Even if they make no profits from their own patent trolling activities, big business likes this patent system because it keeps small innovative businesses from becoming competitors. Big business wins, people lose. The patent system needs to be changed radically so that the only patents issued are for things that are so innovative that without a patent system they would not happen anytime soon, or at least when needed. Things like new drugs that need massive amounts of research should still be patented in most cases. But most of technology consists of trivial patents that have no value in terms of being a contribution to society.
I can hear the difference. I happened to get both a CD and a vinyl recording of the exact same classical performance many years ago. I still had my turntable and a top-of-the-line Denon CD player. The vinyl recording had more hiss to it than the CD. That was to be expected. However, the vinyl recording also gave me a better impression of actually being right in from the performers (a quartet). It just also happened to give me the impression of an army of small hissing bugs that had joined us.
I do believe that digital can give a good enough quality to get the same impression as analog. But the CD format just isn't it. You'll need to completely and totally eliminate all aliasing to achieve it. In theory that can be done with the 44.1 kHz sample rate, but I believe it will be too expensive to actually achieve it. I propose 8 times the sampling rate and twice the number of bits as a new audio standard for the high end purist. It will require the space of an HD-DVD to record it, or maybe a DVD with lossless compression such as FLAC. But this is all practical today.
So why not go back to that store? If you can verify they fired the bad employee AND had him arrested and brought up in theft charges, then it would seem to be a store that is no LESS trustable than any other. The stores themselves are quite often victims of criminal acts by store employees, distributor employees, and other customers. It's how well they deal with YOU when YOU and THEY are both victims that is more telling. In the case before us, Best Buy is TOTALLY IN THE WRONG. There's virtually no way those tiles were put in the box at the overseas factory. If it had been a foreign newspaper they were wrapped in, then I might believe that. Even if the guy who claims to be the victim here was the true culprit, it is wrong to try to send him back to the manufacturer when it almost certainly was caused by either a store employee, or a previous customer where the store failed to properly check a return. If this guy really did the swap and returned something he didn't get from the store, it's still up to the store to have some reason to believe that scenario over the others.
I won't go to Best Buy, now, for a long time... not because I might get something other than what I bought... and not even because some store in New York has a lousy manager... but instead because corporate management decided to support this action. If they had a reason to believe this guy pulled a fast one on them, then the store should have called the cops on him (if he had returned items like this in the past, that would be cause to believe this). Otherwise they should have stuck with the policy and issued a refund or a replacement (then have him arrested the next time he does it). Maybe there are thieves working in the backrooms at Best Buy. But there is one right there in the manager's office, and several in the corporate headquarters.
It's also possible the card was a return done by a previous customer on the basis of "never opened", although that customer actually opened it, swapped the cards, and sealed it back. The person taking the item back would believe it had not been opened and just put it back in the stock.
It's also possible in the case we are reading about now that the person who this story is about swapped the hard drive with the tiles himself. Now, I'm not accusing him of doing that; I'm just saying we really don't have any evidence that he didn't.
This kind of thing can happen, either by store employees (Best Buy and other such stores... and their customers... have frequently been the victim of various inside jobs), or by other customers taking advantage of too easy a returns policy.
Someone else should go visit this same exact store and buy something (different) of similar value on a credit card. Then the next day simply take it back UNOPENED with a statement that would fit their claimed store policy. Now the test is, to see if they open the box at the store (breaking the seal) to see if the correct item is inside the box. If they do NOT open the box, then the store is vulnerable to the scam of people buying stuff and returning swapped products.
A friend of mine actually did something similar to this to a store. He bought a product, but was unexpectedly unable to try it out within the standard returns time frame. It turns out the product was defective when he was able to test it a few months later. So he went to the store and bought another one. Later he took the old product, in the old box, with the new receipt, back to the store. They opened the box and even checked the product serial number to the label on the box (it matched). He got the refund. Technically he violated the law. The end result was about the same as if he had been able to test the original defective item when he had originally purchased it. Whoever is out due to the defect would have been, anyway. But this shows the kinds of things that can be done without extreme checking. Lots of stores these days now scan serial numbers from the box and print them on the receipt just to avoid stuff like this, at least for pricey items.
