only can get it because somebody else still provides support -- but nobody
uses it except you (or, perhaps somebody else does when I wasn't checking
-- but, right now, no other Panix users are on via shell dialup).
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Keith F. Lynch
> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
> more expensive.
It's just as capable, except for being slower.
I've priced broadband, and it would be considerably more expensive
unless I already had cable TV. And of course cable TV would only help
with cable broadband, not with DSL. Either way, I'd also need new
hardware.
> And likely to go away soon, except for a few ISPs that keep it up as
> a legacy.
> For example, Panix only provides dialup capability in those areas
> where Megapop provides access. And that's only a fraction of the
> country. And Megapop/Starnet is one of the few dialup providers left.
Are you sure you're not conflating dialup with shell dialup? There's
also PPP dialup, which is apparently much more common than shell
dialup these days.
> With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix
> users only can get it because somebody else still provides support
> -- but nobody uses it except you (or, perhaps somebody else does
> when I wasn't checking -- but, right now, no other Panix users are
> on via shell dialup).
panix2:[/net/u/1/k/kfl] who | grep popsite
[redacted] pts/15 Oct 28 21:19 (nyc3-dial1.popsite.net)
kfl pts/4 Oct 28 20:08 (mva1-dial1.popsite.net)
[redacted] pts/85 Oct 28 21:00 (cle2-dial2.popsite.net)
[redacted] pts/90 Oct 28 21:07 (pvd1-dial2.popsite.net)
And that's just on panix2. I haven't checked panix1, panix3,
panix4, or panix5.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Kip Williams
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
>> more expensive.
>
> It's just as capable, except for being slower.
Why use a computer? Carrier pigeons are just as capable, except for
being slower.
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Rechargable batteries don't contain lithium metal, but only
>> lithium ions.
> And they still catch fire pretty easily, compared to other
> technologies.
But it's not a metal fire. So it's easier to extinguish.
> It looks like there's about one aircraft fire every few months (more
> than 40 incidents since 1991).
That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
apartment.
> And how do you do that if the battery is in hold luggage? There's
> no access by the flight crew until the aircraft lands.
I think you're mistaken on that.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> Why use a computer? Carrier pigeons are just as capable, except for
> being slower.
I don't know of any ISPs that currently support RFC 1149.
Anyhow, dialup is faster than my reading speed -- and I'm a fast
reader. Pigeons are not.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> You don't have net access at home?
>
>> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
>> place of employment.
>
>> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
>> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
>> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
>> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
>
>You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
>dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable. And you don't need
>any new hardware or software.
Maybe, just maybe he sees the advantages of broadband.
--
"That government which governs the least, governs best."
- Thomas Jefferson
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>> You don't have net access at home?
>
>>> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
>>> place of employment.
>
>>> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
>>> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
>>> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
>>> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
>
>>You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
>>dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable. And you don't need
>>any new hardware or software.
>
>As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually more
>expensive. And likely to go away soon, except for a few ISPs that keep it
>up as a legacy.
>
>For example, Panix only provides dialup capability in those areas where
>Megapop provides access. And that's only a fraction of the country. And
>Megapop/Starnet is one of the few dialup providers left.
>
>With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix users
>only can get it because somebody else still provides support -- but nobody
>uses it except you (or, perhaps somebody else does when I wasn't checking
>-- but, right now, no other Panix users are on via shell dialup).
Ouch.
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
>> more expensive.
>
>It's just as capable, except for being slower.
>
>I've priced broadband, and it would be considerably more expensive
>unless I already had cable TV. And of course cable TV would only help
>with cable broadband, not with DSL. Either way, I'd also need new
>hardware.
We've been through this several times now. It (at least the DSL flavor
of broadband) would be *slightly* more expensive.
--
"People, don't you understand - the child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day."
Scott Davis
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why use a computer? Carrier pigeons are just as capable, except for
>> being slower.
>
>I don't know of any ISPs that currently support RFC 1149.
>
>Anyhow, dialup is faster than my reading speed -- and I'm a fast
>reader. Pigeons are not.
Didn't we have a note, not all that long ago, about how carrier pigeons
beat the Internet for throughput somewhere in South Africa? didn't that
lead to a discussion about how a motorcycle messenger with a stack of
drives was faster than some mega-broadband level of connection?
Why, yes we did.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8248056.stm
How fast can you read 4 GB of data, Keith?
"A Durban IT company pitted an 11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory
stick against the ADSL service from the country's biggest web firm,
Telkom."
--
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein
Morris Keesan
wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
...
>> It looks like there's about one aircraft fire every few months (more
>> than 40 incidents since 1991).
>
> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
> apartment.
Unless your apartment is large enough for aircraft to fit inside
it, that's a moot point, isn't it?
--
Morris Keesan -- mke...@post.harvard.edu
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why use a computer? Carrier pigeons are just as capable, except for
>> being slower.
>
> I don't know of any ISPs that currently support RFC 1149.
Who needs ISPs? Carrier pigeons can carry all that information, just a
lot slower.
> Anyhow, dialup is faster than my reading speed -- and I'm a fast
> reader. Pigeons are not.
Irrelevant.
Kip W
Morris Keesan
wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
>> more expensive.
>
> It's just as capable, except for being slower.
>
> I've priced broadband, and it would be considerably more expensive
> unless I already had cable TV. And of course cable TV would only help
> with cable broadband, not with DSL.
Panix charges $17.50/month for dialup shell access outside of the
NYC area (no PPP), which is not "just as capable" as broadband.
For PPP access, Panix charges $32.50/month.
I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month more
than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call "considerably
more expensive", and it's $10.51/month LESS than Panix PPP access.
Unlimited dialup from The World (including PPP) is a minimum of
$14.89/month,
which is $7.10 less than my DSL service. Maybe you consider that
"considerably
more". I don't.
> Either way, I'd also need new hardware.
I don't know what hardware you have besides an ASCII terminal and dial-up
modem; I thought that you had a laptop on loan from someone. With my
laptop computers, the only new hardware I needed for DSL was a DSL modem,
which was provided by my DSL provider.
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why use a computer? Carrier pigeons are just as capable, except for
> >> being slower.
> >
> > I don't know of any ISPs that currently support RFC 1149.
>
> Who needs ISPs? Carrier pigeons can carry all that information, just a
> lot slower.
If your ISP doesn't support RFC 1149, how do you get the information
from the avian transmission channel to the user?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Mike Benveniste
> With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix users
> only can get it because somebody else still provides support...
I think that's overstating the case, unless you are limiting the
conversation to dial-up shell accounts. For April 2009, Pew
reported that 7% of Americans are dial-up internet users at home.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/10-Home-Broadband-Adoption-2009.aspx
Earlier this week, eWeek reported that AOL still had 7 million
dialup subscribers. That number is likely a bit inflated; as
with other subscription services, not all subscribers actually
use the service.
On an average day, the number of people accessing the Internet
on a mobile phone now exceeds the number using dialup.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
I'd met so many of his kind during the war. No wonder we
lost.
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> You don't have net access at home?
>
>> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
>> place of employment.
>
>> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
>> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
>> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
>> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
>
>You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
>dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable.
Yeah, but then I'd have to pay for both Internet access and a land line.
