Slashdot Mirror

As a kid, I saw this summarized in the World Book Encyclopedia, but this is a much more grown-up explanation for it. By all accounts, Nixon was flabbergasted by the cost, and that's what really killed it. The shuttle was part of the plan, and it's all that got built, which explains why it seemed to have no purpose. http://www.wired.com/2012/06/t...

in 2013 Edward Snowden's revelations proved what he'd said was true.

sdguero wrote:

He said the buildings that house the trans-oceanic data cables were designed from the ground up with small rooms, broom closet sized, that the primary data cables run through. ... He said that all data traffic entering those rooms left them with a noticable amount of latency (at the time, late 80s he said it was about 10ms), but no hops. He claimed that the federal government had been monitoring internet activity in these data hubs since the dawn of the web.

Mark Klein, former tech from AT&T, claimed to have witnessed installation of one such room at a San Francisco POP in 2002. He gave a formal statement to attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was printed in this Wired Article. The money quote is below:

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004 and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.

One of the documents listed the equipment installed in the secret room, and this list included a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications.

EFF proceeded to file a lawsuit (Hepting v. AT&T) claiming infringement of privacy by the firm. Though no finding of fact was challenged, ultimately it was dismissed due to retroactive FISA legislation signed by Bush legalizing the process. On appeal, the Supreme Court refused to review the case.

Though many argued that Klein was just one person with a grudge against his employer, and thus dismissed his testimony as overblown or vindictive, in 2013 Edward Snowden's revelations "proved what he'd said was true. That the government did work with network service providers - including AT&T - to install monitoring systems throughout the Internet backbone.

Yes it reminds me of the Palm Pre iTunes sync fiasco. Now Palm could have (1) written their own sync software and music library (2) read Apple's iTunes XML library or (3) trick iTunes into thinking that a Palm was an iPod. Palm chose #3. Then when Apple enforced the USB device recognition parameters to lock them out, Palm complained to the USB Implementers Forum but the USB IF scolded Palm instead for breaking rules on how USB devices should identify themselves.

Only for some

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/s...

> The courts have already determined they can compel a person to provide the means to decrypt the device by court order.

Some courts have, some courts have not.

I understand what you're saying (I think) but I've always wondered (and this is from a hardware-guy's perspective) wouldn't you rather have one big monitor, than two small monitors? I know there may be a significant price difference, but the whole concept of bigger=better seems to be a nomenclature that itself keeps expanding when it comes to screen size. If you can learn to enjoy the multiple desktop feature that corychristison is talking about, couldn't that be as good?

I prefer many small monitors over 1 or 2 big ones because it is easier to snap/lock/full screen apps in each screen. There is probably a software solution to carving up a large monitor into grids, but I've never bothered to look for it.

I do use virtualwin to create 4 virtual desktops in windows 7. But each virtual desktop is for performing a different type of work.

Like virtual desktop 1 is for development. Monitor 1 - view of my application, Monitor 2 - source code, Monitor 3 - documentation/googling. I never have to alt tab while building an application or web page.

Virtual desktop 2 is for server stuff. Monitor 1 - performance/status on servers, Monitor 2 - SSH sessions, Monitor 3 - documentation/googling, misc.

The screenshot in that first link (http://www.wired.com/2014/09/exercism/) appears to be a screenful of SML... Respect to whoever sourced that picture!

citation.

Anyone can request anything from the courts. What matters is whether the courts gave it to them. In this case, the courts DID NOT compel him to produce his password/encryption key. That's the "ORDER DENYING...." part.

My previous point still stands but I have no doubt the government will keep trying and we, the people, will keep having to reassert our 5th amendment.

...I've always wondered (and this is from a hardware-guy's perspective) wouldn't you rather have one big monitor, than two small monitors?

For some use cases, two separate monitors make sense, and I find that I actually like the conceptual separation they provide. When I'm doing PCB design I can have the schematic open on one monitor and the PCB on the other; it's convenient to just click on Maximize on each window and know that they're both going to equally and maximally fill the available real estate. Ditto for mail client and browser. Also, the total width-to-height ratio is greater than it would be on a single big monitor - that's a double-edged sword, but on thw whole I like it.

