> Pedestrians have the right of way on most streets under 35mph
This is only the case when BOTH the car and the person have the right to go at the same time. If the car has the right of way and the pedestrian does not, the 'pedestrians have the right of way' rule does not at all apply.
Its similar to a car going one direction wanting to turn left, and a car going the other direction on the same road wanting to go straight. Both will have a green light, but straight has right of way above right or left hand turns, and right hand turns have the right of way before left hand turns. Just because both have the green light doesn't mean the left turning car can just go.
> I love it when I try to cross the street in pouring rain and pricks in their cars honk at me. > I'm the one getting soaking wet yet I'm inconveniencing them.
If the car has the green light and you have a red (or dont walk sign), then not only are you inconveniencing them but you are out right commiting a traffic voilation which is illegal.
Its similar (though not nearly as bad) as jay walking in the middle of a road full of moving traffic and -expecting- everyone stop for you. In both situations, if it can be proved (easy for jay walking as its 100% of the time, not so easy at an intersection) and you got hit and hurt/killed, the motorist would not be held responsible for it (rightly so.)
A pedestrian only has the right of way when they have a green light with traffic, or a walk sign. Thats it. When the pedestrian has the green, and so does a car, THEN the pedestrian has the right of way before the car does.
In the case of rain, yes its nice for motorists to allow pedestrians to go first as clearly walking in the rain sucks and the motorist doesnt have to deal with that, but don't forget that they are simply being nice and are in no way required to do so when they have the green light and you have a dont-walk or red light.
The "penalty of perjury" bit only applies to the belief that they represent the copyright holder. It's a common misconception (propagated by the DMCA creators) to think they need to be sure before sending threats.
I can send a DMCA to any ISP and claim that a) I think a particular file contains copyrighted work written (shot/drawn) by my sister b) under penalty of perjury I promise that I represent my sister
The only lie I can be made responsible for in the court is that I don't represent my sister (if I don't). I can always say I was mistaken about that photo/text and get away with it.
But thats what they are doing. "we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed"
Assuming I own copyright to the file, and im not reposting some work either in public domain or where the copyright holder allows this (freeware etc), but a file that I personally made so i own the copyright... They are claiming to both me and my ISP that they are representing *ME*
If some random lawyer started suing people for stupid crap and claiming he was doing it on my behalf, and i knew nothing about it, it would be obvious to any judge that lawyer needs the smackdown and is in the wrong.
In this case, they sent this notice to me and/or my ISP. The letter to me wouldn't be too legally harmful really (If a lawyer sent me a letter saying he now represents me, but doesnt ever do anything, eh, its just funny more than anything) But that letter to my ISP where they claim they represent me and that I do not allow the site owner (also me) to publish that file, is clearly harmful, and on par with fraud.
It would be little different if I called up the MPAA's ISP claiming to be the MPAA head of IT and stating we wish to cancel our connectivity. Its simple fraud.
> Otherwise, no matter how cleverly done, they still have just taken 2 very expensive things and > combined them to do the job of one very inexpensive thing. That's just begging to be ridiculed.
Yea your pretty much right. Apple took two very expesive things (A macintosh computer, and a custom hardware device called an iPod) and combined them to do the job of an inexpensive thing (walkman, discman, personal PC built with $50 of parts) and we all saw how rididculed the iPods were... Of course we see how well they sell too..
> Its nice to see the courts use some common sense on this one. > I like Google, but that doesn't make them right on this one.
Its also nice that google never took this to court at all. You'll note these requests were put before the ICANN arbitration panel to follow all of ICANNs rules, not the legal systems rules.
> Real SHOULD be in the clear here; I don't seem them doing any moral harm. But if > their service breaks, about all they can do is keep both pieces. I mean, they > can't sue Apple (but Apple can't sue them either).
I think you missed my point.
If i bought from real because they promise it will work on my ipod, and later it stops working on my ipod, Real made a bad sale and deserves my lawsuit for a broken product.
If apple in turn gets a bunch of pissed customers due to this breakage, and it lessens the apple name, real should be held responsible for this and deserve the lawsuit.
> You deserve to get sued when you put Linux on your Xbox so you can play > TuxRacer... oh wait no you don't.
