The correct response should be: "We did not sell that phone to you, so we are not able to support it other than enabling services and making sure those services work". Requiring them to pay for an unwanted service for device support is all wrong, and arguably illegal. If the data plan cost supports the device, then what payment supports the data plan? If they want wifi support, ask them where they are getting wifi service from. Once that is answered, tell them to ask that party for wifi support.
FYI, I never ask my carrier provider for support other than that related to my service. So explain why *I* have to pay for a data plan (if I used AT&T) without talking about what other people use. Maybe there should be a separate support plan to sell to those other people.
One way to do this is have a pre-boot manager that has its own PROM and flash, and when an OS boots, it sets a hardware flag that makes it own PROM and flash unwritable (or even unaddressable) until the whole hardware is reset (which always runs that PROM). An alternative is to have a separate small CPU with that PROM and flash, to run the controller and thus is fully isolated from the main CPU. In this alternative, the small control processor could still be running even when the OS is running on the main CPU. I think some enterprise servers already have this. Mainframes do. Things the controller could do (if implemented to do this) is stopping the main CPU, erasing or loading its RAM, managing (remapping) its devices, and starting the main CPU. The OS in the main CPU cannot access the control CPU at all. With additional features, this could also be used for cloud services management.
... is for the phone carriers to test the caller ID coming from their customers to validate. If the caller ID info is not associated with the customer of that trunk, then do not complete the call. Additionally, if the outgoing volume exceeds a certain amount (around 1000 per month), the business gets classified as an outbound caller, and their numbers get added to a list of publicly available numbers people can look up for free to find out the legal name of the company, their address, main contact phone number, and the legal service address. Also if that volume is exceeded, anonymous calls are not permitted (and these will not be completed, either).
The whole idea is about truthfully knowing who is calling. That doesn't deny anyone their free speech rights (as questionable as that is for telemarketers).
Robocallers are generating numbers at random, now. They just want to call everyone. They are not basing this on collected personal information, anymore. Just crank out the calls and play the recording.
And you should be required to front the cost of them taking the carrier to court, to be paid back only out of the monetary award the court might give them. This is, after all, the moral obligation of anyone that suggests using the courts in a country where the legal system is rigged so only the top two percent can actually afford to use it.
Then you pay full price. We're talking about phones that carriers subsidize the price for with the idea of making that money and more back in your contract. Now after that contract is over, then unlocking should be possible. I'm not that patient so I pay full price up front and do get a never locked phone. But no everyone can afford that. And not everyone can afford being ripped off by carriers, either.
And this is why the legal system (not just patents... the WHOLE legal system) is so screwed up. Judgment on cases brought before the court should always, and only, be based on the merits of the case, no matter how good... or how bad... the attorneys are. This is what is raising the cost of lawsuits in this country.
OTOH, I have seen that when you get into the class of people that like to gain power from other, such as school administrators, you have people that are broadly ignorant of realities, such as that the vast majority of people are NOT out to get them, and are NOT terrorists, etc. Canada is not an exception to the "higher ups are more often bad people that ordinary folks" rule.
The article did mention there was a 2nd person working on the project who knew about the flaw. I do not know if this 2nd person also signed the NDA or not.
These (school administrator) are actually "failed politicians". It's even worse when the school is a lower level like a high school. I've seen this problem rampant at the majority of schools I've had to deal with (mostly because of obvious network security issues already exploited by someone else). Politicians are people that like to gain power at the expense of others. But in the case of school administrators, they are just weaker people that have to seek a weaker pool of victims. But let me add that this is NOT 100%. I have met many school administrators who are not at all like that (one of whom actually went into politics later on). It's about 30% good, 70% bad, from my experience.
I would characterize it more like "if you walked down that same old dingy dark alley where you discovered the hole in the wall to the safe before, they will assume that this time it clearly must be to exploit the vulnerability and cause them the expense of having to actually brick up the hole".
I don't know if it was actually written on paper, but he was offered something in return for the NDA... they would not call the RCMP (that's Canadian for "Police").
They should get their compensation from their own customers for a service of getting those customer to the internet Customers using more bandwidth? Make those customers pay more. Problem solved.
And so they can understand:
Ils devraient recevoir leur rémunération de leurs propres clients pour un service à la clientèle de se ceux à l'internet. Les clients qui utilisent plus de bande passante? Rendre ces clients paient plus. Le problème est résolu.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct response should be: "We did not sell that phone to you, so we are not able to support it other than enabling services and making sure those services work". Requiring them to pay for an unwanted service for device support is all wrong, and arguably illegal. If the data plan cost supports the device, then what payment supports the data plan? If they want wifi support, ask them where they are getting wifi service from. Once that is answered, tell them to ask that party for wifi support.