OTOH some programs don't play well with it - VLC doesn't seem to understand what's going on and I need to resize the window on some videos, and ImageMagick is pretty much unusable.

I understand what you're saying (I think) but I've always wondered (and this is from a hardware-guy's perspective) wouldn't you rather have one big monitor, than two small monitors? I know there may be a significant price difference, but the whole concept of bigger=better seems to be a nomenclature that itself keeps expanding when it comes to screen size. If you can learn to enjoy the multiple desktop feature that corychristison is talking about, couldn't that be as good?

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/e...

Technically Binging was Googling it, remember Bing copying Google search results?

If only there were some way to simulate physical systems like that. Where will they find the computing power? Plus the software probably costs a fortune.

The problem is that government is being used to choke out the competition, especially at a local level: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...

Comcast uses government regulation as a shield to block competition. So yes, the libertarian solution would be to remove these blocks and open up the options.

And you are naive to think that anyone in government, especially Democrats, will regulate Comcast. Obama has been in bed with Comcast for a while http://thehill.com/policy/tech.... And Comcast owns NBC, which owns MSNBC--the Fox News of the Democrat party.

Sorry to bust your Government/Democrats good Republicans/libertarians bad bubble.

Recall the "NSA Releases Snowden Email, Says He Raised No Concerns About Spying" (05.29.14)
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/s...
".... the NSA released a statement and a copy of the only email it says it found from Snowden.
That email, the agency says, asked a question about legal authority and hierarchy but did not raise any concerns."
Now its just about FIOA requests finding more or wondering what was held back as as the gov felt it "did not raise any concerns"....
From no emails to one email found back to none under a definition of what "identify" is going to find?
The other option is to only look for a few narrow legal terms that would constitute a formal complaint and not find one.

Snowden calls this "NSA Fatigue"

I suspended the feet of a duck in an aquarium

From these humblest origins of freight -- where the simple brain of a duck determines terminus loci -- human kind has leveraged the Duck Foot Apparatus into a vast global network with computer-optimized logistics management. Producers and shippers of commodities no longer need to wait until they are stepped on or eaten by a duck. This confers numerous advantages for cargo weight and scheduling and the ability to choose destination.

Early inventors believed you merely needed to graft duck feet onto Medieval torture devices to harness the abilities of ducks. In the Wright Brothers' first aircraft design running duck feet gathered the seeds of grass and mosses during takeoff. The goose neck trailer arose from early attempts to shove large volumes of freight down the neck of a beheaded goose, until it was discovered that large swinging doors in back facilitate deeper penetration and ease of loading.

Anyway, "the rest is history", and what the hell does that mean?? From milligrams to mega tonnes, the modern network of Things That Do Duck Things though they no longer resemble ducks carries invasive species to every "corner" of the globe. And what the hell does that mean??

Ocean shipping networks carry so much freight you can see their routes arching and sagging on this map. This is partially offset by the buoyant effect of air cargo.

To those of us old enough to remember air travel in the bowels of fowls, what a marvel modern transportation is indeed.

However this is just you lying. 4mbps is not "enough" for the modern Internet.

You are quite right to put "enough" in quotes. What I don't understand is, how you can seriously accuse anyone of lying (without quotes) on a matter as subjective as this.

The minimum needs to keep rising.

Sure. And it will — when multiple providers begin competing with each other for each home. Until then, attempting to force incumbent monopolies to improve service will remain a losing proposition — they talk directly to the powers that be and, being a monopoly, aren't afraid to lose many customers.

Meanwhile, the popular anger is directed against the Koch brothers — the favorite target of fans of government's regulations.

Stealing is wrong no matter the context.

Except when it applies to a Law Enforcement Backdoor, right? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... right?

Yep... And — for a car analogy — if I'm driving, I want to be able to drive on any road with any speed by car can go, and park wherever I see fit. No matter, who built the road or attends to the parking lot.

legitimate ISP does, as opposed to a censored ISP like sometimes exists in the USA and often exists overseas.

Legislating service is a losing proposition. The service provider will get around the legislation (have we not seen it just recently, when telcos were forced to allow other DSL-providers access to their copper-wires?), but the costs for you and the barrier to entry for a would-be competitor will both be higher.