Due you get sued when you put the Microsoft brand name on tux racer, after breaking tux racer so it wont work, and sell it? Yes you would.
Do you get sued for selling 'xbox tuxracer' to people and it wont run at all? Yes you would.
> even if the problems are not Real's fault in this case
How is this not reals fault in this case?
If you charge money for a service, that is based on doing something with yet another service that you were specifically told you wern't allowed to do (Rejected licensing) then you deserve to get sued by both sides.
> Perhaps another text file that contains the numbers and addresses of such geek > friendly information as the location of the nearest comic book store, Fry's or > Thai restaurant.
Joking aside, I think an offline restaurant guide would be mad hadny (Not just Thai)
Granted, this too I would want on my iBook, not really my iPod, but still...
I've found the best thing to use gmail for is not personal email, but signing up to mailing lists. True google then knows what lists your on, and a sample of your interests, but the searching features alone make it worth the possible tradeoff.
Google Ads also comes into play alot better here. When someone on a list is talking about a product or program, there are targeted ads for said product or program right there if im interested.
Seeing as AT and PS2 are serial ports, and crossing wires, without a resister will short the power lead to ground and fry something, and with a resisitor would simply register as zeros with no clock signal, I can safely say it does not work.
When you send binary data down a serial line, and the other end of the line is shorted out, you will Not get a reply back. Its as simple as that.
The keyboard is a serial device, and the BIOS sends commands to it to set key repeat rate and other default settings. When the BIOS see's no reply, it assumes the keyboard is not there.
Crossing wires in a PS2 cable will no more fool this than shorting wires on your serial port will make the computer see a modem reply to an AT command.
$30. Connect to keyboard port (These are AT, so you may need a $2 PS2->AT adaptor)
These units are designed to take input from a 4x4 matrix keypad, and you program them to send keycodes. Just skip that step. It will handle pretending to be a keyboard that never sends anything.
You can also wire up a keypad to perform 'shutdown' 'reboot' etc features if that would be handy and not a security issue for you.
So now, everyone is going to encode their products' internal software so that any attempt to access it in any way to service it can be construed as attempting to circumvent a protection system.
WEP isnt too useful for security, even for point-to-point links.
For something thats more or less a perm network structure, generally one way to do it is with older cheap boxes (IE p133's) that you can get say 4 of. (Two sets of two, one for each side of the bridge, and redundancy) Throw in a wireless card, hookup your directional antennas, and run without WAP but use IPSEC over the two. Even simplier (But not as flexible or secure, the later of which is all that may be importaint here) is another simpler encryption wrapper and tunnel ppp over it between bridges.
If you go with something like a later p2 or higher, you can get other nice features such as boot from CDROM, USB support (boot from floppy and have root on the USB flash device) etc. Less moving parts the better.
Most PC wireless cards come in the form of a PCI card that you plug a PCMCIA laptop card into. If this expence is too high, you can still throw a second NIC in the box and crossover to a real access point, and just use the PC for the encryption. Simple wireless bridge devices, instead of full blown access point / routers will be better also. You can rely on linux/bsd security totally and not have to worry about people finding the AP's web interface and messing with it (God knows what exploits are available in those, or if their MAC filtering works right/fast, etc)
A p133 will easily handle two 10mbit nics, or one 10mbit nic and a 11mbit wireless card. Even 100mbit cards run mostly at full speed after you throw filtering on the interface.
Your only main worry with old hardware is its failure rate. But if its that much older, you can hopefully afford 2-3 PCs for every one you need, so when something fails you have a backup on hand and can get things back up and running that same day.
> It's their product. You have no "rights" that can determine what they do > with their product.
That isn't actually true.
To understand why, you have to look at things from the start.
In the beginning, there was no concept of IP or laws about it. People could create anything they want, but anyone else could rip it off. Some people were OK with this, and planned for it. Others didn't like it of course.
So we setup a deal, which is called copyright. It's a give/take deal (like all are) which goes like this:
From the artists point of view, you Take - copyright's, which state for a limited time you CAN say what can be done with your work in terms of who else is allowed to distribute it other than yourself. Give - that work to the public domain after that limited time, so the world will be a better place with new ideas to build upon.