Charter, who I'm going to be getting, offers cable access for $20.99 [*]
per month. If I choose to rent a cable modem from them rather than buy
my own, that's another $3.99/mo plus sales tax. The total will be a
little over $25 per month. Since I'll be dropping my land line, that'll
be a net increase in my expenditures of $8/mo -- unless I buy my own
cable modem.
And the thought of "just as fast as dialup through work" sounds more
like a bug than a feature. I'll be going from 28.8k to 1M.
> And you don't need
>any new hardware or software.
Unfortunately, it's too late to send the brand new 2 Ghz, dual core
laptop with 3 GB of memory, a 100 Mb NIC and a wireless card, running
Ubuntu 9.0.4, back to Dell. As much fun as it might be to go back to
using a 500 MHz P-III with 96 MB of memory, running WinDoze 98, I
think I'll just write off the nearly $500 that I pissed away on the
new one.
[*] No asterisk -- I have that in writing.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
It is not irrelevant - it's wrong.
A carrier pigeon can carry a USB stick. Those can hold up to 128 GB of
data. I'd like to see Keith read 128 GB faster than the pigeon can
deliver the sticks.
--
"Molon labe!"
- Leonidas
David Loewe, Jr.
<m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix users
>> only can get it because somebody else still provides support...
>
>I think that's overstating the case, unless you are limiting the
>conversation to dial-up shell accounts. For April 2009, Pew
>reported that 7% of Americans are dial-up internet users at home.
7%, when you look at the numbers of people - like my father and
step-mother - who cannot get terrestrial broadband at any reasonable
pricing, does not constitute that great of an exaggeration.
>http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/10-Home-Broadband-Adoption-2009.aspx
>
>Earlier this week, eWeek reported that AOL still had 7 million
>dialup subscribers. That number is likely a bit inflated; as
>with other subscription services, not all subscribers actually
>use the service.
>
>On an average day, the number of people accessing the Internet
>on a mobile phone now exceeds the number using dialup.
Which makes the point that dial-up is simply irrelevant.
--
"1a) Never throw shit at an armed man.
1b) Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at
an armed man."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
David Loewe, Jr.
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>>>> You don't have net access at home?
>>
>>> Sure I do. I use my landline to dial in to a bank of modems at my
>>> place of employment.
>>
>>> Now that I have a new PC with up to date telecom hardware, I'm soon
>>> going to arrange to take a day off from work and get cable internet
>>> access. Then my sensibilities will no longer be shielded from such
>>> horrors as "Freeware" or "Hate Speech".
>>
>>You could get dialup Internet at home instead. It's just as fast as
>>dialup through work, and much cheaper than cable.
>
>Yeah, but then I'd have to pay for both Internet access and a land line.
>Charter, who I'm going to be getting, offers cable access for $20.99 [*]
>per month. If I choose to rent a cable modem from them rather than buy
>my own, that's another $3.99/mo plus sales tax. The total will be a
>little over $25 per month. Since I'll be dropping my land line, that'll
>be a net increase in my expenditures of $8/mo -- unless I buy my own
>cable modem.
>
>And the thought of "just as fast as dialup through work" sounds more
>like a bug than a feature. I'll be going from 28.8k to 1M.
Really? The minimum speed Charter offers around here (St. Louis - which
is, of course, the location of their corporate HQ) is 5/1 M (newly
increased from 5/.5 M). They also implemented something called "Power
Boost" which purports to increase the initial burst speed of downloads.
I got somewhere around 12/1.2 M on a speed test yesterday.
>>And you don't need any new hardware or software.
>
>Unfortunately, it's too late to send the brand new 2 Ghz, dual core
>laptop with 3 GB of memory, a 100 Mb NIC and a wireless card, running
>Ubuntu 9.0.4, back to Dell. As much fun as it might be to go back to
>using a 500 MHz P-III with 96 MB of memory, running WinDoze 98, I
>think I'll just write off the nearly $500 that I pissed away on the
>new one.
>
>
>[*] No asterisk -- I have that in writing.
--
"Always look a gift horse in the mouth."
- Milton Friedman
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
High bandwidth but high latency, which was the problem with the "station
wagon full of tapes" approach to Usenet propagation.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Michael Stemper
>On an average day, the number of people accessing the Internet
>on a mobile phone now exceeds the number using dialup.
I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
with "dialup" still seems wrong.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Michael Stemper
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:40:33 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>Yeah, but then I'd have to pay for both Internet access and a land line.
>>Charter, who I'm going to be getting, offers cable access for $20.99 [*]
>>per month. If I choose to rent a cable modem from them rather than buy
>>And the thought of "just as fast as dialup through work" sounds more
>>like a bug than a feature. I'll be going from 28.8k to 1M.
>
>Really?
Really what? I didn't have the impression that 1M was considered
super-fast any more (other than by contrast to my experience). Or
are you marveling that it's possible to get something that slow?
> The minimum speed Charter offers around here (St. Louis - which
>is, of course, the location of their corporate HQ)
Wheras I'm in Wright County, which you researched yesterday. I'm
on the corner of two paved roads. The closest road (or street or
anything else) other than them is half a mile away, and it's gravel.
Charter's the only firm that offers *any* internet access at my
location.
For reference, I live here:
<http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.251477,-93.538338&spn=0.001358,0.002411&t=k&z=19>
How about that? They've added a new level of zoomable detail to
my area since the last time that I looked.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This sentence no verb.
Lowell Gilbert
> In article <7ktgfiF...@mid.individual.net>, "Mike Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> writes:
>
>>On an average day, the number of people accessing the Internet
>>on a mobile phone now exceeds the number using dialup.
>
> I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
> with "dialup" still seems wrong.
That's my first reaction too, but that's because we're old.
Well, I am, anyway.
[My current cell phone, despite being what is called a "dumb phone"
these days, has more memory and CPU power than any equipment I owned for
the first decade after I first read Usenet.]
David Loewe, Jr.
<lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
>> "Mike Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> writes:
>>
>>>On an average day, the number of people accessing the Internet
>>>on a mobile phone now exceeds the number using dialup.
>>
>> I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
>> with "dialup" still seems wrong.
>
>That's my first reaction too, but that's because we're old.
>Well, I am, anyway.
Looking around online, I see indications that mobile phones typically
connect at speeds less than 1 Meg, this is still far faster than the max
dial-up speeds.
http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless/f/wirelessspeed.htm
>[My current cell phone, despite being what is called a "dumb phone"
>these days, has more memory and CPU power than any equipment I owned for
>the first decade after I first read Usenet.]
--
"Small wonder that human beings in general disgust me."
Fred J. McCall in <qoil6vog8pbc1m252...@4ax.com>
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
I am reminded of the days when I was on dial-up and would, most nights,
line up binaries to download in the hour or so before I went to bed. On
a big day (volume-wise) it would still be downloading when I got up some
8 hours later.
Of course, 128 GB is as large as my largest HD was when I had dial-up...
--
"Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
knife whilst burning *black* candles." -- Anthony DeBoer
David V. Loewe, Jr
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:40:33 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com
>>(Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, but then I'd have to pay for both Internet access and a land line.
>>>Charter, who I'm going to be getting, offers cable access for $20.99 [*]
>>>per month. If I choose to rent a cable modem from them rather than buy
>
>>>And the thought of "just as fast as dialup through work" sounds more
>>>like a bug than a feature. I'll be going from 28.8k to 1M.