My idea of a better approach for Wikipedia would be to have "tiers" of verification that would be kind of like a stack for a given article title. The bottom tier would be articles edited by users who are not logged in. The next tier up would be edited by people who login but have not been verified or vetted, themselves. Further up the ladder would be those who have a history of article editing with no significant issues. Still further would those edited by people who have been specially vetted, although do not have significant credentials. Above them would be editors with major credentials within a subject area (a professor of chemistry would not be considered to have credentials in religious studies). One more top tier would be those who run Wikipedia itself, or are members of a review board. There might be as many as 8 or 9 tiers.
For any article, a visitor can see any tier level. A generated (not edited) box at the top or side of the page would list all the tier levels available that different from the tier being viewed, and their date of last edit, and in cases of tiers edited since the current view, how many edits since the current view was edited. The default view for users who are not logged in is the highest tier available. Logged in users can customize what tier to view, and whether to go up or down if their default tier is absent. Anyone can click on any tier to view that tier. Articles can also be watched for changes by tier.
I believe this approach would give people the opportunity to select the level of verification they feel is right for them.
Lots, probably most, device drivers could be implemented in user space, or kernel space. The biggest question is whether the device can be made transparent where it needs to be (e.g. to have a/dev node). We could move lots of devices into userspace with a general use facility to make/dev nodes from user space drivers. And we could move things from user space to kernel space very easily.
It just makes more sense to have some things in kernel space and some things in user space. The exact boundary is often debated, but Linux has it fairly close to what most people who believe in monolithic kernels believe it should be.
But that should not be a limitation of writing device driver software.
If for a given device, writing it in user space makes more sense, then that's where it should be done. Dividing up projects and groups of people based on how a good implementation should be done is silly. An effort to get more devices supported should have the ability to do both. Splitting things up not only means more confusion for the users, but also more confusion for the businesses we want to try to encourage. It's a division of effort issue here. We should be making the effort to communicate with businesses and convince them to let us develop support for their devices no matter how that support should ultimately be implemented.
But big business does not want people that think independently. They want people that will regurgitate the company line, brown nose the project manager, and take the blame for anything that fails.
But are they all doing the work they were educated for and love? And are these jobs they get to keep until the retire? And most importantly are they getting paid well for this work?
Many people I know are still stuck in dull jobs outside of their field(s). They get counted as employed. One of them currently works as an operator of transportation equipment used to distribute prepared food products made from dough, tomato sauce, cheese, and a choice of add-on accessories, to paying customers during the hours his location is not facing the sun. Another does have a tech related job, as he gets to use a computer when people call him to complain about why they have been doubled billed on their cell phone calls.
You can get these cool jobs without an engineering degree. So why bother.
3. Track which machines the attacks are coming from, (basically, log the source of every packet aimed at your IP address)
Unless every ISP deploys routers that requires source IP addresses to be those that would route back if they were destinations, then the source IP addresses mean nothing in a DDoS attack. You think something is sophisticated as the Storm Worm Botnet would do a DDoS with the actual source IP? That would only happen if the router every user of every ISP connected to enforced it (and maybe that should become a mandate in law).
In the USA, the big legacy providers, like a great many other evil corporations, want to make huge profits right from the beginning without having to do much if any buildout. Verizon, for example, grossly underbuilt FiOS. It won't be able to achieve 100 mbps to everyone, ever. Verizon will have to rebuild again to achieve 100 mbps, and they don't want to do that. It would also mean they have to build bigger faster trunks circuits to peer sites.