So you had the option of using copyright, or not using it.
Some people choose not to use it at all and the same 'anyone can rip the idea' logic applied. Some choose to accept the deal, and the public granted the artist a limited monopoly of sorts. Remember that this monopoly is only over who can distribute the work, under the idea that the person(s) distributing the work can do so for money.
But people nowadays are forgetting what the artist promised to give back to the public in exchange for this. The public domain gets that work to better everyone. This is the cost of copyright. If the artist did not want to accept this deal, then they should not have copyrighted their work in the first place.
Today, artists feel they can take our copyright deal and not pay for it by returning their works to the public domain.
It was only sorta bad when they just stated this was how they wanted it (IE stealing from the public by using copyright without paying) but little could be done because if I obtained a copy (legally or otherwise) it was mine to store and hold onto until the copyright expired, and at that time it was literally mine to do with as I would please.
DRM and these recent laws are actually making it illegal for the public to both demand payment, and try to collect payment by force.
Then on top of this (and LONG after the fact) the matter is made worse because a percentage of the public has decided to not honour the copyright deal what so ever, fully expecting to get ripped off in the end. While most times this expectation may actually be right, there ARE times when it would not be, and these are the people/artists that still deserve the deal of copyright and can't get it.
Its almost perfectly comparable to a bank (the public) that gives out credit loans (temp monopolys) to people (artists) When a bank does this, and a person does not pay back the credit loan, they are free to both never loan to that person again, as well as attempt to collect their debt.
These new laws are basically making it (in aniligy) illegal for the bank to collect their past due debts, AND forcing them to still hand out loans to these people.
Natrually the bank (IE the public) would hate this! If the bank was to decide that they simply are not giving out loans to anyone at all anymore, the govt would definatly not step in and tell them they have no choice but to do so. But this is exactly what has happened with copyright. We, the public, are told to deal with getting screwed, and told that it will continue to happen, by our own government.
Both sides are guilty here. First the artists, then the people. I'm not going to pretend I have any numbers or percentages of each group are playing fair vs are playing crooked, but I think it is safe to say its a BIG percent on both sides not playing fair.
The only answers are, both sides need to straighten up and fly right, or just remove the deal all together.
VLC has options to open from a file, a disc, a network stream, or a capture device.
I use this to stream from my fileserver currently, and just recently found a version compiled for tivo that lets you stream from the saved shows.
Re:In case of emergency... break IP rights.
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
In the USA, laws do not ever ever grant rights. Laws only limit rights that we already have. By default, we have all rights not specifically limited by laws.
The method used by most hardware providers is a password based on some form of hash dirived from the serial number printed on the unit.
Auto grabbing anything from the internet is generally 'bad'. Although the worst case in your solution would be an attacker can revoke all the keys and remove the backdoor, its still best to not rely on internet communications at all.
Backdoor passwords are almost required, because if they are not, the company would be bad-mouthed by all the morons who lock themselfs out and the company can't fix their problem for them.
Generally its safe to assume that posession=ownership, and a serial printed on the unit can be read by a person who has the hardware in their posession.
For companys that can 'afford' the cost of hardware, there is usually also a switch or button that activly needs manipulated to enable the backdoor.
If you can't assure your networks physical security, chances are computer security won't help you anyways.
Seriously how many times do you want to copy the same program from tv ? You didn't create the content, you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?
What right do I have to it? Who else can I trust to ensure I have a copy of the show once the copyright expires? That is after all why you are getting a copyright on it in the first place, so that the public domain can have it for anything/everything after the term expires.
How many works have been lost so far that are rightfully the property of the public domain due to the authors illegal use of copyright without paying for that right like they agreed to? DRM only aids with that illigit use of copyright by authors.
If the soul can't be measured by science, its existence is unknowable. For practical purposes you can act as if it doesn't exist, but we can't prove it false.
In a way it can be proven false. If you can account for every single last operation of the human body and mind, this automatically rules out an unknowable element, and unless someone defines one of these known elements as a soul, then it would be proven that there is no soul (Or atleast it plays no role in our having life)
Hopefully someday our race will indeed have that level of knowledge about the human body and mind. Clearly, not in our lifetimes however:)
Just a nitpick, but they are not dislexics at all.
