Some people claim that Sony supported 3rd party operating systems in order to prevent the homebrew community from hacking the PS3. A lot of effort went into hacking the original Xbox in order to run homebrew on the device (the key part done by Bunny). Once this was opened up, it was only a matter of time before people could easily pirate games for the console and circumvent all copyright protections. Therefore, if Sony had not allowed a 3rd party OS to run from the beginning, then more people would see a need to hack the console and it would have been done.
To address the issue about properly hacking the PS3, the PS3 allowed 3rd party operating systems to run however it didn't allow full access to the graphics chip. So you could run linux but getting 3D hardware accelerated graphics was not possible. So if you are no longer able to purchase a PS3 that supports linux, it is possible that someone in the community shifts their efforts to opening up the console to run homebrew or linux which would then allow full access to the graphics hardware and thus properly hacking the system. Unless I am misinterpreting your definition of proper but either way it would be properly f***ed.
People want to use their devices for whatever they desire rather than being locked into what the manufacturer deems acceptable. So by not allowing owners to run their own software / OS, people will now put more effort into hacking the system so they can (or so goes the theory).
What about if I want to use caller ID spoofing for my business lines. I operate my own PBX (asterix) for my business and in order to provide a single point of contact for my customers, I link all of my phones to the same phone line. So calling from my desk phone or from my home phone will show up as the same phone number so that I can be working regardless of my physical location. I have also considered setting up a redirect system from my cell phone so that I call into my PBX and then it calls someone for me so I can mask the caller ID of my cell phone. This way I don't give out my cell phone's number and customers only see my single phone line.
Which part of the above becomes illegal by this new law? Or would any of this be considered illegal? Is it only wrong if you are spoofing a number you don't own?
Also, when you have low level control over a pbx and direct access to a voip wholesale provider, the caller id name and number are just settings you define. I actually noticed a bug in some of my caller scripts recently that improperly setup the caller id for some internal redirects to the outside world. Would I be liable for not properly setting the caller ID on all of my lines in this scenario under this new law?
While LED based internet is a nice idea, the technology is still immature. You should look at Laser based systems (Free Space Optical). They are deployed and running now. I am just about to sign up for such a service in Los Angeles. They offer up to 100Mb/s at rates about 1/4 to 1/5 the cost of hard fiber. I did a lot of research and the latency is extremely low on these laser based systems (near zero since it works at layer 1) but the downside is the attenuation in space due to rain, snow and fog. Basically, rain and fog increase the bit error rate and decrease the effective distance between two end points. However, the charts showed that this technology was viable at 500+ meters. In Los Angeles, the downtime will be negligible due to the weather. Also, the provider I am looking at doesn't have very large gaps between lasers so the weather will affect the system even less. Also, it's nice having a very fast connection to my datacenter in one wilshire from the office. Note, some of the FSO systems go up to 10Gbps.
The cost savings of running at 1.6GHz vs. 2.4GHz are about $3,600.
(Assuming the processor uses about 105W at 2.4GHz and ~50W at 1.6GHz. Also, at Stanford, the cost of a kWH is about 12 cents with 30,000 extra kWH = ~$3,600)
However, it will take 21 extra days to run at the slower speed.
To what end, exactly? If it's positive, everyone just agrees to forget the results of their research?
This is exactly the major ethical dilemma that society would face when dealing with drug-enhanced discoveries. Any new science that improves society should be accepted in order to improve the world. But how do you accept these discoveries without supporting (albeit indirectly) the illicit drugs that aided in the formation of this new science? Does the end always justify the means?
To be honest, I don't have an answer to these questions.
So beer may or may not hinder a scientist's creative abilities. On the flip side, will scientists ever start taking drugs in order to improve their skills? Would this ever lead to drug testing researchers that announce amazing new scientific breakthroughs? (sort of far fetched but an interesting idea nonetheless).
