As long as you keep paying them, yes they can crush voip services to dust. It's their network. They own it, and therefor they can control it. As a user of their network you are subject to their rules. They only way to stop them is by government regulation which can mandate network neutrality. Because the only rules they are subject to are those of the law. This is just another reason for network neutrality to be made law. If you have it, use your right to vote to make changes in your governments.
You will fall for anything. Yahoo is falling for the Chinese government's promise of riches from over a billion possible users in a new up and coming market. The problem is that Yahoo is leaving its ethics behind in the process. This is certainly not the fitst time a large company has used the guise of "following local laws" so that they can get in bed with big governments and open up new market opportunities, but Yahoo seems to be bent on really going overboard with this, right down to sacrificing its own fouding ideals.
Yahoo and all other big businesses are in business to make money, nothing more, nothing less. However, all companies have a ethical obligation to the public and to public interests, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This is a basic and important human freedom that unfortunately is not very well spoken for on a global basis, and it faces trials even in the US.
The internet scares the crap out of big governments because even in the US, nobody could have ever imagined how far freedom of speech could go, thanks to the internet. Freedom of speech is the one right we have that allows us to call our government out and tell them when they are making mistakes. Yahoo and other large internet companies are bulit on the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Giving people a voice is what they are built on, yet they don't seem to care that they are setting a bad precedent by helping any government take that away. They are setting a precedent for their own destruction.
I would hope that large companies like Yahoo would stand up to any government that decided that basic human freedoms are something to be taken away at a whim to control the public. Unfortunately, they have prooved in these cases with China that they will bend to any government's will to make a buck. That means that if the US government were to take a turn for the worse by taking away out freedoms, that Yahoo would be right there to help them with any of their information technology needs as they destroy our freedoms.
Yahoo doesn't seem to care about the people. Therefore I will not be using any of their services, and will recommend that others stop using their services as well. Yahoo can kiss my ass, and I hope that they go bankrupt some day soon or that they realize how far off base they have gone. Probably won't happen, but I can dream. The fact is, that Yahoo has allowed itself to become the complete antithesis of all the Internet is founded upon. They have journied down a road that can only lead to self destruction. Freedom of speech is the foundation. You take away the foundation, and the building will crumble. If Yahoo crubles, I hope that it will serve as a good example of what not to do as an internet company.
It would be smart to wait for the official release of the 802.11n spec, as it promises many advantages to a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network), including higher speed, more throughput per client, more clients per AP, and much larger coverage by each AP.
I wouldn't begin implementation of such a project until official spec equipment for 802.11n is ready to be tested, not this Pre-n stuff either, but the real deal.
Nevermind. Looks like they cleared it up on the site after noticing that lots of people may be worried. Now its much clearer. They don't own your work at all.
I'll admit that the language is somewhat vague, but as far as I can tell here, you aren't granting them rights. You are granting that you have the right to grant them rights.
Probably should be looked at by a lawyer to be certain, but I don't think this is an issue, since AFAIK, you can't give rights to copyright without a signed contract anyway. An online "click here to agree" would never hold up in court, and the courts tend to lean on the side of ruling in favor of the content creator when it comes to disputes caused by vague wording in contracts. Even a lot of signed contracts in the record business don't hold up when the content creator makes a dispute. Also, there is no clause in this TOS that grants them any control rights over your copyright, so even if this TOS grants them the right to repost your work, (which may for example be neeeded so that they can do things like show pictures of new people on the site) you can revoke their right at any time, because you hold control over the copyright. So, in other words, I wouldn't worry.
IANAL, but as far as I can see, reading the MySpace TOS, this does not grant MySpace, or whoever owns them any rights to use your works in any way whatsoever. So you don't have to worry about MySpace stealing your music or photos.
What you are agreeing to is that you have the right to give them those rights to the content you are posting if they ask you for the rights. You don't have to give them those rights under any cercumstance, and you most certainly are not giving them any control rights over your copyright. You are simply stating that those rights are yours to give in the first place.
That way, you are agreeing that the content you are posting is basically yours to post, and you are taking responsibility if you don't have those rights and are breaking copyright. This way, MySpace can't get sued if you post someone else's works.