IP over firewire and firewire over IP are two very very different things that serve different purposes. IP over firewire fills the more common need (IP networking), and thus it is talked about more.
While firewire is indeed more than just the hardware layer, it is a protocol, its generally easier to encode your video into ANY other format and then send over IP than to use firewire over IP. This is why you almost never see it mentioned. While this guy is indeed looking for this solution, do keep in mind that most common and lower end video hardware does not support firewire still, and even older but Very high end video hardware did not support it. When one spends $10k on a camera they arnt very quick to toss it for something new.
It sounds like your system is just setup totally wrong. IP phones have nothing to do with the internet unless you purposly set them up that way, and you shouldn't.
The way our setup works, we have local lines going into the PBX (The PBX is IP based, the lines are BRI based.) You dial 9 and a local number and the calls go out the local lines. This won't be affected by the internet at all. If you dial 9 and a a long distance number, the PBX will see if we have any friendly PBXs in that areacode and then attempt to route over the internet to place the call through a local line there, -however-, if that PBX is unreachable over the internet, the call is placed as long distance over our local lines. Additionally, you can dial 8 instead of 9 and force the call out the local lines and not at all use the internet (IE the PBX is reachable enough to reply, but there isnt enough bandwidth somewhere between to actually have a decent quality phone call.)
Relying on local lines over the internet is just needless and stupid.
Relying on long distance is also stupid without some sort of fallback, but -having- (not relying on) longdistance over the internet is good as it can save long distance charges when working (Which admittantly is most of the time.)
Slashdot Mirror
> Pedestrians have the right of way on most streets under 35mph
This is only the case when BOTH the car and the person have the right to go at the same time. If the car has the right of way and the pedestrian does not, the 'pedestrians have the right of way' rule does not at all apply.
Its similar to a car going one direction wanting to turn left, and a car going the other direction on the same road wanting to go straight. Both will have a green light, but straight has right of way above right or left hand turns, and right hand turns have the right of way before left hand turns.
Just because both have the green light doesn't mean the left turning car can just go.
> I love it when I try to cross the street in pouring rain and pricks in their cars honk at me.
> I'm the one getting soaking wet yet I'm inconveniencing them.
If the car has the green light and you have a red (or dont walk sign), then not only are you inconveniencing them but you are out right commiting a traffic voilation which is illegal.
Its similar (though not nearly as bad) as jay walking in the middle of a road full of moving traffic and -expecting- everyone stop for you.
In both situations, if it can be proved (easy for jay walking as its 100% of the time, not so easy at an intersection) and you got hit and hurt/killed, the motorist would not be held responsible for it (rightly so.)
A pedestrian only has the right of way when they have a green light with traffic, or a walk sign. Thats it. When the pedestrian has the green, and so does a car, THEN the pedestrian has the right of way before the car does.
In the case of rain, yes its nice for motorists to allow pedestrians to go first as clearly walking in the rain sucks and the motorist doesnt have to deal with that, but don't forget that they are simply being nice and are in no way required to do so when they have the green light and you have a dont-walk or red light.
The "penalty of perjury" bit only applies to the belief that they represent the copyright holder. It's a common misconception (propagated by the DMCA creators) to think they need to be sure before sending threats.
I can send a DMCA to any ISP and claim that
a) I think a particular file contains copyrighted work written (shot/drawn) by my sister
b) under penalty of perjury I promise that I represent my sister
The only lie I can be made responsible for in the court is that I don't represent my sister (if I don't). I can always say I was mistaken about that photo/text and get away with it.
But thats what they are doing.
"we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed"
Assuming I own copyright to the file, and im not reposting some work either in public domain or where the copyright holder allows this (freeware etc), but a file that I personally made so i own the copyright...
They are claiming to both me and my ISP that they are representing *ME*
If some random lawyer started suing people for stupid crap and claiming he was doing it on my behalf, and i knew nothing about it, it would be obvious to any judge that lawyer needs the smackdown and is in the wrong.
In this case, they sent this notice to me and/or my ISP.