>>
>>Really?
>
>Really what? I didn't have the impression that 1M was considered
>super-fast any more (other than by contrast to my experience). Or
>are you marveling that it's possible to get something that slow?
Yes. I should think that the above, in conjunction with the next
paragraph, would have conveyed that I was surprised that Charter was
offering anything that slow.
>>The minimum speed Charter offers around here (St. Louis - which
>>is, of course, the location of their corporate HQ)
>
>Wheras I'm in Wright County, which you researched yesterday. I'm
>on the corner of two paved roads. The closest road (or street or
>anything else) other than them is half a mile away, and it's gravel.
>Charter's the only firm that offers *any* internet access at my
>location.
>
>For reference, I live here:
><http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.251477,-93.538338&spn=0.001358,0.002411&t=k&z=19>
In a copse of trees. Coolness.
>How about that? They've added a new level of zoomable detail to
>my area since the last time that I looked.
I'm more surprised that they are offering *any* level of service to a
place where they cannot offer the minimum level seen around here.
--
"My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four.
Unless there are three other people."
- Orson Welles
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
>> more expensive.
>
>It's just as capable, except for being slower.
Which makes it far less capable, but I digress...
--
"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
characteristic of them."
- Margaret Thatcher
David Loewe, Jr.
This has all - including the prices - been mentioned to him before. He
has indicated in the past that he does indeed consider the $4.49 a month
extra (he also pays for Panix in yearly chunks - which allows him to
receive a bulk rate type discount) to be "considerably more." Do you
*now* see why I consider almost any mention of cost by Keith to be
kvetching about his financial situation?
--
"Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer."
- Steve Martin responding to a heckler on
the album A Wild And Crazy Guy
David Friedman
Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> > I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
> > with "dialup" still seems wrong.
>
> That's my first reaction too, but that's because we're old.
> Well, I am, anyway.
Some of us are old in body but still young in spirit.
For the past two summers, our annual summer trip from California to
Pennsic and back has been done in a floating hotspot. The first summer I
connected my Macbook to the internet via a USB cable to my cell phone's
EDGE connection, set up the Macbook as a wireless router, letting me and
the kids in the back seat all connect to the internet--slowly.
By the second summer I had an Android G1 with a 3G connection, and phone
software that turned the phone itself into a WiFi router. The software
required root access, which a took a little work, and it consumed enough
power so that in practice I had to keep the phone connected to a power
source, but it worked.
I'm now looking at the forthcoming Motorola Droid, an Android 2.0 phone.
It's on Verizon, which I gather has the best 3G network out there, and
Verizon (unlike T-mobile) actually knows what tethering is. That might
mean I will have to pay extra for it--the rate plans for the new phone
don't seem to be clear yet--but it should also make it easier to do.
Lowell Gilbert
> In article <44pr861...@be-well.ilk.org>,
> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>
>> > I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
>> > with "dialup" still seems wrong.
>>
>> That's my first reaction too, but that's because we're old.
>> Well, I am, anyway.
>
> Some of us are old in body but still young in spirit.
Well, to be honest, I was only shooting for a bit of self-deprecating
humor. In fact, the gear to move Internet Protocol traffic onto the
cellular networks is what I do for a living. [Not that that keeps my
son from rolling his eyes a bit at my attitude toward his cell phone
use, but I don't think there's anything to be done about that.]
> For the past two summers, our annual summer trip from California to
> Pennsic and back has been done in a floating hotspot.
That, however, I don't do. Maybe it's because I spend such a huge
amount of time in front of computer screens professionally and at home,
but I try to be out of touch when I'm vacationing. Particularly at
Pennsic, but even for the Worldcon this year I felt funny about having a
computer along for the trip. I think my family will outvote me on this
point in future, even Pennsic next year.
Michael Stemper
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:53:25 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:40:33 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>>>And the thought of "just as fast as dialup through work" sounds more
>>>>like a bug than a feature. I'll be going from 28.8k to 1M.
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>>Really what? I didn't have the impression that 1M was considered
>>super-fast any more (other than by contrast to my experience). Or
>>are you marveling that it's possible to get something that slow?
>
>Yes. I should think that the above, in conjunction with the next
>paragraph, would have conveyed that I was surprised that Charter was
>offering anything that slow.
Well, with the "below" bit, at least I figured out that that was
a possible meaning.
>>>The minimum speed Charter offers around here (St. Louis - which
>>>is, of course, the location of their corporate HQ)
>>
>>Wheras I'm in Wright County, which you researched yesterday. I'm
>>on the corner of two paved roads. The closest road (or street or
>>anything else) other than them is half a mile away, and it's gravel.
>>Charter's the only firm that offers *any* internet access at my
>>location.
>>
>>For reference, I live here:
>In a copse of trees. Coolness.
But, the point was:
- You live in St. Louis County near the HQ of Charter
- I live in Wright County, which, according to an unimp[eachable source,
has one-tenth the population, and I'm in a part of it that is fairly
sparsely populated. You did notice how far apart the houses are?
It shouldn't be surprising that I'm happy to have 1Mb available at all.
>>How about that? They've added a new level of zoomable detail to
>>my area since the last time that I looked.
>
>I'm more surprised that they are offering *any* level of service to a
>place where they cannot offer the minimum level seen around here.
Maybe their lines here are five years old?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> As we've frequently discussed, dialup is less capable, and usually
>> more expensive.
>It's just as capable, except for being slower.
In the last few days, I've made video calls, worked remotely on someone
else's machine with full access to their Windows desktop/programs in full
graphics mode, and been moving about 20GB/day of data that needed to be
either on my machine, or on someone else's machine, through the Internet.
Which of these is feasible using dialup?
>I've priced broadband, and it would be considerably more expensive
>unless I already had cable TV. And of course cable TV would only help
>with cable broadband, not with DSL. Either way, I'd also need new
>hardware.
You can get DSL from Verizon, right now, for $20/month, with 6 months free
on a 1 year contract. You pay a lot more than that for Panix.
You would need new hardware, although I understand that you've got a Mac
laptop that could probably work.
But most modern hardware -- stuff made in this century (or much of the
decade prior to that) -- will work fine.
>> And likely to go away soon, except for a few ISPs that keep it up as
>> a legacy.
>> For example, Panix only provides dialup capability in those areas
>> where Megapop provides access. And that's only a fraction of the
>> country. And Megapop/Starnet is one of the few dialup providers left.
>Are you sure you're not conflating dialup with shell dialup? There's
>also PPP dialup, which is apparently much more common than shell
>dialup these days.
It is -- essentially nobody (and I know Panix is an exception) offers
shell dialup. But very few people still offer even PPP dialup. And many
of the ones who do offer it as a backup included with their broadband
packages, rather than a standalone service. And, as POPs disappear, you
end up paying long-distance phone charges to get to the remining POPs.
>> With a tiny number of exceptions, nobody uses dialup anymore. Panix
>> users only can get it because somebody else still provides support
>> -- but nobody uses it except you (or, perhaps somebody else does
>> when I wasn't checking -- but, right now, no other Panix users are
>> on via shell dialup).