The government's role is to help competition appear — by reducing the red-tape around laying down wires and fiber — not by trying to force the incumbent monopoly to play nice(r).

Re 'Or were all of these in unlicensed spectrum ?"
"Phone Firewall Identifies Rogue Cell Towers Trying to Intercept Your Calls" (09.03.14)
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/c...
Seems to offer a hint via "But the [FCC] task force will only examine the use of the devices by hackers and criminals—and possibly foreign intelligence agencies—not their warrantless use by law enforcement agencies bent on deceiving judges about their deployment of the powerful surveillance technology."
Seems to hint at a few known/listed devices getting a free gov/telco pass re frequency allocations when discovered in the wild.
The good news is a "... envision a consumer-level app in the future that could be installed on phones by individuals." :)

The Mexican drug cartels have been building their own cellular network, maybe it's spread into the US? http://www.wired.com/2012/11/zeta-radio/

Inside Edward Snowden’s Life as a Robot

"In other words, power corrupts. It should really be regarded like super-heroin: no matter your initial purposes for getting it, you will be addicted and unwilling to put it down, until keeping it and getting more is all that really matters to you anymore. Which explains why the world is so dysfunctional: every society is led by junkies."

If "power" is addictive, maybe that explains the outrage on Slashdot regarding a plea to limit internet speed and access? :-)

More seriously, while you may well be right about the political motivation in this case, there was a recent Slashdot article on how social networks make people more depressed, and here are links to stuff by Paul Graham on the "Acceleration of Addictivess" and so on.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://www.paulgraham.com/addi...
http://www.amazon.com/Supernor...
http://www.sparringmind.com/su...
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
http://www.amazon.com/Moths-Fl...
http://www.amazon.com/Autonomo...

And something by Bill Joy on "How the Future Does Not Need Us".
http://archive.wired.com/wired...

One other example of what we have lost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
"Nature deficit disorder refers to a hypothesis by Richard Louv in his 2005 book Last Child in the Woods that human beings, especially children, are spending less time outdoors resulting in a wide range of behavioral problems. ... Louv claims that causes for the phenomenon include parental fears, restricted access to natural areas, and the lure of the screen. Recent research has drawn a further contrast between the declining number of National Park visits in the United States and increasing consumption of electronic media by children."

So there are many obvious negatives of modern technology. Look at all the concern on Slashdot about ubiquitous surveillance of everyone that was effectively impossible decades ago. I don't know what the general solution is for the USA regarding technological choices. Obviously Iran has its own political and social dynamics and what may be right for that culture may not be right in the USA. But I'd suggest we need a more reflective attitude towards technology and social systems connected to it. Maybe that would be hard in Iran with its current politics and censorship, but at least, in the USA and on Slashdot, we may want to be more reflective on both what we have gained and what we have lost.

For example, the Amish don't shun technology as much as ask whether specific technologies promote community or not.
http://www2.etown.edu/amishstu...
"Many outsiders mistakenly think that the Amish reject technology. It is more accurate to say that they use technology selectively. Televisions, radios, and personal computers are rejected outright, but other types of technology are used selectively or modified to fit Amish purposes. Amish mechanics also build new machines to accommodate their cultural guidelines. Moreover, the Amish readily buy much modern technology, such as gas grills, shop tools, camping equipment, and some farm equipment.
The Amish do not consider technology evil in itself but they believe that technology, if left untamed, will undermine worthy trad

AC the news is full of 'hints' like "FBI, Telecoms Teamed to Breach Wiretap Laws" ( 01.21.10)
http://www.wired.com/2010/01/f...
FBI Seeking to Pay Telecoms to Store Records for Years and Provide Instant Access (07.18.07)
http://www.wired.com/2007/07/f...
FBI pressures Internet providers to install surveillance software (August 2, 2013)
http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-p...
Also recall Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
".... requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic."
Its the local laws where the handsets are to be sold that matters. If you want to sell in say the USA, your "designed" aspect will have to be US wiretapping law friendly.