But the big reason they want to let the internet suck here is because they want you to take their selected entertainment content instead of communicating on the net where they can't get control over, and money from, everyone else. Cable rapes its home customers to provide TV signals to them (with horribly bundled packages that make people pay more for channels they never want) while at the same time also taking in money from most of the channels they provide (some of the really big ones are too big and most cable companies have to pay to carry those channels... but it's worth it to get you to subscribe). They want to use IP (internet protocol) technology to deliver new services to you beyond just TV. And they want to charge both ends on that service, which means it will be limited. They just don't want you to be on the internet and certainly not to get your entertainment and information from sources they have not vetted to be sure you aren't finding out about just how evil the big corporations really are.
I'm not sure if 20 up / 20 down means Verizon is breaking away from that or not. We'll have to see how well it work. We'll have to see if they find a way to expand it. Ideally, they should install fiber from the customers (home or business) all the way to the central office so everyone has full optical capacity, instead of the shared system FiOS has now (which half is there to deliver cable TV service).
It remains to be seen if we eventually get assimilated.
SMTP is intended as an exchange protocol between mail servers. It is not for injecting mail into a mail server, although it has been used for that purpose. The original mail injection was local on a Unix machine, and sendmail did SMTP between itself (a mail server) and other servers. Maybe that is what you are trying to do. But Verizon's consumer/home service isn't for servers. I'd bet they do have a business grade service, which would cost you more, but let you run an SMTP server.
If you run you own domain, it will need an MX server to get email. The ougoing email could use the same server. If you don't get that level of service from Verizon (because it costs too much), then I guess you need to host the mail server elsewhere. There are providers that do just that kind of thing for other domains (and you can inject mail and pick up mail through encrypted protocols and Verizon can't sniff your data). Or rent a virtual server (one of a few User Mode Linux systems running on one box) and run your own mail server from remote. Or get a legacy nailed dialup service from an alternate provider with a static IP and run your mail server from home through that (you surely don't have more than dialup volume of email, aside from spam attacks, right?).
So tell me what you think what have transpired had Apple simply sold the iPhone already unlocked right from the start without having any contract with any provider at all? Do you think cell carriers would have turned down the signups they get? You can buy imported unlocked phones now and signup with a carrier. How many more iPhones would have sold had it
Traditionally, locked phones are sold by the carrier at a deep discount, or in some cases given away, with cost recovery through term service as the lockin justification. If I get a phone from party A, I pay party A for it, whether that be all at once now, or through a time payment plan, or some combination of that. But with the iPhone we have a case of party A selling phones that require service from party B. I don't know where any anti-trust laws prohibit that now, but IMHO they ought to (so that means if they don't, I favor changing them so they do).
Portable drives powered via the USB connection can take more power than USB permits. Get the drive well under that level and you wan't need to use those double-USB cables.
The issue is not about whether something is copyrighted or not. Virtually everything is copyrighted. The issue is about whether the owner permits the distribution, which is a form of copying. And it is about identifying who the owner is from the content.
So I have this simple solution. Create a single central repository for all copyrighted content that copyright owners want to exercise control over. The owners will deposit a copy of each work they want to have identified as belonging to them. Then that content would be available to anyone that wants to check and see if some content that was given to them matches the owner's content.
What United Airlines is proposing is just a tiered service. It's as simple as pay more for more service and pay less for less service. They collect more money from people willing to pay more for premium services, and it avoids broad price increases that make air travel unaffordable to more people. It's not any different than first class seating. It's not any different than a broadband customer paying more to get 2 or 4 times the bandwidth. Either way it is the customer of the provider that decides what level of service they are willing to pay for.
The airline equivalent of the internet's net neutrality issue would be the airlines charging your family, friends, and business associates that you are flying to go visit, so that the airline will fly you there faster if they pay up, or delay your flight, or maybe even cancel it, if they do not.
If Verizon charged Google money so that the communications between a Verizon customer and Google would go faster, or even be allowed to go through at all, then that would be the equivalent of United Airlines charging your parents money to let you fly back home for a visit.
Now if Google wanted to pay Verizon the going rates to install leased circuits into every Verizon central office, so that Google would have better connectivity to Verizon customers, I see nothing wrong with that. If Verizon wanted to encourage that by putting together a single service package where they would install such circuits bundled to reach every central office without having to set up service for each individually, that's probably fine, too. This would be paying for some actual service (leased circuits with private routing). It would actually be taking traffic load off the internet exchange points, so it could be a good thing for all, as well.