Sorry sorry... In my morning stupor I seemd to have failed to notice that you were talking about a manufacturer and for some reason my brain made me think you were talking about all distribution in general, not manufacturing. My bad.
By the way, if you guys at Apple do aim for a 2-3 day turnaround, then congrats, because from what I've seen, you routinely beat that turnaround a lot. Keep up the good work, and thanks for the correction, as well as the great contributions to technology.:)
Sure. Maybe if your running a third rate crappy distributor who doesn't care about getting products to the customer in a timely fashion.
I work for CDW. We are not a third rate crappy distributor, and we pride outselves on our inventory control and supply chain management.
We have people on staff in our purchasing department whose sold job it is to anticipate market needs and keep certain key products in stock in our warehouse so that we can ship them on the same day they are ordered. This is especially handy when you have a lot of goverment contracts to fill. These orders can be very time critical.
When we advertise "Same Day" on a product, that means it can ship on the same day it is ordered, becuase it is currently in stock. It doesn't automatically mean that we overstocked that item and that orders are slower than anticipated. If we ran this company like that, we would have ran it into the ground a long time ago. Instead, through carefull control, we have flourished, even when the economy was tanking.
The last thing we want is for product to sit on our shelves. Our product shipping turnover is very fast, and in most cases, a product won't sit in the warehouse very long because of the hard work our purchasing people do to predict what will be needed to fill our customers needs in a timely manner.
Any distributor worth anything doesn't shoot for a 2-3 day shipping window. They shoot for same day shipping on as many orders as possible. The reason for this is both customer retention and sataisfaction, as well as to maximize profits. An order sitting in your system because a product isn't in stock looses your company money every day in order maintenance costs. These costs are small, but when you process thousands of orders a day, they can add up. Also, an order doesn't make you any money until its scanned onto the truck when it ships out. So you aren't making any money by making the order take longer to ship, you are simply loosing customers to the guy who can ship faster.
A 2-3 day shipping window, while realistic, isn't very competitive, and won't win you customers, especially in the government sector. In this business, the aim is to make money, and you make money by selling product and shipping it quickly, as well as by being helpful and having good service. Timely is the word here people. Timely. That means shpping the same day, not in 2-3 days.
A technology like this can only mean one thing: The destruction of all originality and creativity, unless we fight to preserve it. This makes me sick... Really, I am feeling sick...
We owe all this to the people who first put the words music and market together into a phrase.
I think you need to read up on this flaw a little better. What SPF breaks is pre-delivery forwarding (not the forwarding you would associate with the forward button in your email program), which is the ability for an email to go from one smtp server to another and then to another until it reaches its destination server.
This is a non-issue however, because most sane people that run good email servers do not allow smtp pre-delivery forwarding to take place at all (unless its for messages that are being forwarded to another one of their own servers) as this "feature" (when manipulated correctly) can be used to make their servers into open relays, thus making them into some spammer's bitch.
And yes, for those that need pre-delivery forwarding, there are workarounds available.
You misunderstand me. I don't think that war is the answer, and as a matter of fact, I hate war and wish we could learn from our previous mistakes and perhaps do away with it altogether.
I'm just stating that looking at the way humanity is now, war in space is probably going to occur. The optimist in me hopes that humanity can be better than that, but the realist in me looks at the mounting evidence (People selling space property, China's serious considerations to colonize the moon and the western world's race to beat them to it if they try) and I can see a definate possibility of things going very wrong for us up there in the century to come.
The power struggles that we deal with on a global basis with some countries acting very imperialistic are bound to transfer into space. As the Funker Vogt song "This World" states:
A world all made of battlefields A world all drowned in blood A world which will not last forever Is all that we have got
A world all made of battlefields A world all built for wars And now we take the battlefields Far out to the stars
I hope it doesn't come to that, and I hope that we evolve beyond that. Right now though, that is the direction things are heading.
Anyone who studies history knows that "ownership" of any piece of land or other property can only be secured by the ability to defend that ownership.
The USA is only owned by its people because we came together to claim such ownership and we have defended that ownership, even to the exent of war.
Everything that a person owns in this country or in this world he or she only posseses by virutue of the law. It is our laws and law enforcement which defend your right to keep your property.