Slashdot Mirror
And here comes the marketing slogan, "gotta wear them all!" With just over 10,000 endangered species, I can't imagine how that could go wrong...
http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp
Some people claim that Sony supported 3rd party operating systems in order to prevent the homebrew community from hacking the PS3. A lot of effort went into hacking the original Xbox in order to run homebrew on the device (the key part done by Bunny). Once this was opened up, it was only a matter of time before people could easily pirate games for the console and circumvent all copyright protections. Therefore, if Sony had not allowed a 3rd party OS to run from the beginning, then more people would see a need to hack the console and it would have been done.
To address the issue about properly hacking the PS3, the PS3 allowed 3rd party operating systems to run however it didn't allow full access to the graphics chip. So you could run linux but getting 3D hardware accelerated graphics was not possible. So if you are no longer able to purchase a PS3 that supports linux, it is possible that someone in the community shifts their efforts to opening up the console to run homebrew or linux which would then allow full access to the graphics hardware and thus properly hacking the system. Unless I am misinterpreting your definition of proper but either way it would be properly f***ed.
People want to use their devices for whatever they desire rather than being locked into what the manufacturer deems acceptable. So by not allowing owners to run their own software / OS, people will now put more effort into hacking the system so they can (or so goes the theory).
What about if I want to use caller ID spoofing for my business lines. I operate my own PBX (asterix) for my business and in order to provide a single point of contact for my customers, I link all of my phones to the same phone line. So calling from my desk phone or from my home phone will show up as the same phone number so that I can be working regardless of my physical location. I have also considered setting up a redirect system from my cell phone so that I call into my PBX and then it calls someone for me so I can mask the caller ID of my cell phone. This way I don't give out my cell phone's number and customers only see my single phone line.
Which part of the above becomes illegal by this new law? Or would any of this be considered illegal? Is it only wrong if you are spoofing a number you don't own?
Also, when you have low level control over a pbx and direct access to a voip wholesale provider, the caller id name and number are just settings you define. I actually noticed a bug in some of my caller scripts recently that improperly setup the caller id for some internal redirects to the outside world. Would I be liable for not properly setting the caller ID on all of my lines in this scenario under this new law?
While LED based internet is a nice idea, the technology is still immature. You should look at Laser based systems (Free Space Optical). They are deployed and running now. I am just about to sign up for such a service in Los Angeles. They offer up to 100Mb/s at rates about 1/4 to 1/5 the cost of hard fiber. I did a lot of research and the latency is extremely low on these laser based systems (near zero since it works at layer 1) but the downside is the attenuation in space due to rain, snow and fog. Basically, rain and fog increase the bit error rate and decrease the effective distance between two end points. However, the charts showed that this technology was viable at 500+ meters. In Los Angeles, the downtime will be negligible due to the weather. Also, the provider I am looking at doesn't have very large gaps between lasers so the weather will affect the system even less. Also, it's nice having a very fast connection to my datacenter in one wilshire from the office. Note, some of the FSO systems go up to 10Gbps.
Here is the ISP for the FSO system: http://www.aerioconnect.net/
Here is the equipment manufacturer for FSO systems: http://www.lightpointe.com/products/default.cfm
The cost savings of running at 1.6GHz vs. 2.4GHz are about $3,600.
(Assuming the processor uses about 105W at 2.4GHz and ~50W at 1.6GHz. Also, at Stanford, the cost of a kWH is about 12 cents with 30,000 extra kWH = ~$3,600)
However, it will take 21 extra days to run at the slower speed.
To what end, exactly? If it's positive, everyone just agrees to forget the results of their research?
This is exactly the major ethical dilemma that society would face when dealing with drug-enhanced discoveries. Any new science that improves society should be accepted in order to improve the world. But how do you accept these discoveries without supporting (albeit indirectly) the illicit drugs that aided in the formation of this new science? Does the end always justify the means?
To be honest, I don't have an answer to these questions.
So beer may or may not hinder a scientist's creative abilities. On the flip side, will scientists ever start taking drugs in order to improve their skills? Would this ever lead to drug testing researchers that announce amazing new scientific breakthroughs? (sort of far fetched but an interesting idea nonetheless).
I'm living proof... oh shoot, that makes 2 comments. Tech support!
PWN3D!!!!