FYI, I never ask my carrier provider for support other than that related to my service. So explain why *I* have to pay for a data plan (if I used AT&T) without talking about what other people use. Maybe there should be a separate support plan to sell to those other people.
One way to do this is have a pre-boot manager that has its own PROM and flash, and when an OS boots, it sets a hardware flag that makes it own PROM and flash unwritable (or even unaddressable) until the whole hardware is reset (which always runs that PROM). An alternative is to have a separate small CPU with that PROM and flash, to run the controller and thus is fully isolated from the main CPU. In this alternative, the small control processor could still be running even when the OS is running on the main CPU. I think some enterprise servers already have this. Mainframes do. Things the controller could do (if implemented to do this) is stopping the main CPU, erasing or loading its RAM, managing (remapping) its devices, and starting the main CPU. The OS in the main CPU cannot access the control CPU at all. With additional features, this could also be used for cloud services management.
And so ... UEFI and Microsoft must die!
I can do panoramas w/o Flash. OK, so I use Javascript.
And you are sure it can't be alcohol?
And that's OK for things where security doesn't matter like Facebook or Google. But not for banks, medical devices, airplane controls, military ...
They will start calling cell phones. These are people that have no problem committing crimes, already.
The real solution is the glare of light. Set things up so their truthful identity is known, verified, and made available to the target.
... is for the phone carriers to test the caller ID coming from their customers to validate. If the caller ID info is not associated with the customer of that trunk, then do not complete the call. Additionally, if the outgoing volume exceeds a certain amount (around 1000 per month), the business gets classified as an outbound caller, and their numbers get added to a list of publicly available numbers people can look up for free to find out the legal name of the company, their address, main contact phone number, and the legal service address. Also if that volume is exceeded, anonymous calls are not permitted (and these will not be completed, either).
The whole idea is about truthfully knowing who is calling. That doesn't deny anyone their free speech rights (as questionable as that is for telemarketers).
Robocallers are generating numbers at random, now. They just want to call everyone. They are not basing this on collected personal information, anymore. Just crank out the calls and play the recording.
And you should be required to front the cost of them taking the carrier to court, to be paid back only out of the monetary award the court might give them. This is, after all, the moral obligation of anyone that suggests using the courts in a country where the legal system is rigged so only the top two percent can actually afford to use it.
Then you pay full price. We're talking about phones that carriers subsidize the price for with the idea of making that money and more back in your contract. Now after that contract is over, then unlocking should be possible. I'm not that patient so I pay full price up front and do get a never locked phone. But no everyone can afford that. And not everyone can afford being ripped off by carriers, either.
... a more accurate term I believe would be leech.
And this is why the legal system (not just patents ... the WHOLE legal system) is so screwed up. Judgment on cases brought before the court should always, and only, be based on the merits of the case, no matter how good ... or how bad ... the attorneys are. This is what is raising the cost of lawsuits in this country.
You can always add your own. I did. And no, I am not sharing my line breaks today.
all from a single fiber optic cable
They obviously need a 2nd fiber optic cable, now
OTOH, I have seen that when you get into the class of people that like to gain power from other, such as school administrators, you have people that are broadly ignorant of realities, such as that the vast majority of people are NOT out to get them, and are NOT terrorists, etc. Canada is not an exception to the "higher ups are more often bad people that ordinary folks" rule.
The article did mention there was a 2nd person working on the project who knew about the flaw. I do not know if this 2nd person also signed the NDA or not.
These (school administrator) are actually "failed politicians". It's even worse when the school is a lower level like a high school. I've seen this problem rampant at the majority of schools I've had to deal with (mostly because of obvious network security issues already exploited by someone else). Politicians are people that like to gain power at the expense of others. But in the case of school administrators, they are just weaker people that have to seek a weaker pool of victims. But let me add that this is NOT 100%. I have met many school administrators who are not at all like that (one of whom actually went into politics later on). It's about 30% good, 70% bad, from my experience.
I would characterize it more like "if you walked down that same old dingy dark alley where you discovered the hole in the wall to the safe before, they will assume that this time it clearly must be to exploit the vulnerability and cause them the expense of having to actually brick up the hole".
But the administration probably doesn't understand the difference.
I don't know if it was actually written on paper, but he was offered something in return for the NDA ... they would not call the RCMP (that's Canadian for "Police").
He was ultimately expelled for choosing a school with overly paranoid administrators. It's that simple.
Wow, a post that fully justifies using AC. Would it be safe to at least identify this school of mostly incompetent faculty?
They should get their compensation from their own customers for a service of getting those customer to the internet Customers using more bandwidth? Make those customers pay more. Problem solved.
And so they can understand:
Ils devraient recevoir leur rémunération de leurs propres clients pour un service à la clientèle de se ceux à l'internet. Les clients qui utilisent plus de bande passante? Rendre ces clients paient plus. Le problème est résolu.
You mean this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho ... ?