Net neutrality should be to maintain a fair and equal balance on all legal traffic going through the internet between providers... between the customers of those providers who pay their providers for a service to reach the cloud (via the various exchange points and through any peering agreements).
If I happen to get service from one of the (many) providers Google connects to, and that point of service happens to be in the same place a major Google data center connects to, sure, I'm going to get better reachability to the Google services running at that data center. That doesn't violate net neutrality.
... telnet to port 80. Give it the command "GET / HTTP/1.1" followed by "Host : www.cybertriallawyer.com" followed by a blank line. This is a standard network diagnostic method to use when broken non-compliant HTML (like theirs) fails to render (when using a very pedantic browser).
That is not what is wrong with the US Patent System. That's only a SYMPTOM of what is wrong. The real wrong is that the patent system is completely and totally disoriented away from it's original mission, which is to encourage the kinds of innovative inventions that we would not otherwise have without patents.
Patents actually take away rights. Two inventors inventing the same thing in isolation from each other will end up with one of them the loser, losing all his rights to what he created, just because the other one files the patent application first. In theory, this is not what we want to be doing. In practice, such things have to happen in a process that is going to grant exclusive rights for some term. We justify this taking away of rights for the greater good of all not just in getting the benefits of that invention the two inventors made (we'd get that benefit anyway, even if they had to share the rights), but also the benefit of the process itself to encourage the innovation.
Where the problem lies is that so many patents issued these days are for things that would have been invented, either just as soon, or at least by the time it is really needed, anyway. Thus we end up taking rights away from parallel inventors for something for which there is no gain (we'd have that invention without any patent system).
We need to do a better job of evaluating an invention to determine if it is something that is truly innovative, and that such a thing would not have been invented just in time for a need without a patent system. If the invention itself does not justify a patent system, then a patent should not be issued for it.
I believe fewer than 1% of patents issued these days justify the patent system.
There are also a lot of other things wrong, such as those overly broad claims. What is there to discourage such claims? Nothing. There needs to be a penalty for overly broad claims. Maybe invalidation of the whole patent might do.
The abuses of the patent system today are actually harming innovation and the economy. The nature of technology today is that almost all new ideas build upon other ideas. But why even try if there is a risk that what you could do could be taken away from you because something else is similar, or even just builds on the same thing your idea did.
We still do need a patent system for things that take a lot of time and money to come up with. And nearly divine inspiration needs to be rewarded as well. Almost all patents these days do not fit those descriptions.
And this has nothing to do with the matter of software patents. It's just that software patents, far more than others, tend to fall into the "there's no real innovation here that someone else would not have done when it's needed" category.
... proceeded to copy the rest of them in my batch over over 27 million files I copied once. I don't do that very often. But hey, I had to fill up my new 500 GB disk somehow:-)
I had 5 drives fail over the course of a couple months. That seemed so out of normal that I checked them out better. They died with the "clickety-click-of-death". Today I am still using 3 of them going strong (the other 2 were smaller and I replaced their spots with bigger ones). The cause of the failure was actually two bad power supplies (140 watt units in micro-ATX boxen). I squeezed in fresh new 250 watt units (were a bit larger, but I made them fit) and those "dead" drives came back to life. Two of the machines with these PSUs had the problems, but I just went ahead and did the PSU replacement in all 4 to prevent the problem in the others.
That's not to say your problem has this cause. Hard drives die for other reasons, too. But it's worth checking. The power supply was not so bad that it prevented the CPU and mainboard from working. There might have been some corrupt bits (no ECC on all those machines), but not enough to crash anything. In any case, if you have a 50% failure rate, you have some kind of common cause that you should look into.
Slashdot Mirror
... install and enable IPsec, even if they are not a Comcast vict^h^h^h^hcustomer.