So my point is, when it comes to claiming property on any unclaimed piece of land, on Earth or in Space, your right to that land can only be acheived by virtue of the law which is to say that the virtue of the people is what lets you claim land or property. If the people don't agree that the property is yours, your right to that property is forfeit unless you plan on defending your right to that property, which usually means either a lot of time in some sort of high court, or more probable: war. Let us not forget that the main reason war exists is because of the notion of property.
There will be war in space, its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
One thing is for sure. If they can get this to work and if heat production can be cut down, this would make computing equipment and electronics much smaller. The printed circuit board is one of the big things holding us back from much better electronics miniaturization.
Yeah, UPnP has proven on more than one occasion to be insecure, its probably best that its blocked by most firewalls. Hopefully, with this protocol suite, and with it exchanging low level code to describe services and all that, they will find a way to secure it so people won't have to be afraid to use it. I guess its wait and see.
Yes, that is a good analogy. Of couse, it brings about all kinds of security questions. It will be interesting to see how such a thing is implemented, if it gains any industry acceptance at all, and if this company is as willing to open the technology/idea as they supposedly were with object oriented programming.
So from what I've read in the article, this looks to be Plug'n'play as it was meant to be:
Devices which use simple initial aggreed upon standard to extend their various servcies to each other without all the protocols having to be aggreed upon ahead of time, just a few simple initial protocols which are used to communicate and extend the other protocols and services between the devices. If this is applied correctly by the industry, it could change computing a lot, opening more complex systems to users with less experience and requiring less support resources. I'll be watching this closely.
Sure its fast, but if its stratospheric, its usefulness may be greatly effected by inclimate weather. Even cumulus clouds can greatly lower the bandwidth of wireless communication when transmitting between the stratosphere and the ground. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll sell him some top-o-the-line speakers wires *cough-lampwire-cough* for half what these guys charge.
... get an axe.
As long as you keep paying them, yes they can crush voip services to dust.
It's their network. They own it, and therefor they can control it.
As a user of their network you are subject to their rules.
They only way to stop them is by government regulation which can mandate network neutrality.
Because the only rules they are subject to are those of the law.
This is just another reason for network neutrality to be made law.
If you have it, use your right to vote to make changes in your governments.
You will fall for anything.
Yahoo is falling for the Chinese government's promise of riches from over a billion possible users in a new up and coming market. The problem is that Yahoo is leaving its ethics behind in the process. This is certainly not the fitst time a large company has used the guise of "following local laws" so that they can get in bed with big governments and open up new market opportunities, but Yahoo seems to be bent on really going overboard with this, right down to sacrificing its own fouding ideals.
Yahoo and all other big businesses are in business to make money, nothing more, nothing less. However, all companies have a ethical obligation to the public and to public interests, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This is a basic and important human freedom that unfortunately is not very well spoken for on a global basis, and it faces trials even in the US.
The internet scares the crap out of big governments because even in the US, nobody could have ever imagined how far freedom of speech could go, thanks to the internet. Freedom of speech is the one right we have that allows us to call our government out and tell them when they are making mistakes. Yahoo and other large internet companies are bulit on the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Giving people a voice is what they are built on, yet they don't seem to care that they are setting a bad precedent by helping any government take that away. They are setting a precedent for their own destruction.
I would hope that large companies like Yahoo would stand up to any government that decided that basic human freedoms are something to be taken away at a whim to control the public. Unfortunately, they have prooved in these cases with China that they will bend to any government's will to make a buck. That means that if the US government were to take a turn for the worse by taking away out freedoms, that Yahoo would be right there to help them with any of their information technology needs as they destroy our freedoms.
Yahoo doesn't seem to care about the people. Therefore I will not be using any of their services, and will recommend that others stop using their services as well. Yahoo can kiss my ass, and I hope that they go bankrupt some day soon or that they realize how far off base they have gone. Probably won't happen, but I can dream. The fact is, that Yahoo has allowed itself to become the complete antithesis of all the Internet is founded upon. They have journied down a road that can only lead to self destruction. Freedom of speech is the foundation. You take away the foundation, and the building will crumble. If Yahoo crubles, I hope that it will serve as a good example of what not to do as an internet company.