> panix2:[/net/u/1/k/kfl] who | grep popsite
> [redacted] pts/15 Oct 28 21:19 (nyc3-dial1.popsite.net)
> kfl pts/4 Oct 28 20:08 (mva1-dial1.popsite.net)
> [redacted] pts/85 Oct 28 21:00 (cle2-dial2.popsite.net)
> [redacted] pts/90 Oct 28 21:07 (pvd1-dial2.popsite.net)
>And that's just on panix2. I haven't checked panix1, panix3,
>panix4, or panix5.
Four people -- that's more than usual. And that's out of many hundred.
I guess my 0 might have been low -- but when you're looking at 4 people,
it's easy to not have them on.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
David Friedman
Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
We don't do computers and internet at Pennsic, although, given the cell
phone, we could. We don't even do flashlights or Coleman stoves. But our
summer trip is a month, of which about a week is spent at Pennsic, and
the other three weeks are in the 21st century.
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> Rechargable batteries don't contain lithium metal, but only
>>> lithium ions.
>> And they still catch fire pretty easily, compared to other
>> technologies.
>But it's not a metal fire. So it's easier to extinguish.
Easier -- yes. Easy -- no, especially not in a hold.
>> It looks like there's about one aircraft fire every few months (more
>> than 40 incidents since 1991).
>That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
>apartment.
There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
>> And how do you do that if the battery is in hold luggage? There's
>> no access by the flight crew until the aircraft lands.
>I think you're mistaken on that.
The hold cargo is generally in containers. For example, looking at a
747-400, it holds 30LD-1 containers, or 5 pallets+14 cotainers+bulk.
See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400_prod.html for
Boeing's specs.
Seth
Rewriting history already?
It was a 747, and it wasn't full, just had one tape every day.
(That's how Australia got its feed for a number of years.)
Seth
Ben Yalow
<snip>
>I'm now looking at the forthcoming Motorola Droid, an Android 2.0 phone.
>It's on Verizon, which I gather has the best 3G network out there, and
>Verizon (unlike T-mobile) actually knows what tethering is. That might
>mean I will have to pay extra for it--the rate plans for the new phone
>don't seem to be clear yet--but it should also make it easier to do.
Verizon isn't doing a great job on telling people how the Droid will work,
but the early reports indicate it's a great phone. And Verizon's 3G has
been really solid everyplace anyone I know has tested it, even in places
where AT&T and T-Mobile don't have service (this is all secondhard, since
I don't have a data account with them myself).
>--
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
>Author of
>_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
>Cambridge University Press.
Ben
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
>> apartment.
> There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
More likely, maybe, but worse? What can lithium batteries do that's
worse than starting a fire that destroys almost everything I own?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> You can get DSL from Verizon, right now, for $20/month, with 6
> months free on a 1 year contract.
Is that the real price, or an asterisked price? The next time I
see an honest price from Verizon will be the first.
Also, does that require me to have landline service from them?
Because I don't. My landline service is with a less expensive,
higher quality provider.
> You pay a lot more than that for Panix.
No, I pay less than $20 per month for Panix.
> You would need new hardware, although I understand that you've got a
> Mac laptop that could probably work.
I'd much rather use my VT420, as its keyboard is much better.
Wouldn't I need some kind of firewall machine to keep viruses and
other malware off my machine?
> It is -- essentially nobody (and I know Panix is an exception)
> offers shell dialup.
How many do you need? My previous ISP, Radix.net, also still offers
shell service. And I have free access to shells at two other sites.
> Four people -- that's more than usual. And that's out of many hundred.
There are seldom even one hundred people logged on a single Panix
shell host at one time.
> I guess my 0 might have been low -- but when you're looking at 4
> people, it's easy to not have them on.
When they aren't logged in, others are.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month
> more than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call
My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
Do you have to have Verizon landline service to get their DSL?
And does that $21.99 include all taxes, fees, and surcharges?
> I don't know what hardware you have besides an ASCII terminal and
> dial-up modem; I thought that you had a laptop on loan from someone.
It's a gift from David Friedman, not a loan.
> With my laptop computers, the only new hardware I needed for DSL was
> a DSL modem, which was provided by my DSL provider.
For no extra cost?
And what about a firewall? Moving into a subway station would speed
up my commute, but would my stuff still be there, unmolested, when
I got back from work? I kind of like having my computers *not* be
directly on the Internet, just as I like having my furniture, books,
and other property *not* be directly in the Metro station.
Keith F. Lynch
> Who needs ISPs? Carrier pigeons can carry all that information, just
> a lot slower.
They can, but how do I go about requesting the latest unread rasff
postings? And how long do I have to wait after making my request
before I get them? If one posting mentions a URL, how do I go about
seeing what's there, and how long does that take? How do I send and
receive email?
On the plus side, I could probably make a lot of money selling all the
spam as fertilizer. Pigeon dropping are quite high in nitrates and
phosphates.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
Actually I was referencing Tanebaum's quote, probably lifted from
someone else, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full
of tapes hurtling down the highway." The problem with that, along with
RFC 1149 and all of the other humorous variants, is that they're best as
starting points for discussing bandwidth versus latency. Which is
something that a number of supposed communications professionals at my
place of work are in dire need of. But I digress...
David Loewe, Jr.
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
First off... I'm supposed to know, without you ever having told me, that
you don't live in a town because why... ?
Secondly, did you know that there are farms (and nature preserves and
State Parks) in St. Louis County? And areas where the houses are just
as far apart as they are in parts of Wright County (although there
seemed to be one right across the road from you)? And yet, if you *can*
get cable Internet service from Charter in this county, the lowest tier
is 5 M.
>It shouldn't be surprising that I'm happy to have 1Mb available at all.
Your happiness has nothing to do with my comment. If I were in your
shoes, *I'd* be happy to be able to get 1 MB. That does not mean I'd be
any less surprised that Charter offered it out there.
>>>How about that? They've added a new level of zoomable detail to
>>>my area since the last time that I looked.
>>
>>I'm more surprised that they are offering *any* level of service to a
>>place where they cannot offer the minimum level seen around here.
>
>Maybe their lines here are five years old?
Are they running fiber? If so, where does it stop - the node?
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
>>> apartment.
>
>> There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
>
>More likely, maybe, but worse? What can lithium batteries do that's
>worse than starting a fire that destroys almost everything I own?
Be afraid, Keith. Live your life trembling in fear from risks other
people take for granted on a daily basis.
Sheesh...
<rolls eyes>
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> You can get DSL from Verizon, right now, for $20/month, with 6
>> months free on a 1 year contract.
>
>Is that the real price, or an asterisked price? The next time I
>see an honest price from Verizon will be the first.
>
>Also, does that require me to have landline service from them?
>Because I don't. My landline service is with a less expensive,
>higher quality provider.
>
>> You pay a lot more than that for Panix.
>
>No, I pay less than $20 per month for Panix.
$20/month MINUS 6 months free EQUALS $10 per month.
You pay more than that for Panix.
>> You would need new hardware, although I understand that you've got a
>> Mac laptop that could probably work.
>
>I'd much rather use my VT420, as its keyboard is much better.
>
>Wouldn't I need some kind of firewall machine to keep viruses and
>other malware off my machine?
Millions do this all the time without getting a virus or malware on
their machines.
--
"I thought that you might have some advice to give ...