Even if they make no profits from their own patent trolling activities, big business likes this patent system because it keeps small innovative businesses from becoming competitors. Big business wins, people lose. The patent system needs to be changed radically so that the only patents issued are for things that are so innovative that without a patent system they would not happen anytime soon, or at least when needed. Things like new drugs that need massive amounts of research should still be patented in most cases. But most of technology consists of trivial patents that have no value in terms of being a contribution to society.
I can hear the difference. I happened to get both a CD and a vinyl recording of the exact same classical performance many years ago. I still had my turntable and a top-of-the-line Denon CD player. The vinyl recording had more hiss to it than the CD. That was to be expected. However, the vinyl recording also gave me a better impression of actually being right in from the performers (a quartet). It just also happened to give me the impression of an army of small hissing bugs that had joined us.
I do believe that digital can give a good enough quality to get the same impression as analog. But the CD format just isn't it. You'll need to completely and totally eliminate all aliasing to achieve it. In theory that can be done with the 44.1 kHz sample rate, but I believe it will be too expensive to actually achieve it. I propose 8 times the sampling rate and twice the number of bits as a new audio standard for the high end purist. It will require the space of an HD-DVD to record it, or maybe a DVD with lossless compression such as FLAC. But this is all practical today.
So why not go back to that store? If you can verify they fired the bad employee AND had him arrested and brought up in theft charges, then it would seem to be a store that is no LESS trustable than any other. The stores themselves are quite often victims of criminal acts by store employees, distributor employees, and other customers. It's how well they deal with YOU when YOU and THEY are both victims that is more telling. In the case before us, Best Buy is TOTALLY IN THE WRONG. There's virtually no way those tiles were put in the box at the overseas factory. If it had been a foreign newspaper they were wrapped in, then I might believe that. Even if the guy who claims to be the victim here was the true culprit, it is wrong to try to send him back to the manufacturer when it almost certainly was caused by either a store employee, or a previous customer where the store failed to properly check a return. If this guy really did the swap and returned something he didn't get from the store, it's still up to the store to have some reason to believe that scenario over the others.
I won't go to Best Buy, now, for a long time ... not because I might get something other than what I bought ... and not even because some store in New York has a lousy manager ... but instead because corporate management decided to support this action. If they had a reason to believe this guy pulled a fast one on them, then the store should have called the cops on him (if he had returned items like this in the past, that would be cause to believe this). Otherwise they should have stuck with the policy and issued a refund or a replacement (then have him arrested the next time he does it). Maybe there are thieves working in the backrooms at Best Buy. But there is one right there in the manager's office, and several in the corporate headquarters.
It's also possible the card was a return done by a previous customer on the basis of "never opened", although that customer actually opened it, swapped the cards, and sealed it back. The person taking the item back would believe it had not been opened and just put it back in the stock.
It's also possible in the case we are reading about now that the person who this story is about swapped the hard drive with the tiles himself. Now, I'm not accusing him of doing that; I'm just saying we really don't have any evidence that he didn't.
This kind of thing can happen, either by store employees (Best Buy and other such stores ... and their customers ... have frequently been the victim of various inside jobs), or by other customers taking advantage of too easy a returns policy.
Someone else should go visit this same exact store and buy something (different) of similar value on a credit card. Then the next day simply take it back UNOPENED with a statement that would fit their claimed store policy. Now the test is, to see if they open the box at the store (breaking the seal) to see if the correct item is inside the box. If they do NOT open the box, then the store is vulnerable to the scam of people buying stuff and returning swapped products.
A friend of mine actually did something similar to this to a store. He bought a product, but was unexpectedly unable to try it out within the standard returns time frame. It turns out the product was defective when he was able to test it a few months later. So he went to the store and bought another one. Later he took the old product, in the old box, with the new receipt, back to the store. They opened the box and even checked the product serial number to the label on the box (it matched). He got the refund. Technically he violated the law. The end result was about the same as if he had been able to test the original defective item when he had originally purchased it. Whoever is out due to the defect would have been, anyway. But this shows the kinds of things that can be done without extreme checking. Lots of stores these days now scan serial numbers from the box and print them on the receipt just to avoid stuff like this, at least for pricey items.