Wonder who's gonna commit sepuku this time?
It would be smart to wait for the official release of the 802.11n spec, as it promises many advantages to a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network), including higher speed, more throughput per client, more clients per AP, and much larger coverage by each AP.
I wouldn't begin implementation of such a project until official spec equipment for 802.11n is ready to be tested, not this Pre-n stuff either, but the real deal.
I'll stick to my Logitech MX518 thank you very much.
Nevermind.
Looks like they cleared it up on the site after noticing that lots of people may be worried.
Now its much clearer.
They don't own your work at all.
I'll admit that the language is somewhat vague, but as far as I can tell here, you aren't granting them rights. You are granting that you have the right to grant them rights.
Probably should be looked at by a lawyer to be certain, but I don't think this is an issue, since AFAIK, you can't give rights to copyright without a signed contract anyway. An online "click here to agree" would never hold up in court, and the courts tend to lean on the side of ruling in favor of the content creator when it comes to disputes caused by vague wording in contracts. Even a lot of signed contracts in the record business don't hold up when the content creator makes a dispute. Also, there is no clause in this TOS that grants them any control rights over your copyright, so even if this TOS grants them the right to repost your work, (which may for example be neeeded so that they can do things like show pictures of new people on the site) you can revoke their right at any time, because you hold control over the copyright. So, in other words, I wouldn't worry.
IANAL, but as far as I can see, reading the MySpace TOS, this does not grant MySpace, or whoever owns them any rights to use your works in any way whatsoever. So you don't have to worry about MySpace stealing your music or photos.
What you are agreeing to is that you have the right to give them those rights to the content you are posting if they ask you for the rights. You don't have to give them those rights under any cercumstance, and you most certainly are not giving them any control rights over your copyright. You are simply stating that those rights are yours to give in the first place.
That way, you are agreeing that the content you are posting is basically yours to post, and you are taking responsibility if you don't have those rights and are breaking copyright. This way, MySpace can't get sued if you post someone else's works.
Sorry sorry...
:)
In my morning stupor I seemd to have failed to notice that you were talking about a manufacturer and for some reason my brain made me think you were talking about all distribution in general, not manufacturing. My bad.
By the way, if you guys at Apple do aim for a 2-3 day turnaround, then congrats, because from what I've seen, you routinely beat that turnaround a lot.
Keep up the good work, and thanks for the correction, as well as the great contributions to technology.
Sure.
Maybe if your running a third rate crappy distributor who doesn't care about getting products to the customer in a timely fashion.
I work for CDW. We are not a third rate crappy distributor, and we pride outselves on our inventory control and supply chain management.
We have people on staff in our purchasing department whose sold job it is to anticipate market needs and keep certain key products in stock in our warehouse so that we can ship them on the same day they are ordered. This is especially handy when you have a lot of goverment contracts to fill. These orders can be very time critical.
When we advertise "Same Day" on a product, that means it can ship on the same day it is ordered, becuase it is currently in stock. It doesn't automatically mean that we overstocked that item and that orders are slower than anticipated. If we ran this company like that, we would have ran it into the ground a long time ago. Instead, through carefull control, we have flourished, even when the economy was tanking.
The last thing we want is for product to sit on our shelves. Our product shipping turnover is very fast, and in most cases, a product won't sit in the warehouse very long because of the hard work our purchasing people do to predict what will be needed to fill our customers needs in a timely manner.
Any distributor worth anything doesn't shoot for a 2-3 day shipping window. They shoot for same day shipping on as many orders as possible. The reason for this is both customer retention and sataisfaction, as well as to maximize profits. An order sitting in your system because a product isn't in stock looses your company money every day in order maintenance costs. These costs are small, but when you process thousands of orders a day, they can add up. Also, an order doesn't make you any money until its scanned onto the truck when it ships out. So you aren't making any money by making the order take longer to ship, you are simply loosing customers to the guy who can ship faster.
A 2-3 day shipping window, while realistic, isn't very competitive, and won't win you customers, especially in the government sector. In this business, the aim is to make money, and you make money by selling product and shipping it quickly, as well as by being helpful and having good service. Timely is the word here people. Timely. That means shpping the same day, not in 2-3 days.