AC the news is full of 'hints' like "FBI, Telecoms Teamed to Breach Wiretap Laws" ( 01.21.10)
http://www.wired.com/2010/01/f...
FBI Seeking to Pay Telecoms to Store Records for Years and Provide Instant Access (07.18.07)
http://www.wired.com/2007/07/f...
FBI pressures Internet providers to install surveillance software (August 2, 2013)
http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-p...
Also recall Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
".... requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic."
Its the local laws where the handsets are to be sold that matters. If you want to sell in say the USA, your "designed" aspect will have to be US wiretapping law friendly.

AC the backdoor aspect is both national and international
"FBI Wants Backdoors in Facebook, Skype and Instant Messaging"
http://www.wired.com/2012/05/f...
".... drafted by the FBI, that would require social-networking sites and VoIP, instant messaging and e-mail providers to alter their code to make their products wiretap-friendly."
Then the world was given more details "Encrypted or not, Skype communications prove Ãoevitalà to NSA surveillance" May 14 2014
http://arstechnica.com/securit...
As for the "nobody on the inside has ever leaked out." aspect try http://cryptome.org/2013-info/...
The "inside" can now be understood by aspects like "Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.Ã(TM)s"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
..."employees sit alongside Drug Enforcement Administration agents and local detectives and supply them with the phone data from as far back as 1987."
How past "parallel construction" and telco support will respond to any new "peer-to-peer and voice calling" will be interesting.
How did the US and UK get to past bespoke crypto telco hardware in the 1950's and beyond? Plain text always seemed to emerge just in time.

Don't forget about the hawaiian girl who invented the taco-copter shutting down the Boston airport that year too.

The subject under discussion is broadband. Try to pay attention. And, yes, municipalities do prohibit competition through sleazy deals with all-too-eager providers. In those areas where there are no contractual monopolies, lower rates, better service and higher consumer satisfaction are the norm. The reason why there is only one choice in so many locations, like mine, is because local government has sold the monopoly rights.
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...

It sounds like you're referring to Dr. Ibrahim.

http://papersplease.org/wp/201...

Also, Alstrup did not rule that she had to be removed from the list. The ruling only meant that they had to inform her whether she was still on the list and correct the clerical error from all databases which originally put her on the list. Nothing stops the government from putting her back on the list for other reasons. It also provided her with the ability to apply for a waiver for her visa denial.

See:
http://www.wired.com/images_bl...
(page 38)

Because, the yellow cake thing was a lie,

Those gullible Canadians, buying 550 metric tons of non-existant yellow cake.

there were no WMDs,

Ok.

and the country you did invade is falling into civil war.

That's what happens when you announce to the world the date that you're going to pull your troops out of a country where you're trying to help the government restore some semblance of order. All the opponents have to do is go into hiding, planning for the day when you leave. They have no reason to surrender if they know they're going to win on a certain preset day.

Here, the last-mile providers are acting like Marxists.

They certainly are — thanks to the monopoly-power once given to them by the government.

The solution to this, however, is not creating more rules for them to follow (with more boards and commissions to — ineffectively — ensure compliance) — these only make it harder for a would-be newcomers to appear — but to make this market properly competitive.

So screw the Koch Brothers and their idiot shilling.

While the public anger is (somewhat clumsily, but still effectively) once again redirected against the Koch Brothers, "Big Cable" donates to the ruling party en masse, CEOs play golf with the President and otherwise do the ruling party's bidding. Is it likely, that further monopolization will be blocked?

Mod parent down. There are many ways to destroy a business that are more serious than some comment spam, and these happen with or without a TOR of any size.

This only proves that Italian traffic lights are easy to hack.

but how many young techies know how to hack something like this,
http://www.wired.com/wp-conten...

It was stated in a different article that they were unable to procure the current ones used in airports (millimeter wave), and that it was already rather difficult for them to acquire this one -- perhaps now you know why

I meant this stuff: http://www.wired.com/2011/09/u... and (same story) http://www.motherjones.com/moj... and http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

- Stop making it easy on them. Stop using Windows. Seriously [imagicity.com]. Understand that what's convenient for you is often convenient for them.