On how to be... Insensitive."
- Jann Arden
Philip Chee
> Rewriting history already?
>
> It was a 747, and it wasn't full, just had one tape every day.
> (That's how Australia got its feed for a number of years.)
Luxury! we could only afford a 747 with a tape once a week. It took at
least two weeks for your question to get out and a possible answer to
comeback.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Old musicians never die. They just decompose!
* TagZilla 0.066.6
Philip Chee
> Actually I was referencing Tanebaum's quote, probably lifted from
> someone else, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full
> of tapes hurtling down the highway." The problem with that, along with
The version I heard was a Ford Transit travelling down the M6.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]The PARITY CHECK is in the E-MAIL...
* TagZilla 0.066.6
netcat
says...
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:
>
> > In article <44pr861...@be-well.ilk.org>,
> > Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > I understand what you mean, but seeing "on a phone" being contrasted
> >> > with "dialup" still seems wrong.
> >>
> >> That's my first reaction too, but that's because we're old.
> >> Well, I am, anyway.
> >
> > Some of us are old in body but still young in spirit.
>
> Well, to be honest, I was only shooting for a bit of self-deprecating
> humor. In fact, the gear to move Internet Protocol traffic onto the
> cellular networks is what I do for a living. [Not that that keeps my
> son from rolling his eyes a bit at my attitude toward his cell phone
> use, but I don't think there's anything to be done about that.]
>
> > For the past two summers, our annual summer trip from California to
> > Pennsic and back has been done in a floating hotspot.
>
> That, however, I don't do. Maybe it's because I spend such a huge
> amount of time in front of computer screens professionally and at home,
> but I try to be out of touch when I'm vacationing.
Yeah, me too. Fortunately, I have good resistance to temptation to check
my mail or log onto any points where anyone could possibly reach me even
if I am online during a vacation, unless I absolutely need to. Can't be
totally offline though, since so much stuff I might need at any minute
is online.
rgds,
netcat
netcat
dave...@charter.net says...
That they know of, anyway. All those millions of botnet nodes and spam
zombies did not sign up voluntarily.
Keith doesn't probably want to use IE and Flash and other risky stuff,
which would be a point in his favour, but he's also not used to updating
software and OS-es which would be a point against.
His best bet would be to find an OS reasonably ancient that doesn't get
updated _or_ attacked any more, stuff all well-known security holes in
it and use that. My mom who is totally clueless about patching has been
running Windows 2000 without a single security incident since 2004.
That's without a firewall, with a static IP, on a broadband. Not that I
consider Windows 2000 particularly secure, just saying.
rgds,
netcat
netcat
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
> >> apartment.
>
> > There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
>
> More likely, maybe, but worse? What can lithium batteries do that's
> worse than starting a fire that destroys almost everything I own?
Any electrical appliance in your apartment could do that. Heck, a piece
of wiring inside the wall that you even don't see could do that. It
probably happens daily to people.
If it worries you, consider getting insurance.
rgds,
netcat
Michael Stemper
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:53:25 +0000 (UTC), mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>>>Really what? I didn't have the impression that 1M was considered
>>>>super-fast any more (other than by contrast to my experience). Or
>>>>are you marveling that it's possible to get something that slow?
>>>>>The minimum speed Charter offers around here (St. Louis - which
>>>>>is, of course, the location of their corporate HQ)
>>>>
>>>>Wheras I'm in Wright County, which you researched yesterday. I'm
>>>>on the corner of two paved roads. The closest road (or street or
>>>>For reference, I live here:
>>
>>>In a copse of trees. Coolness.
>>
>>But, the point was:
>>- You live in St. Louis County near the HQ of Charter
>>- I live in Wright County, which, according to an unimp[eachable source,
>> has one-tenth the population, and I'm in a part of it that is fairly
>> sparsely populated. You did notice how far apart the houses are?
>
>First off... I'm supposed to know, without you ever having told me, that
>you don't live in a town because why... ?
Because I posted a link showing where I live. You weren't supposed to
know that before then.
>Your happiness has nothing to do with my comment. If I were in your
>shoes, *I'd* be happy to be able to get 1 MB. That does not mean I'd be
>any less surprised that Charter offered it out there.
Okay, I'll ask for another interpretation. Do you mean you are surprised
that I can get anything here? Or, do you mean that even out here, you
are surprised that they only offer 1Mb?
>>>I'm more surprised that they are offering *any* level of service to a
>>>place where they cannot offer the minimum level seen around here.
>>
>>Maybe their lines here are five years old?
>
>Are they running fiber? If so, where does it stop - the node?
I have no idea what their architecture is. When I lived in a city I
had no idea about the architecture of the water mains was, either.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who needs ISPs? Carrier pigeons can carry all that information, just
>> a lot slower.
>
> They can, but how do I go about requesting the latest unread rasff
With another bird.
> postings? And how long do I have to wait after making my request
I don't know how long, but remember that part where I said "a lot
slower"? That was in response to your observation that something else
was slow but that this didn't seem like a problem.
I reduced it to absurdity, showing (in my opinion) that slowness can be
a problem.
> before I get them? If one posting mentions a URL, how do I go about
> seeing what's there, and how long does that take? How do I send and
> receive email?
It's pigeons all the way up.
Kip W
cryptoguy
Lets recall that a few months ago I called Panix and asked how many
people have dialup shell accounts without PPP. The answer was 'very,
very few'.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>dave...@charter.net says...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:13:41 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> You would need new hardware, although I understand that you've got a
>> >> Mac laptop that could probably work.
>> >
>> >I'd much rather use my VT420, as its keyboard is much better.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't I need some kind of firewall machine to keep viruses and
>> >other malware off my machine?
>>
>> Millions do this all the time without getting a virus or malware on
>> their machines.
>
>That they know of, anyway. All those millions of botnet nodes and spam
>zombies did not sign up voluntarily.
It is my understanding that the largest percentage of them had to click
on something to run the installer for the virus or trojan. Social
engineering is a powerful thing. Moreover, most computers have some
sort of anti-virus. Microsoft has one available for free download
(Microsoft Security Essentials?) for Windows 7. I know, because I
installed it on my Windows 7 RC install.
Moreover, Keith's most probable broadband Internet machine is a Mac
notebook - which, according to the commercials from Apple I see, doesn't
get viruses or trojans or any other sort of malware. ;-)
>Keith doesn't probably want to use IE and Flash and other risky stuff,
>which would be a point in his favour, but he's also not used to updating
>software and OS-es which would be a point against.
>
>His best bet would be to find an OS reasonably ancient that doesn't get
>updated _or_ attacked any more, stuff all well-known security holes in
>it and use that. My mom who is totally clueless about patching has been
>running Windows 2000 without a single security incident since 2004.
>That's without a firewall, with a static IP, on a broadband. Not that I
>consider Windows 2000 particularly secure, just saying.
--
"Man, I'd give anything to be as articulate as Steve Jobs."
- Bill Gates
Philip Chee
> Lets recall that a few months ago I called Panix and asked how many
> people have dialup shell accounts without PPP. The answer was 'very,
> very few'.
I don't think Keith acknowledges that Panix is a authoritative source of
information on Panix (anything that contradicts his assertions is by
definition not authoritative).
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Scott me up, Beamie!