The letter to me wouldn't be too legally harmful really (If a lawyer sent me a letter saying he now represents me, but doesnt ever do anything, eh, its just funny more than anything)
But that letter to my ISP where they claim they represent me and that I do not allow the site owner (also me) to publish that file, is clearly harmful, and on par with fraud.
It would be little different if I called up the MPAA's ISP claiming to be the MPAA head of IT and stating we wish to cancel our connectivity.
Its simple fraud.
> Otherwise, no matter how cleverly done, they still have just taken 2 very expensive things and
> combined them to do the job of one very inexpensive thing. That's just begging to be ridiculed.
Yea your pretty much right.
Apple took two very expesive things (A macintosh computer, and a custom hardware device called an iPod) and combined them to do the job of an inexpensive thing (walkman, discman, personal PC built with $50 of parts) and we all saw how rididculed the iPods were... Of course we see how well they sell too..
> Its nice to see the courts use some common sense on this one.
> I like Google, but that doesn't make them right on this one.
Its also nice that google never took this to court at all.
You'll note these requests were put before the ICANN arbitration panel to follow all of ICANNs rules, not the legal systems rules.
> Real SHOULD be in the clear here; I don't seem them doing any moral harm. But if
> their service breaks, about all they can do is keep both pieces. I mean, they
> can't sue Apple (but Apple can't sue them either).
I think you missed my point.
If i bought from real because they promise it will work on my ipod, and later it stops working on my ipod, Real made a bad sale and deserves my lawsuit for a broken product.
If apple in turn gets a bunch of pissed customers due to this breakage, and it lessens the apple name, real should be held responsible for this and deserve the lawsuit.
> You deserve to get sued when you put Linux on your Xbox so you can play
> TuxRacer... oh wait no you don't.
Due you get sued when you put the Microsoft brand name on tux racer, after breaking tux racer so it wont work, and sell it? Yes you would.
Do you get sued for selling 'xbox tuxracer' to people and it wont run at all? Yes you would.
> even if the problems are not Real's fault in this case
How is this not reals fault in this case?
If you charge money for a service, that is based on doing something with yet another service that you were specifically told you wern't allowed to do (Rejected licensing) then you deserve to get sued by both sides.
> Perhaps another text file that contains the numbers and addresses of such geek
> friendly information as the location of the nearest comic book store, Fry's or
> Thai restaurant.
Joking aside, I think an offline restaurant guide would be mad hadny (Not just Thai)
Granted, this too I would want on my iBook, not really my iPod, but still...
IRC search?
Dunno if that was a typo or not, but thats news to me..
Any info on that you could share?
I've found the best thing to use gmail for is not personal email, but signing up to mailing lists. True google then knows what lists your on, and a sample of your interests, but the searching features alone make it worth the possible tradeoff.
Google Ads also comes into play alot better here. When someone on a list is talking about a product or program, there are targeted ads for said product or program right there if im interested.
Something to think about atleast...
> Then why does it work?
Seeing as AT and PS2 are serial ports, and crossing wires, without a resister will short the power lead to ground and fry something, and with a resisitor would simply register as zeros with no clock signal, I can safely say it does not work.
When you send binary data down a serial line, and the other end of the line is shorted out, you will Not get a reply back. Its as simple as that.
The keyboard is a serial device, and the BIOS sends commands to it to set key repeat rate and other default settings. When the BIOS see's no reply, it assumes the keyboard is not there.
Crossing wires in a PS2 cable will no more fool this than shorting wires on your serial port will make the computer see a modem reply to an AT command.
http://www.solutions-cubed.com/solutions%20cube
$30. Connect to keyboard port (These are AT, so you may need a $2 PS2->AT adaptor)
These units are designed to take input from a 4x4 matrix keypad, and you program them to send keycodes. Just skip that step. It will handle pretending to be a keyboard that never sends anything.
You can also wire up a keypad to perform 'shutdown' 'reboot' etc features if that would be handy and not a security issue for you.
the restriction that the first digit of an exchange (the yyy part) cannot be a 0 or 1 can go away
:}
[xxx-yyy-zzzz]
That restriction fell at the same time (1995 thereabouts). I have had phone numbers, 714-3098 for a cellphone for example, of that form.