My idea of a better approach for Wikipedia would be to have "tiers" of verification that would be kind of like a stack for a given article title. The bottom tier would be articles edited by users who are not logged in. The next tier up would be edited by people who login but have not been verified or vetted, themselves. Further up the ladder would be those who have a history of article editing with no significant issues. Still further would those edited by people who have been specially vetted, although do not have significant credentials. Above them would be editors with major credentials within a subject area (a professor of chemistry would not be considered to have credentials in religious studies). One more top tier would be those who run Wikipedia itself, or are members of a review board. There might be as many as 8 or 9 tiers.
For any article, a visitor can see any tier level. A generated (not edited) box at the top or side of the page would list all the tier levels available that different from the tier being viewed, and their date of last edit, and in cases of tiers edited since the current view, how many edits since the current view was edited. The default view for users who are not logged in is the highest tier available. Logged in users can customize what tier to view, and whether to go up or down if their default tier is absent. Anyone can click on any tier to view that tier. Articles can also be watched for changes by tier.
I believe this approach would give people the opportunity to select the level of verification they feel is right for them.
Lots, probably most, device drivers could be implemented in user space, or kernel space. The biggest question is whether the device can be made transparent where it needs to be (e.g. to have a /dev node). We could move lots of devices into userspace with a general use facility to make /dev nodes from user space drivers. And we could move things from user space to kernel space very easily.
It just makes more sense to have some things in kernel space and some things in user space. The exact boundary is often debated, but Linux has it fairly close to what most people who believe in monolithic kernels believe it should be.
But that should not be a limitation of writing device driver software.
If for a given device, writing it in user space makes more sense, then that's where it should be done. Dividing up projects and groups of people based on how a good implementation should be done is silly. An effort to get more devices supported should have the ability to do both. Splitting things up not only means more confusion for the users, but also more confusion for the businesses we want to try to encourage. It's a division of effort issue here. We should be making the effort to communicate with businesses and convince them to let us develop support for their devices no matter how that support should ultimately be implemented.
But big business does not want people that think independently. They want people that will regurgitate the company line, brown nose the project manager, and take the blame for anything that fails.
But are they all doing the work they were educated for and love? And are these jobs they get to keep until the retire? And most importantly are they getting paid well for this work?
Many people I know are still stuck in dull jobs outside of their field(s). They get counted as employed. One of them currently works as an operator of transportation equipment used to distribute prepared food products made from dough, tomato sauce, cheese, and a choice of add-on accessories, to paying customers during the hours his location is not facing the sun. Another does have a tech related job, as he gets to use a computer when people call him to complain about why they have been doubled billed on their cell phone calls.
You can get these cool jobs without an engineering degree. So why bother.
Now I'd like to have them back, now, please.
Unless every ISP deploys routers that requires source IP addresses to be those that would route back if they were destinations, then the source IP addresses mean nothing in a DDoS attack. You think something is sophisticated as the Storm Worm Botnet would do a DDoS with the actual source IP? That would only happen if the router every user of every ISP connected to enforced it (and maybe that should become a mandate in law).
In the USA, the big legacy providers, like a great many other evil corporations, want to make huge profits right from the beginning without having to do much if any buildout. Verizon, for example, grossly underbuilt FiOS. It won't be able to achieve 100 mbps to everyone, ever. Verizon will have to rebuild again to achieve 100 mbps, and they don't want to do that. It would also mean they have to build bigger faster trunks circuits to peer sites.
But the big reason they want to let the internet suck here is because they want you to take their selected entertainment content instead of communicating on the net where they can't get control over, and money from, everyone else. Cable rapes its home customers to provide TV signals to them (with horribly bundled packages that make people pay more for channels they never want) while at the same time also taking in money from most of the channels they provide (some of the really big ones are too big and most cable companies have to pay to carry those channels ... but it's worth it to get you to subscribe). They want to use IP (internet protocol) technology to deliver new services to you beyond just TV. And they want to charge both ends on that service, which means it will be limited. They just don't want you to be on the internet and certainly not to get your entertainment and information from sources they have not vetted to be sure you aren't finding out about just how evil the big corporations really are.