* TagZilla 0.066.6
David V. Loewe, Jr
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
And my remark about finding it odd that Charter only offered you 1M
service was made *before* you posted that link...
>>Your happiness has nothing to do with my comment. If I were in your
>>shoes, *I'd* be happy to be able to get 1 MB. That does not mean I'd be
>>any less surprised that Charter offered it out there.
>
>Okay, I'll ask for another interpretation. Do you mean you are surprised
>that I can get anything here? Or, do you mean that even out here, you
>are surprised that they only offer 1Mb?
I am surprised that they offer anything less than the minimum they offer
around here. IOW, I expected there was a company-wide minimum level of
service and that it was 5M.
>>>>I'm more surprised that they are offering *any* level of service to a
>>>>place where they cannot offer the minimum level seen around here.
>>>
>>>Maybe their lines here are five years old?
>>
>>Are they running fiber? If so, where does it stop - the node?
>
>I have no idea what their architecture is. When I lived in a city I
>had no idea about the architecture of the water mains was, either.
Well, the reason I asked is that, around here, they advertise that their
network is fiber.
--
"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as
what he does from day to day to lead himself."
- Thomas Watson, Sr.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>k...@KeithLynch.net says...
>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> >> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
>> >> apartment.
>>
>> > There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
>>
>> More likely, maybe, but worse? What can lithium batteries do that's
>> worse than starting a fire that destroys almost everything I own?
>
>Any electrical appliance in your apartment could do that. Heck, a piece
>of wiring inside the wall that you even don't see could do that. It
>probably happens daily to people.
Yes, indeed. The wiring in the wall thing happened to a buddy of mine.
>If it worries you, consider getting insurance.
--
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance
and the gospel of envy."
- Winston Churchill
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who needs ISPs? Carrier pigeons can carry all that information, just
>> a lot slower.
>
>They can, but how do I go about requesting the latest unread rasff
>postings?
Of course, you didn't specify what you wanted to read - merely that you
could read faster than a pigeon could deliver.
"Anyhow, dialup is faster than my reading speed -- and I'm a fast
reader. Pigeons are not."
We've established that a pigeon can deliver 128 GB of information at a
single time. How fast can your dial-up deliver 128 GB of information?
We can't read your mind and know that you mean "of rasff" when you say
that pigeons could not deliver information fast enough to stay ahead of
your reading rate.
>And how long do I have to wait after making my request
>before I get them? If one posting mentions a URL, how do I go about
>seeing what's there, and how long does that take? How do I send and
>receive email?
>
>On the plus side, I could probably make a lot of money selling all the
>spam as fertilizer. Pigeon dropping are quite high in nitrates and
>phosphates.
--
"And so it was that later
As the Miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale"
Keith Reid & Gary Brooker
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:57:18 -0700 (PDT), cryptoguy wrote:
>
>> Lets recall that a few months ago I called Panix and asked how many
>> people have dialup shell accounts without PPP. The answer was 'very,
>> very few'.
>
>I don't think Keith acknowledges that Panix is a authoritative source of
>information on Panix (anything that contradicts his assertions is by
>definition not authoritative).
This Made Me Laugh
Be careful, Philip. You'll end up on Keith's Enemies List. Or even
<shudder> in his killfile!
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that
you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who
misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Morris Keesan <mke...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month
>> more than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call
>> "considerably more expensive", ...
>
>My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
>So it's not a full ISP.
So?
A lot of ISPs have given up on Usenet. You have been told this a number
of times as part of the explanation of why most everyone but you
considers discussion on Usenet to be a things that is slowly (or quickly
in the case of the opinions of some) dying.
There are still, IIRC, free open Usenet servers.
>And how many megs of storage does it
>provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
That is the way most ISPs do it.
I shudder to think what an ISP would charge me to store my roughly 1 TB
of files.
>Do you have to have Verizon landline service to get their DSL?
>And does that $21.99 include all taxes, fees, and surcharges?
>
>> I don't know what hardware you have besides an ASCII terminal and
>> dial-up modem; I thought that you had a laptop on loan from someone.
>
>It's a gift from David Friedman, not a loan.
>
>> With my laptop computers, the only new hardware I needed for DSL was
>> a DSL modem, which was provided by my DSL provider.
>
>For no extra cost?
I can't speak to how Verizon works it, but my cable modem is free of
charge and has been for the entire time I've had service from Charter.
>And what about a firewall? Moving into a subway station would speed
>up my commute, but would my stuff still be there, unmolested, when
>I got back from work? I kind of like having my computers *not* be
>directly on the Internet,
Yet, millions do this every day without losing their files.
>just as I like having my furniture, books,
>and other property *not* be directly in the Metro station.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> That's disturbing. I wonder if I should allow the things in my
>>> apartment.
>> There are a lot more likely things that can go wrong.
>More likely, maybe, but worse? What can lithium batteries do that's
>worse than starting a fire that destroys almost everything I own?
Very few things. But you still let electric current in your wiring, and
it causes more fires than batteries.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> You can get DSL from Verizon, right now, for $20/month, with 6
>> months free on a 1 year contract.
>Is that the real price, or an asterisked price? The next time I
>see an honest price from Verizon will be the first.
Asterisked.
Just like Panix (which you seem to think is an acceptable provider -- as
do I, as you can tell from how long I've been with them, despite other
places being cheaper). See http://www.panix.com/dsl/surcharges.html for a
list of Panix's asterisks.
*I* think that Panix is honest, event though they have asterisked prices.
>Also, does that require me to have landline service from them?
>Because I don't. My landline service is with a less expensive,
>higher quality provider.
>> You pay a lot more than that for Panix.
>No, I pay less than $20 per month for Panix.
$20/month, with 6 free months out of a year, is $10/month. You pay more
than that for Panix.
>> You would need new hardware, although I understand that you've got a
>> Mac laptop that could probably work.
>I'd much rather use my VT420, as its keyboard is much better.
>Wouldn't I need some kind of firewall machine to keep viruses and
>other malware off my machine?
Not if you were at all technically competent. Or had someone technically
competent set things up. My only hardware firewall is the one built in to
my router at the gateway -- and the Westell boxes that Verizon has been
using all have that level of firewall built in. You'd want some sort of
software firewall, probably -- but those are all available for your Mac,
or a Windows box.
>> It is -- essentially nobody (and I know Panix is an exception)
>> offers shell dialup.
>How many do you need? My previous ISP, Radix.net, also still offers
>shell service. And I have free access to shells at two other sites.
And between them, you're looking at a few thousands of users (plus the
number at your unnamed sites). When you're looking at well over a hundred
million users in the US alone, things with thousands are lost in the
noise, and pretty irrelevant to how the real world works.
>> Four people -- that's more than usual. And that's out of many hundred.
>There are seldom even one hundred people logged on a single Panix
>shell host at one time.
>> I guess my 0 might have been low -- but when you're looking at 4
>> people, it's easy to not have them on.
>When they aren't logged in, others are.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Ben Yalow
>Morris Keesan <mke...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month
>> more than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call
>> "considerably more expensive", ...
>My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
>So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
>provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
Usenet is no more needed to be an ISP than any other minor service.
An ISP needs to give me connectivity. An email address in their domain
would also be standard. Anything else is there on the Internet for me to
use.