7 is not a 0 or 1 though, so that isn't the best example
So now, everyone is going to encode their products' internal software so that any attempt to access it in any way to service it can be construed as attempting to circumvent a protection system.
Thank god the DMCA doesn't outlaw that.
WEP isnt too useful for security, even for point-to-point links.
For something thats more or less a perm network structure, generally one way to do it is with older cheap boxes (IE p133's) that you can get say 4 of. (Two sets of two, one for each side of the bridge, and redundancy)
Throw in a wireless card, hookup your directional antennas, and run without WAP but use IPSEC over the two. Even simplier (But not as flexible or secure, the later of which is all that may be importaint here) is another simpler encryption wrapper and tunnel ppp over it between bridges.
If you go with something like a later p2 or higher, you can get other nice features such as boot from CDROM, USB support (boot from floppy and have root on the USB flash device) etc. Less moving parts the better.
Most PC wireless cards come in the form of a PCI card that you plug a PCMCIA laptop card into. If this expence is too high, you can still throw a second NIC in the box and crossover to a real access point, and just use the PC for the encryption. Simple wireless bridge devices, instead of full blown access point / routers will be better also. You can rely on linux/bsd security totally and not have to worry about people finding the AP's web interface and messing with it (God knows what exploits are available in those, or if their MAC filtering works right/fast, etc)
A p133 will easily handle two 10mbit nics, or one 10mbit nic and a 11mbit wireless card. Even 100mbit cards run mostly at full speed after you throw filtering on the interface.
Your only main worry with old hardware is its failure rate.
But if its that much older, you can hopefully afford 2-3 PCs for every one you need, so when something fails you have a backup on hand and can get things back up and running that same day.
> It's their product. You have no "rights" that can determine what they do
> with their product.
That isn't actually true.
To understand why, you have to look at things from the start.
In the beginning, there was no concept of IP or laws about it.
People could create anything they want, but anyone else could rip it off.
Some people were OK with this, and planned for it. Others didn't like it of course.
So we setup a deal, which is called copyright. It's a give/take deal (like all are) which goes like this:
From the artists point of view, you
Take - copyright's, which state for a limited time you CAN say what can be done with your work in terms of who else is allowed to distribute it other than yourself.
Give - that work to the public domain after that limited time, so the world will be a better place with new ideas to build upon.
So you had the option of using copyright, or not using it.
Some people choose not to use it at all and the same 'anyone can rip the idea' logic applied. Some choose to accept the deal, and the public granted the artist a limited monopoly of sorts. Remember that this monopoly is only over who can distribute the work, under the idea that the person(s) distributing the work can do so for money.
But people nowadays are forgetting what the artist promised to give back to the public in exchange for this. The public domain gets that work to better everyone.
This is the cost of copyright.
If the artist did not want to accept this deal, then they should not have copyrighted their work in the first place.
Today, artists feel they can take our copyright deal and not pay for it by returning their works to the public domain.
It was only sorta bad when they just stated this was how they wanted it (IE stealing from the public by using copyright without paying) but little could be done because if I obtained a copy (legally or otherwise) it was mine to store and hold onto until the copyright expired, and at that time it was literally mine to do with as I would please.
DRM and these recent laws are actually making it illegal for the public to both demand payment, and try to collect payment by force.
Then on top of this (and LONG after the fact) the matter is made worse because a percentage of the public has decided to not honour the copyright deal what so ever, fully expecting to get ripped off in the end.
While most times this expectation may actually be right, there ARE times when it would not be, and these are the people/artists that still deserve the deal of copyright and can't get it.
Its almost perfectly comparable to a bank (the public) that gives out credit loans (temp monopolys) to people (artists)
When a bank does this, and a person does not pay back the credit loan, they are free to both never loan to that person again, as well as attempt to collect their debt.
These new laws are basically making it (in aniligy) illegal for the bank to collect their past due debts, AND forcing them to still hand out loans to these people.
Natrually the bank (IE the public) would hate this!
If the bank was to decide that they simply are not giving out loans to anyone at all anymore, the govt would definatly not step in and tell them they have no choice but to do so.
But this is exactly what has happened with copyright.
We, the public, are told to deal with getting screwed, and told that it will continue to happen, by our own government.
Both sides are guilty here. First the artists, then the people.