I'm not sure if 20 up / 20 down means Verizon is breaking away from that or not. We'll have to see how well it work. We'll have to see if they find a way to expand it. Ideally, they should install fiber from the customers (home or business) all the way to the central office so everyone has full optical capacity, instead of the shared system FiOS has now (which half is there to deliver cable TV service).
It remains to be seen if we eventually get assimilated.
SMTP is intended as an exchange protocol between mail servers. It is not for injecting mail into a mail server, although it has been used for that purpose. The original mail injection was local on a Unix machine, and sendmail did SMTP between itself (a mail server) and other servers. Maybe that is what you are trying to do. But Verizon's consumer/home service isn't for servers. I'd bet they do have a business grade service, which would cost you more, but let you run an SMTP server.
If you run you own domain, it will need an MX server to get email. The ougoing email could use the same server. If you don't get that level of service from Verizon (because it costs too much), then I guess you need to host the mail server elsewhere. There are providers that do just that kind of thing for other domains (and you can inject mail and pick up mail through encrypted protocols and Verizon can't sniff your data). Or rent a virtual server (one of a few User Mode Linux systems running on one box) and run your own mail server from remote. Or get a legacy nailed dialup service from an alternate provider with a static IP and run your mail server from home through that (you surely don't have more than dialup volume of email, aside from spam attacks, right?).
So tell me what you think what have transpired had Apple simply sold the iPhone already unlocked right from the start without having any contract with any provider at all? Do you think cell carriers would have turned down the signups they get? You can buy imported unlocked phones now and signup with a carrier. How many more iPhones would have sold had it
Traditionally, locked phones are sold by the carrier at a deep discount, or in some cases given away, with cost recovery through term service as the lockin justification. If I get a phone from party A, I pay party A for it, whether that be all at once now, or through a time payment plan, or some combination of that. But with the iPhone we have a case of party A selling phones that require service from party B. I don't know where any anti-trust laws prohibit that now, but IMHO they ought to (so that means if they don't, I favor changing them so they do).
Portable drives powered via the USB connection can take more power than USB permits. Get the drive well under that level and you wan't need to use those double-USB cables.
Yup ... just one week ago. It was easily found with just "comcast" in the search page.
... the massive drought impacting the south east of the USA this year.
The issue is not about whether something is copyrighted or not. Virtually everything is copyrighted. The issue is about whether the owner permits the distribution, which is a form of copying. And it is about identifying who the owner is from the content.
So I have this simple solution. Create a single central repository for all copyrighted content that copyright owners want to exercise control over. The owners will deposit a copy of each work they want to have identified as belonging to them. Then that content would be available to anyone that wants to check and see if some content that was given to them matches the owner's content.
Oh, wait.
What United Airlines is proposing is just a tiered service. It's as simple as pay more for more service and pay less for less service. They collect more money from people willing to pay more for premium services, and it avoids broad price increases that make air travel unaffordable to more people. It's not any different than first class seating. It's not any different than a broadband customer paying more to get 2 or 4 times the bandwidth. Either way it is the customer of the provider that decides what level of service they are willing to pay for.
The airline equivalent of the internet's net neutrality issue would be the airlines charging your family, friends, and business associates that you are flying to go visit, so that the airline will fly you there faster if they pay up, or delay your flight, or maybe even cancel it, if they do not.
If Verizon charged Google money so that the communications between a Verizon customer and Google would go faster, or even be allowed to go through at all, then that would be the equivalent of United Airlines charging your parents money to let you fly back home for a visit.