>Do you have to have Verizon landline service to get their DSL?
>And does that $21.99 include all taxes, fees, and surcharges?
They've now got a $19.99/month plan which doesn't require a Verizon phone,
although it's only 1M/384K.
>> I don't know what hardware you have besides an ASCII terminal and
>> dial-up modem; I thought that you had a laptop on loan from someone.
>It's a gift from David Friedman, not a loan.
>> With my laptop computers, the only new hardware I needed for DSL was
>> a DSL modem, which was provided by my DSL provider.
>For no extra cost?
That's pretty typical.
>And what about a firewall? Moving into a subway station would speed
>up my commute, but would my stuff still be there, unmolested, when
>I got back from work? I kind of like having my computers *not* be
>directly on the Internet, just as I like having my furniture, books,
>and other property *not* be directly in the Metro station.
If you have a clue, you're perfectly safe on the Internet. And I have no
idea what you think a firewall would do, but it's not likely to save you
from most of the threats out there.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Ben Yalow
<snip>
>Moreover, Keith's most probable broadband Internet machine is a Mac
>notebook - which, according to the commercials from Apple I see, doesn't
>get viruses or trojans or any other sort of malware. ;-)
However, according to their security bulletins (not their ads), they *do*
seem to get malware. Mostly, it's because (like most operating systems)
they've got surface beyond the shell.
If you look at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222 you'll notice that most
of the problems are in all the other stuff that comes with MacOS. And
that the most recent fixes were just last month.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>>Moreover, Keith's most probable broadband Internet machine is a Mac
>>notebook - which, according to the commercials from Apple I see, doesn't
>>get viruses or trojans or any other sort of malware. ;-)
>
>However, according to their security bulletins (not their ads), they *do*
>seem to get malware.
<sigh>
Why do I even bother with smileys...
>Mostly, it's because (like most operating systems)
>they've got surface beyond the shell.
>
>If you look at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222 you'll notice that most
>of the problems are in all the other stuff that comes with MacOS. And
>that the most recent fixes were just last month.
cryptoguy
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:44:31 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month
> >> more than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call
> >> "considerably more expensive", ...
>
> >My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
> >So it's not a full ISP.
>
> So?
>
> A lot of ISPs have given up on Usenet. You have been told this a number
> of times as part of the explanation of why most everyone but you
> considers discussion on Usenet to be a things that is slowly (or quickly
> in the case of the opinions of some) dying.
You have to remember that Keith doesn't seem to think that anything
that's come up on network technology in the last 20 years or so is
essential. IIRC, he's claimed that the usenet is one of the core
applications of the internet.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
>> So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
>> provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
> Usenet is no more needed to be an ISP than any other minor service.
Since Usenet is a large part of what I want Internet access for, if I
get an ISP without it, I'd need to get a second ISP.
> If you have a clue, you're perfectly safe on the Internet.
I'm good at many things, but I've never claimed to be a security expert.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Is that the real price, or an asterisked price? The next time I
>> see an honest price from Verizon will be the first.
> Asterisked.
> Just like Panix (which you seem to think is an acceptable
> provider -- as do I, as you can tell from how long I've
> been with them, despite other places being cheaper). See
> http://www.panix.com/dsl/surcharges.html for a list of Panix's
> asterisks.
Interesting, and disturbing. But they've never charged me any taxes
or surcharges. Apparently those are only for DSL customers.
>> No, I pay less than $20 per month for Panix.
> $20/month, with 6 free months out of a year, is $10/month. You pay
> more than that for Panix.
I interpreted that as six months free the *first* year. Is it six
months free *every* year?
I've been on Panix for eight years. (I believe you've been on even
longer.) Had I gotten the first six months free, that would have been
less than a seven percent discount over the eight years.
> And between them, you're looking at a few thousands of users (plus
> the number at your unnamed sites). When you're looking at well over
> a hundred million users in the US alone, things with thousands are
> lost in the noise, and pretty irrelevant to how the real world works.
How many of those hundred million are really online in any meaningful
sense? Do they look at pretty pictures on the screen? Maybe so.
But do they read and post to Usenet? Can they be found with a Google
search? Can their email address be found? Of those who are in
fandom, what proportion have ever been to an at-sign party?
The relevant peer group is those who *participate* in the net, not
those whose relationship to the net is comaprable to an average
person's relationship to their TV set -- something they passively
view pretty pictures on when they're bored.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> What can lithium batteries do that's worse than starting a fire
>> that destroys almost everything I own?
> Very few things. But you still let electric current in your wiring,
> and it causes more fires than batteries.
Is that correcting for the fact that a lot more people have wiring
than have lithium batteries?
You mentioned that there have been 40 lithium-battery fires on planes
since 1991. How many fires on planes have there been that were caused
by the plane's own wiring in that period? Fewer, right?
I've lived here over 30 years. If there were anything wrong with the
wiring such that it could start fires, I'm sure my apartment, or one
of the several hundred others, would have burned already. I'm aware
of only one fire in this complex since I moved in, and it was caused
by a careless contractor's blowtorch.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> cryptoguy wrote:
>> Lets recall that a few months ago I called Panix and asked how
>> many people have dialup shell accounts without PPP. The answer
>> was 'very, very few'.
> I don't think Keith acknowledges that Panix is a authoritative
> source of information on Panix (anything that contradicts his
> assertions is by definition not authoritative).
What was the purpose of your comment? Do you think it furthers the
dialog here? Do you think anyone wanted to read it? Or to read my
response to it? Does it make rasff a better place?
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
>>> So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
>>> provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
>
>> Usenet is no more needed to be an ISP than any other minor service.
>
>Since Usenet is a large part of what I want Internet access for, if I
>get an ISP without it, I'd need to get a second ISP.
There are free news providers.
>> If you have a clue, you're perfectly safe on the Internet.
>
>I'm good at many things, but I've never claimed to be a security expert.
Of course, people who aren't security experts get on the Internet all
the time with no adverse consequences.
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >> My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
> >> So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
> >> provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
>
> > Usenet is no more needed to be an ISP than any other minor service.
>
> Since Usenet is a large part of what I want Internet access for, if I
> get an ISP without it, I'd need to get a second ISP.
You would need to find some other way of accessing Usenet, but it
wouldn't have to be via an ISP.
To take the simplest case, you could use Google groups. It may not be
very good, but it's free. Or you could find a free newsserver server--I
gather there are ones. Or you could do what I did--find a very
inexpensive news server.
I think it cost $20. Once. That bought me a finite amount of downloads,
but as best I recall I concluded that it would last for years.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Keith F. Lynch
> rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>> Actually I was referencing Tanebaum's quote, probably lifted from
>> someone else, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon
>> full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
> The version I heard was a Ford Transit travelling down the M6.
How about a horse-drawn buggy filled with punched cards? (Am I
showing my age again?)
Silly question of the week: What's the bandwidth of continental drift
if you line up 4GB thumb drives end-to-end over all the edges of all
the continental plates?
Ben Yalow
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:35:29 +0000 (UTC), Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Moreover, Keith's most probable broadband Internet machine is a Mac
>>>notebook - which, according to the commercials from Apple I see, doesn't
>>>get viruses or trojans or any other sort of malware. ;-)
>>
>>However, according to their security bulletins (not their ads), they *do*
>>seem to get malware.