10,000 Linux servers hit by malware serving tsunami of spam and exploits
Kernel.org Linux repository rooted in hack attack

Those stories must be a lie and they were really running Windows, right? Oh and there are plenty of other examples to be found.

- Stop using proprietary software at all. Yes, yes, HeartBleed nothing is safe bla bla bla. I'm not talking about safe, though; I'm talking about safer. And FOSS is, objectively, a safer environment, and will remain so even after it becomes popular.

Open SSL has not only Heartbleed but CCS Injection Vulnerability and many more vulnerabilities, GnuTLS & Apple's SecureTransport (yes it is "free software") had the goto fail problem, Debian OpenSSL with broken entropy generation and predictable keys, Android's SecureRandom using weak entropy for it's PRNG, etc. The list really can go on and on and on.

We know that They don't like TOR because it's harder for Them.

It is?

FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

The FBI Is Infecting Tor Users with Malware to Catch Kiddie Porn Creeps

Tor security advisory: "relay early" traffic confirmation attack

The US government agencies have unlimited resources to run Tor exit nodes and to write malware to infect people who use Tor.

Hopefully no one actually listens to your stupid advice.

In view of recent revelations that USB Security is fundamentally broken, is the new spec just for a connector or does it include any interface implementation of better security? http://www.wired.com/2014/07/u...

Neal Stephenson's utterly fantastic essay on the subject (all 42,000 words of it) for Wired

And here is an article on Dictionary Attacks by Jeff Atwood. Notice how nowhere in the article does he mention anything about already having password hashes? And here is the original article from Wired about the very dictionary attack used against Twitter which is the context of Jeff's article. Here is a nice relevant quote:

The intrusion began unfolding Sunday night, when GMZ randomly targeted the Twitter account belonging to a woman identified as "Crystal." He found Crystal only because her name had popped up repeatedly as a follower on a number of Twitter feeds. "I thought she was just a really popular member," he said.

Using a tool he authored himself, he launched a dictionary attack against the account, automatically trying English words. He let the program run overnight, and when he checked the results Monday morning at around 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, he found he was in Crystal’s account.

Notice how that quote or even the rest of the article makes any mention of the attacker already having hashes yet it was still called a dictionary attack.

See subject-line, & these examples too (Even yet more than before & FAR from the total) - & adbanners ROB THE SPEED/BANDWIDTH WE PAY TO BE ONLINE as well:

Demonoid Down For a Week, Serving Malware Laden Ads: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/m...

APK

P.S.=> Get ready for a way, Way, WAY more still, raymorris...

So much for YOUR 'b.s.' since the strong websites that aren't ONLY in it for profits would survive (vs. the greed driven ones & malware laden ones DUE TO advertiser negligence)... apk

In summary: I don't believe that Facebook will be implementing this technique in their servers. If they really wanted encrypted DRAM, they would pay Intel or AMD to build a semi-custom processor with encryption techniques built into the DRAM controllers. They bought this company because they want to hire these guys who have a lot of kernel and hypervisor knowledge.

More proof to your hypothesis:Facebook is currently hiring kernel hackers. With a humorous "we gotta beat FreeBSD!" target, but still. BSD-jokes aside, it's another proof that they are interested in increasing kernel performance and thus people with very good low-level knowledge would be welcome, no matter these people's current product has very few practical application.

"I guess the Chinese need to learn the hard way how expensive and difficult a proposition this will be. "

.

China has poured 47% more concrete in the last 3 years than the US has poured in the last century. They know how to build.

The Panama Canal was dug around 1910. In 1910, about 38% of Americans were employed in agriculture... now it is under 2%. In other words, humankind is radically better at things like "moving dirt." There is no comparison.

"They know how to build"?!?!?!

I think not..

How much of that concrete is going to be still standing in 50 years?

Yes, for news and such it doesn't make that much sense. Still, HTTPS would at least prevent your ISP from monitoring your browsing activity.

It's actually a lot more than that. HTTPS isn't just about protecting passwords anymore, not post Snowden.

Let us recall one of the more interesting things we learned about SSL via the NSA leaks: the Five Eyes countries apparently have not broken SSL yet despite that the internet is still not capable of stopping them. The reason is a system they've built called QUANTUM.