A technology like this can only mean one thing:
The destruction of all originality and creativity, unless we fight to preserve it.
This makes me sick...
Really, I am feeling sick...
We owe all this to the people who first put the words music and market together into a phrase.
God help us.
I think you need to read up on this flaw a little better. What SPF breaks is pre-delivery forwarding (not the forwarding you would associate with the forward button in your email program), which is the ability for an email to go from one smtp server to another and then to another until it reaches its destination server.
This is a non-issue however, because most sane people that run good email servers do not allow smtp pre-delivery forwarding to take place at all (unless its for messages that are being forwarded to another one of their own servers) as this "feature" (when manipulated correctly) can be used to make their servers into open relays, thus making them into some spammer's bitch.
And yes, for those that need pre-delivery forwarding, there are workarounds available.
Slashdot went political a long time ago...
Seriously though, congrats guys, this should make for some more really good discussions on slashdot.
Just curious (because of your name):
What fortune 500 company do you work for?
You misunderstand me.
I don't think that war is the answer, and as a matter of fact, I hate war and wish we could learn from our previous mistakes and perhaps do away with it altogether.
I'm just stating that looking at the way humanity is now, war in space is probably going to occur. The optimist in me hopes that humanity can be better than that, but the realist in me looks at the mounting evidence (People selling space property, China's serious considerations to colonize the moon and the western world's race to beat them to it if they try) and I can see a definate possibility of things going very wrong for us up there in the century to come.
The power struggles that we deal with on a global basis with some countries acting very imperialistic are bound to transfer into space. As the Funker Vogt song "This World" states:
A world all made of battlefields
A world all drowned in blood
A world which will not last forever
Is all that we have got
A world all made of battlefields
A world all built for wars
And now we take the battlefields
Far out to the stars
I hope it doesn't come to that, and I hope that we evolve beyond that. Right now though, that is the direction things are heading.
Anyone who studies history knows that "ownership" of any piece of land or other property can only be secured by the ability to defend that ownership.
The USA is only owned by its people because we came together to claim such ownership and we have defended that ownership, even to the exent of war.
Everything that a person owns in this country or in this world he or she only posseses by virutue of the law. It is our laws and law enforcement which defend your right to keep your property.
So my point is, when it comes to claiming property on any unclaimed piece of land, on Earth or in Space, your right to that land can only be acheived by virtue of the law which is to say that the virtue of the people is what lets you claim land or property. If the people don't agree that the property is yours, your right to that property is forfeit unless you plan on defending your right to that property, which usually means either a lot of time in some sort of high court, or more probable: war. Let us not forget that the main reason war exists is because of the notion of property.
There will be war in space, its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
One thing is for sure. If they can get this to work and if heat production can be cut down, this would make computing equipment and electronics much smaller. The printed circuit board is one of the big things holding us back from much better electronics miniaturization.
Make it stereoscopic (3-D) and then perhaps I will be interested. Probably could be done by strapping two of the little cameras on.
Yeah, UPnP has proven on more than one occasion to be insecure, its probably best that its blocked by most firewalls. Hopefully, with this protocol suite, and with it exchanging low level code to describe services and all that, they will find a way to secure it so people won't have to be afraid to use it. I guess its wait and see.
Yes, that is a good analogy. Of couse, it brings about all kinds of security questions. It will be interesting to see how such a thing is implemented, if it gains any industry acceptance at all, and if this company is as willing to open the technology/idea as they supposedly were with object oriented programming.
So from what I've read in the article, this looks to be Plug'n'play as it was meant to be:
Devices which use simple initial aggreed upon standard to extend their various servcies to each other without all the protocols having to be aggreed upon ahead of time, just a few simple initial protocols which are used to communicate and extend the other protocols and services between the devices. If this is applied correctly by the industry, it could change computing a lot, opening more complex systems to users with less experience and requiring less support resources. I'll be watching this closely.
Thank you for the correction. :(
My spelling could use some work yes.
Sure its fast, but if its stratospheric, its usefulness may be greatly effected by inclimate weather. Even cumulus clouds can greatly lower the bandwidth of wireless communication when transmitting between the stratosphere and the ground. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this issue.