><sigh>
>Why do I even bother with smileys...
Because some people believe ads. So it's important to get it on the
record.
And also to use it as a hook to point out why even a relatively secure
system (which MacOS's version of Unix with a pretty GUI on it is) can
become insecure when all of the extra surface becomes exposed.
>>Mostly, it's because (like most operating systems)
>>they've got surface beyond the shell.
>>
>>If you look at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222 you'll notice that most
>>of the problems are in all the other stuff that comes with MacOS. And
>>that the most recent fixes were just last month.
Ben
Keith F. Lynch
> The problem with that, along with RFC 1149 and all of the other
> humorous variants, is that they're best as starting points for
> discussing bandwidth versus latency.
Indeed. When I press the appropriate key, within a fraction of a
second I get text coming at me as fast as I can read it. I don't want
to trade that for getting text a day or two after I press the key, not
even if the total amount of text per month can be much higher. What
would be the point in that? I can't read faster than my reading speed.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:35:29 +0000 (UTC), Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>>Moreover, Keith's most probable broadband Internet machine is a Mac
>>>>notebook - which, according to the commercials from Apple I see, doesn't
>>>>get viruses or trojans or any other sort of malware. ;-)
>>>
>>>However, according to their security bulletins (not their ads), they *do*
>>>seem to get malware.
>
>><sigh>
>
>>Why do I even bother with smileys...
>
>Because some people believe ads. So it's important to get it on the
>record.
>
>And also to use it as a hook to point out why even a relatively secure
>system (which MacOS's version of Unix with a pretty GUI on it is) can
>become insecure when all of the extra surface becomes exposed.
You COULD acknowledge that the smiley indicated that *I* don't believe
the hype before launching into your recitation. Your straight-up launch
into the recitation makes it look like you believe that I am in Jobs'
Reality Distortion Field.
>>>Mostly, it's because (like most operating systems)
>>>they've got surface beyond the shell.
>>>
>>>If you look at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222 you'll notice that most
>>>of the problems are in all the other stuff that comes with MacOS. And
>>>that the most recent fixes were just last month.
--
"On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
Morris Keesan
wrote:
> Morris Keesan <mke...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> I'm paying $21.99/month for Verizon DSL. That's $4.49/month
>> more than shell-only access from Panix, not what I would call
>> "considerably more expensive", ...
>
> My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
> So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
> provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
Verizon stopped supporting Usenet recently. So what? I switched
to eternal-september.org, which provides a much better Usenet
feed than Verizon ever did. And I don't know how much storage
Verizon provides, because I have no reason to store things on
their servers (except for occasional files I make available on
the web; they give me a web page for free, with more than enough
storage for anything I've ever wanted to put there).
> Do you have to have Verizon landline service to get their DSL?
Probably. I have a Verizon landline, so it was not an issue for me.
> And does that $21.99 include all taxes, fees, and surcharges?
Yes. $21.99 is the total amount I pay per month, with no extra fees,
taxes, or asterisks.
>> I don't know what hardware you have besides an ASCII terminal and
>> dial-up modem; I thought that you had a laptop on loan from someone.
>
> It's a gift from David Friedman, not a loan.
>
>> With my laptop computers, the only new hardware I needed for DSL was
>> a DSL modem, which was provided by my DSL provider.
>
> For no extra cost?
I don't remember. They probably charged me about $20 or $25 for it
when I signed up. Amortized over the time I've had it, that amounts
to less than 50 cents per month.
> And what about a firewall?
My DSL modem has a firewall in it. Redundantly, my wireless router
also has a firewall, and Windows provides some firewall settings in
the operating system. My net usage is sufficiently well-disciplined
that I don't bother running any anti-virus software. Mostly, I avoid
Microsoft desktop applications (web browser, email client, word processor,
etc.) and I've never worried about it.
--
Morris Keesan -- mke...@post.harvard.edu
Morris Keesan
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> You would need to find some other way of accessing Usenet, but it
> wouldn't have to be via an ISP.
>
> To take the simplest case, you could use Google groups. It may not be
> very good, but it's free. Or you could find a free newsserver server--I
> gather there are ones.
Yes. I've had absolutely no problems, and nothing to complain about,
using news.eternal-september.org as my Usenet Service Provider.
The combination of this plus Verizon DSL gives me much better service
than I was getting from my previous dial-up ISP, TheWorld.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>>> Actually I was referencing Tanebaum's quote, probably lifted from
>>> someone else, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon
>>> full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
>
>> The version I heard was a Ford Transit travelling down the M6.
>
>How about a horse-drawn buggy filled with punched cards? (Am I
>showing my age again?)
>
Probably, but I used punched cards at school :-)
>Silly question of the week: What's the bandwidth of continental drift
>if you line up 4GB thumb drives end-to-end over all the edges of all
>the continental plates?
I'll have a play.
A qiuck google gives the length of plate boundary as 3.4e8 metres.
A typical thumb drive is ~70mm - if they are longer, they won't fit
the USB slot in my car, according to the handbook :-)
Therefore
3.4e8/0.07 ~= 5e9 thumb drives
at 4GBytes
2E19 Bytes of data
Drift speed (from google again) ~5cm/year ~=1.6e-9 metres/Second
Data Volume x Drift speed
approximately 3e10 bytemetres per second
For a bandwidth in Bytes/Sec, we need a distance.
Brimingham, England To Washington DC is ~5750Km.
Over this distance, the equivalent bandwidth is therefore
3e10/5.75e6 bytes/sec
or roughly 5.2Kbytes/sec
Overall, a good dialup line rate.
By using physically smaller, larger capacity drives, and/or squeezing
the drives in side by side ratrher than end to end, it should be
easily possible to get the rate up to the 512kbit/sec of my first
broadband connection, but the hardware costs may be a trifle
excessive! :-) :-)
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
Alan Woodford
I doubt if many of them post to usenet, or even know what usenet is.
But a lot of them -will- be findable on Google, and have their e-mail
addresses findable. There is a whole lot of activity out there that is
not just looking at pretty pictures. Certainly I'm the odd one out at
work, as one of the few who doesn't chat to people on Facebook!
And while I'm a mere newbie, with almost 14 years on the net, *I've*
never been to an at-sign party, as they had already faded over here
before I got on the net
>The relevant peer group is those who *participate* in the net, not
>those whose relationship to the net is comaprable to an average
>person's relationship to their TV set -- something they passively
>view pretty pictures on when they're bored.
How is a bunch of people from all over the world chatting on Facebook,
or Twitter, or a blog, different in any fundamentally significant way
from what we do here?
That is what most of the non-fans and non-geeks I know do on the net,
and even the ones who don't chat much still use it to actively find
things out, rather than "passively look at pretty pictures" as you put
it.
The net has moved on since you, or even me, were first connected, and
I think that's a good thing.
Jette Goldie
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> My understanding is that Verizon doesn't even support Usenet.
>>> So it's not a full ISP. And how many megs of storage does it
>>> provide? Or are you expected to store all files locally?
>
>> Usenet is no more needed to be an ISP than any other minor service.
>
> Since Usenet is a large part of what I want Internet access for, if I
> get an ISP without it, I'd need to get a second ISP.
>
or sign up to something like I'm using. a free usenet provider.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)