I'm not going to pretend I have any numbers or percentages of each group are playing fair vs are playing crooked, but I think it is safe to say its a BIG percent on both sides not playing fair.
The only answers are, both sides need to straighten up and fly right, or just remove the deal all together.
VLC has options to open from a file, a disc, a network stream, or a capture device.
I use this to stream from my fileserver currently, and just recently found a version compiled for tivo that lets you stream from the saved shows.
In the USA, laws do not ever ever grant rights.
Laws only limit rights that we already have.
By default, we have all rights not specifically limited by laws.
> Try Abandonware sites first. Most of the titles they carry will be in
> muddy legal waters
That is the point to this exercize.. To un-muddy the water and make this perfectly legal.
Also
> The argument on old hardware is unrelated to this story, though ?
Yes, thats why he only mentioned games (This is called software)
Hardware can be emulated.
Actually,
an OC-3 is 155mbit/sec
an OC-12 is 622 mbit/sec
The method used by most hardware providers is a password based on some form of hash dirived from the serial number printed on the unit.
Auto grabbing anything from the internet is generally 'bad'.
Although the worst case in your solution would be an attacker can revoke all the keys and remove the backdoor, its still best to not rely on internet communications at all.
Backdoor passwords are almost required, because if they are not, the company would be bad-mouthed by all the morons who lock themselfs out and the company can't fix their problem for them.
Generally its safe to assume that posession=ownership, and a serial printed on the unit can be read by a person who has the hardware in their posession.
For companys that can 'afford' the cost of hardware, there is usually also a switch or button that activly needs manipulated to enable the backdoor.
If you can't assure your networks physical security, chances are computer security won't help you anyways.
Seriously how many times do you want to copy the same program from tv ? You didn't create the content, you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?
What right do I have to it?
Who else can I trust to ensure I have a copy of the show once the copyright expires?
That is after all why you are getting a copyright on it in the first place, so that the public domain can have it for anything/everything after the term expires.
How many works have been lost so far that are rightfully the property of the public domain due to the authors illegal use of copyright without paying for that right like they agreed to?
DRM only aids with that illigit use of copyright by authors.
If the soul can't be measured by science, its existence is unknowable. For practical purposes you can act as if it doesn't exist, but we can't prove it false.
:)
In a way it can be proven false.
If you can account for every single last operation of the human body and mind, this automatically rules out an unknowable element, and unless someone defines one of these known elements as a soul, then it would be proven that there is no soul (Or atleast it plays no role in our having life)
Hopefully someday our race will indeed have that level of knowledge about the human body and mind. Clearly, not in our lifetimes however
Just a nitpick, but they are not dislexics at all.
IP over firewire and firewire over IP are two very very different things that serve different purposes.
IP over firewire fills the more common need (IP networking), and thus it is talked about more.
While firewire is indeed more than just the hardware layer, it is a protocol, its generally easier to encode your video into ANY other format and then send over IP than to use firewire over IP. This is why you almost never see it mentioned.
While this guy is indeed looking for this solution, do keep in mind that most common and lower end video hardware does not support firewire still, and even older but Very high end video hardware did not support it. When one spends $10k on a camera they arnt very quick to toss it for something new.
It sounds like your system is just setup totally wrong.
IP phones have nothing to do with the internet unless you purposly set them up that way, and you shouldn't.
The way our setup works, we have local lines going into the PBX (The PBX is IP based, the lines are BRI based.) You dial 9 and a local number and the calls go out the local lines. This won't be affected by the internet at all.
If you dial 9 and a a long distance number, the PBX will see if we have any friendly PBXs in that areacode and then attempt to route over the internet to place the call through a local line there, -however-, if that PBX is unreachable over the internet, the call is placed as long distance over our local lines.
Additionally, you can dial 8 instead of 9 and force the call out the local lines and not at all use the internet (IE the PBX is reachable enough to reply, but there isnt enough bandwidth somewhere between to actually have a decent quality phone call.)
Relying on local lines over the internet is just needless and stupid.
Relying on long distance is also stupid without some sort of fallback, but -having- (not relying on) longdistance over the internet is good as it can save long distance charges when working (Which admittantly is most of the time.)