|
I think I did the same exact thing too. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 6/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I knew my fifth try wouldn't be it because I used a letter that wasn't in the word.
Gave me only one option for the sixth try though.
Which is a word I never heard of 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I knew my fifth try wouldn't be it because I used a letter that wasn't in the word.
Glad I'm not the only one that does that. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
This came naturally to One Piece fans 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 4/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨🟨🟩⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 4/6
⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 5/6
⬛⬛🟩🟨⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 5/6
⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟨🟨⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I think a lot of us were one letter off with the second to last guess. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 3/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 4/6
⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 779 3/6
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asian Fusion for me.
modified 6-Aug-23 22:34pm.
|
|
|
|
|
 me too
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Con-fusion to me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
They weren't claiming that it was ready for industry.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
"... net energy gain" is not net energy gain .
"will pave the way for ... future of clean power” in one-hundred years . by then wind solar geo-thermal wave tides will do the trick .
|
|
|
|
|
I think we agree. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #562 1/6 (100%)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Any phone experts around?
In ISDN, the subscriber could distribute incoming calls on the subaddress: 2345678#1 could go to his fax machine, 2345678#2 to the PC, 2345678#3 to his teenage daughter's phone, and so on. All ISDN phone. This "routing" was done on subscriber premises, the network wasn't at all, except by carrying a # and numeric subaddress in the destination field. (In private homes, the "routing" was usually as simple as having the different devices set up to answer calls only if their subaddress was included with the number - all the devices listned to the same bus.)
I never saw much use of this. I tested that it worked, but never put it to any use - mostly because 95% of potential callers responded with "Say what??" when I told them that they cold go directly to, say, my daughter's phone by appending #3 to our phone number.
I never studied GSM/smartphone protocols and specifications, so I ask those who did: Do the protocols we use for mobile phones today have a similar subaddress mechanism? If it is defined, but optional: Is is commonly supported?
Usually, a mobile phone doesn't provide a bus connecting various devices, so my suggested use is another: If you have a 'switchboard' owning the subscriber number (2345678), and a large number of internet SIP devices, without traditional phone functionality: The switchboard could maintain a mapping between subaddress and SIP address, and forward incoming calls to the proper SIP address. It would work even if the called party is out of office, but with a SIP device (say, a portable PC with SIP software) in reach of a WiFi network.
The problem with IP telephony is that you can't tell your contacts 'Call me on number so-and-so'. Today, all land lines (in this country, Norway) are really IP phones, the old phone network is completely torn down. They do a phone number to SIP address mapping, but they won't give you access to the SIP protocol. All you get access to is POTS analog interface that can handle a 1930 vintage phone. You can set up your own SIP phone network, but then you have no interworking with neither POTS, ISDN or cellular networks. If we could use subadressing for the devices in the SIP network, you wouldn't need a separate phone subscription and physical interworking device for each SIP device in the network.
|
|
|
|
|
My information is ~20 years out of date (GSM 2G network), but I don't remember such an option. What you did have was an ability to specify the protocol (voice, data, fax(?)), so the same subscriber equipment could potentially serve multiple purposes.
Thinking about it, the facility you describe would be less useful for mobile phones than it is for fixed phones. The mobile network must track the location of each phone, so each phone must have its own ID. Why complicate things by adding such a facility at the network level?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Thinking about it, the facility you describe would be less useful for mobile phones than it is for fixed phones. The mobile network must track the location of each phone, so each phone must have its own ID.
Well, mobile phones do have their own IDs! The mobile network will trace a mobile phone, whether you like it or not.
You wouldn't have to use a mobile phone, though. Assume you live in an area (say a village) with WiFi coverage. Then you could sit down with your internet device - rather than a mobile phone - anywhere to connect you SIP client to the village SIP host. The host would fuse together the mobile phone termination with the SIP client on your internet device. If the called party is also a SIP subscriber, the connection would never touch any phone network at all. If a traditional phone number (POTS / mobile) is specified, the SIP host would establish a connection to that number and fuse it with the SIP connection to your internet device.
In fact, you could go anywhere with your internet device, as long as your SIP client can connect to the village SIP host - that would be analogous to the mobile phone "I am here!" messages, not as a broadcast to all base stations but specifically aimed at the SIP host.
You could of course use a SIP app on your smartphone. In that case, the smartphone could be tracked. Using a TLS encrypted link to the home SIP server, a tracker would know that you made some sort of connection home, but could not track it as a phone call and certainly not know who you were calling. With this home server being the subscriber for that common mobile phone number used by all, you wouldn't have your own smartphone, but would borrow one from the village phone office whenever you went on a trip where you couldn't expect to have WiFi coverage for your laptop or tablet. So a tracker of the mobile phone would know that someone from the village has been travelling here and there, but not that it was you.
I do not expect people under 30 (or maybe it is 50 nowadays?) to be willing to give up the 342 apps installed on their smartphones, their immediate availability through the phone, the ability to X, take hundreds of photos and video clips for TikTok publishing. Well, maybe their laptop or tablet could provide some of this functionality. Or the smartphone you check out when going on a trip. I guess most young people would refuse to give up their private smartphone. So the intended user group would be a different one.
The idea of forwarding phone calls to/from SIP connections came up in a discussion about how people who want to hide their traces (a.k.a. law breakers) could do it. Here in Norway, authorities make a lot of restrictions on private communication to be 100% sure that they will be able to eavesdrop any phone call, email exchange and everything else, claiming that the would never even take a short glance on communication between law-abiding citizens. They have no explanation to how they can know that I am not planning a terrorist attack without looking at the messages between me and my friend. To serve the stated purpose, they must inspect absolutely everything. I must say that I honestly believe that their threshold for saving 'possibly useful information in future investigations' is a lot lower than that intended by the lawmakers. (E.g. a few years ago, they got very close to having a law change passed that would give the police the right to install a key logger in every PC in the country.)
If they are truly honest when they state that they would never ever touch my private communication (I consider myself a law abiding citizen), it really shouldn't matter to them whether it is encrypted or not. Whether my travelling and my phone calls can be tracked or not.
I would believe that the eavesdropping and tracking they do make them catch a few uninformed, dumb criminals. I also believe that the smart criminals are at least as smart as I am. If I can think of a way to prevent tracking and eavesdropping, so can they.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