QUANTUM is a series of systems that work together. Imagine it like being a giant set of guard towers on the internet backbone. QUANTUM is called that because it's based on deep packet inspection and insertion. The first part is a massive set of DPI devices that trawl unencrypted internet traffic passing through intercept points. These DPI devices can be configured by NSA/GCHQ analysts to look for selectors - personal identifiers like email addresses, IP addresses, cookies and so on. QUANTUM does not run on every internet link and cannot see through encrypted traffic, but that doesn't matter: it's like a searchlight crawling the grounds of a prison at night. It doesn't matter that it can't light up everywhere simultaneously - once tasked it will keep searching until it finds you. Given enough time and good selectors, it will always find you, simply because the average internet user makes many different unencrypted connections to many different websites.

Once QUANTUM locates an un-SSLd traffic stream that matches your selectors, the next step begins, this is called QUANTUM INSERT. You see these DPI devices are not only capable of reading traffic but also injecting packets directly onto the backbone as well. This allows them to race legitimate answers from the real servers, and redirect the victim to an entirely different server (this is probably based on racing DNS lookups although I think the leaked docs were fuzzy on this aspect). These races are called "shots" and interestingly, they don't always succeed - sometimes the NSA is slower than the real server. But QUANTUM keeps trying and eventually you end up connected to this new FOXACID server, which then proceeds to act as an HTTP proxy for the real request and injects an exploit kit. That then pwns your system such that the NSA can now see all your encrypted traffic, along with turning on your microphone and so on.

An observant reader will notice something very important about the above description. The longer you can stay in the SSLd web, the longer it will take for QUANTUM to hack you. That means you directly benefit from a website being SSLd even if all it contains is cat pictures and you don't even log in. Once QUANTUM has figured out your IP address, any non-SSLd HTTP connection is a useful foothold.

.

China has poured 47% more concrete in the last 3 years than the US has poured in the last century. They know how to build.

The Panama Canal was dug around 1910. In 1910, about 38% of Americans were employed in agriculture... now it is under 2%. In other words, humankind is radically better at things like "moving dirt." There is no comparison.

I found this Wired.com article quite interesting: "Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?" It postulates pilot waves which carry particles but have different properties (e.g. wave properties).

They are arguably competing against the mobile phone, not the Xbox or Playstation.

Nintendo's problem is also includes competing with incipient game streaming services like PlayStation Now. Cheaper devices (like PlayStation TV) will be able to stream games via PlayStation Now and the service will expand to Sony Smart TVs and perhaps more devices later.

While you were sleeping, Rip Van Winkle, exclusive local franchise agreements (the crux of that paper) were made illegal by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Too little, too late, youngster. The existing monopolies have had too much of a head-start — an action like that taken against AT&T once would now be required. And that's unlikely, when the CEO is playing golf with the President.

OF CORUSE they don't want to make them. More moving parts (read: points of failure), harder to design and manufacturer, higher component costs, and, despite the findings of your rigorous "informal online survey", there actually ISN'T that much demand for such a device.

Adding a slide-out keyboard adds many moving parts, and either a) adds bulk or b) displaces space that could be otherwise used by the battery. (Or both.) So you'll get a more-expensive phone with ONE feature (physical keys) and it'll be larger, heavier, less reliable, and/or have worse battery life. Can you see why this market isn't worth sinking money into? Face it: whenever you deviate from the norm -- the biggest seller, and by extension, the cheapest to manufacture due to economies of scale -- you either need to a) charge a premium, or b) eat the costs because you're chasing market share. Choice "a" will shrink the possible market even more so, further reducing return-on-investment, and "b" is not ideal either.

There are literally a hundred things that could be (or not be) on a phone, and people feel very strongly about these things, but it's impossible to manufacture every single combination. Somewhere there is a guy who wants a phone with a triple-size battery and big antenna and no camera because he works for a defense contractor in a building where he gets shitty reception, but he's SOL and so are you. Unless this takes off, you'll have to live without your dream feature set.

Also, you need to think more about the implications of your data. Of the people you surveyed who HAVE used a phone with a slide-out keyboard, only about half of them STILL want a phone with a slide-out keyboard. There's a clue in there somewhere...