Now if Google wanted to pay Verizon the going rates to install leased circuits into every Verizon central office, so that Google would have better connectivity to Verizon customers, I see nothing wrong with that. If Verizon wanted to encourage that by putting together a single service package where they would install such circuits bundled to reach every central office without having to set up service for each individually, that's probably fine, too. This would be paying for some actual service (leased circuits with private routing). It would actually be taking traffic load off the internet exchange points, so it could be a good thing for all, as well.
Net neutrality should be to maintain a fair and equal balance on all legal traffic going through the internet between providers ... between the customers of those providers who pay their providers for a service to reach the cloud (via the various exchange points and through any peering agreements).
If I happen to get service from one of the (many) providers Google connects to, and that point of service happens to be in the same place a major Google data center connects to, sure, I'm going to get better reachability to the Google services running at that data center. That doesn't violate net neutrality.
... telnet to port 80. Give it the command "GET / HTTP/1.1" followed by "Host : www.cybertriallawyer.com" followed by a blank line. This is a standard network diagnostic method to use when broken non-compliant HTML (like theirs) fails to render (when using a very pedantic browser).
That is not what is wrong with the US Patent System. That's only a SYMPTOM of what is wrong. The real wrong is that the patent system is completely and totally disoriented away from it's original mission, which is to encourage the kinds of innovative inventions that we would not otherwise have without patents.
Patents actually take away rights. Two inventors inventing the same thing in isolation from each other will end up with one of them the loser, losing all his rights to what he created, just because the other one files the patent application first. In theory, this is not what we want to be doing. In practice, such things have to happen in a process that is going to grant exclusive rights for some term. We justify this taking away of rights for the greater good of all not just in getting the benefits of that invention the two inventors made (we'd get that benefit anyway, even if they had to share the rights), but also the benefit of the process itself to encourage the innovation.
Where the problem lies is that so many patents issued these days are for things that would have been invented, either just as soon, or at least by the time it is really needed, anyway. Thus we end up taking rights away from parallel inventors for something for which there is no gain (we'd have that invention without any patent system).
We need to do a better job of evaluating an invention to determine if it is something that is truly innovative, and that such a thing would not have been invented just in time for a need without a patent system. If the invention itself does not justify a patent system, then a patent should not be issued for it.
I believe fewer than 1% of patents issued these days justify the patent system.
There are also a lot of other things wrong, such as those overly broad claims. What is there to discourage such claims? Nothing. There needs to be a penalty for overly broad claims. Maybe invalidation of the whole patent might do.
The abuses of the patent system today are actually harming innovation and the economy. The nature of technology today is that almost all new ideas build upon other ideas. But why even try if there is a risk that what you could do could be taken away from you because something else is similar, or even just builds on the same thing your idea did.
We still do need a patent system for things that take a lot of time and money to come up with. And nearly divine inspiration needs to be rewarded as well. Almost all patents these days do not fit those descriptions.
And this has nothing to do with the matter of software patents. It's just that software patents, far more than others, tend to fall into the "there's no real innovation here that someone else would not have done when it's needed" category.
Encrypt the drive ... except for a partition or flash module with enough of the OS to get started and prompt for the drive key password.
... proceeded to copy the rest of them in my batch over over 27 million files I copied once. I don't do that very often. But hey, I had to fill up my new 500 GB disk somehow :-)
I had 5 drives fail over the course of a couple months. That seemed so out of normal that I checked them out better. They died with the "clickety-click-of-death". Today I am still using 3 of them going strong (the other 2 were smaller and I replaced their spots with bigger ones). The cause of the failure was actually two bad power supplies (140 watt units in micro-ATX boxen). I squeezed in fresh new 250 watt units (were a bit larger, but I made them fit) and those "dead" drives came back to life. Two of the machines with these PSUs had the problems, but I just went ahead and did the PSU replacement in all 4 to prevent the problem in the others.
That's not to say your problem has this cause. Hard drives die for other reasons, too. But it's worth checking. The power supply was not so bad that it prevented the CPU and mainboard from working. There might have been some corrupt bits (no ECC on all those machines), but not enough to crash anything. In any case, if you have a 50% failure rate, you have some kind of common cause that you should look into.