> If a significant proportion of the profitable lines are abandoned in favour of > voip, the teleco gets upset.
But you cant replace a phone line with a protocol to no-where. You still need a PSTN connection if you plan on talking to other peoples phones.
I cant see IBM cutting their phones off from the rest of the world, and no longer accepting any phone calls. Why do you think this is what they will do? that would be very stupid, for any company do give up their phone presence.
Re:Big Blue vs. The Banna Republic Phone Company
on
IBM To Run VoIP On Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
> The parent point was about the primary part of the news: moving so many PBXs from > PSTN to VoIP will cut the profit of PSTN providers, specifically from long > distance calls. The questions is: what are they going to do about it? Do they > afraid a potential death of "long distance call" industry?
Yes, I know this. Aparneltly you and the parent poster (and most of the replys Ive read) dont understand the difference between a PBX and the PSTN.
Think of a PBX as a network switch, or a NAT device. Then think of the PSTN as the Internet.
(Ok horid comparisons but go with me on this for a sec)
Now, basically what you are saying is "If you replace your home switch/NAT device, with another one, wont your ISP get pissed off that you are by-passing them for internet access?" Now you can see, you still would need an ISP to get to the internet, and having a number of computers connected to a switch has nothing what so ever to do with the internet, even thou the possibility of being connected to the internet is there.
If you have a PBX, you still need to conect to the PSTN if you plan on making calls to any other phones on the PSTnetwork.
I can't see IBM chaning from older PBX to newer VoIP technology, and then for no reason what so ever disconnecting from the PSTN and not paying the phone company. Noone would be able to call IBM, and they couldnt call out!
Now a little network leason.
I'm sure you have heard of what a T1 is. A T1 is a type of service (NOT a type of line/connection) which most people dont make that distinction. The physical line is called a DS1. A DS1 is 24 B channels (Each B channel is 64k/sec of bandwidth) A DS0 is one channel (ISDN has one or two of these), a DS1 is 24, and a DS3 is 720 B's (I think, a DS3 is 30 DS1's) So, a DS1 is the line. When you use all those B channels as one data line, the DS1 is called a T1. But a T1 is not the only option. You can also keep those 24 channels seperate, and in this case the DS1 is called a PRI. With this setup, you generally turn up one or more of these 24 channels each as its own phoneline, so you can get 24 phonelines. Due to switching, this isnt exactly acurate. You either set the PRI to have 24 channels of 56k each, or 23 channels of 64k. The extra space is used for signaling. If you are doing voice, or analog dialup for an isp, you can go with 24 chanels of 56k.. the extra 8k is switching. Or you can just reserve one whole channel for switching, and use the remaining 23 at their full 64k and do all of voice, analog dialup, and additionally ISDN dialup. For voice, one generally uses 24 chans at 56k, as a phone line wont use much more than 8-16k of bandwidth anyways, and specifically for a phone system, modems dont come into play.
Now back to why I typed all that.
If you have say 3 offices, one being the main office. You get a number of PRI's into the building for your PSTN connection, each PRI giving you 24 phone lines. Then you get a T1 connection from that office to the other two. The PBX is able to route calls over the T1's between offices, and then route however is needed to get to the PRIs when someone needs to use an external line.
PBX's ususally use their own wierd data format, so an entire T1 is wasted on this one function. (IP is not running over it)
With VoIP, they can either use existing point-to-point IP links (Im sure IBM has faster than a single T1 internal links between offices already) and just use those. They can also take that T1 they had before and convert it to IP, or just get rid of it if they have much faster bandwidth already (IE a T3 or better)
The links between offices are ALREADY being provided by the phone companys. It really depends if they continue to use their dedicated phone links with IP, or if they cancel those lines to use existing backbone connections they already have for IP. That will be the ONLY change the phone company would see.
VoIP just adds more
Re:Big Blue vs. The Banna Republic Phone Company
on
IBM To Run VoIP On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> How is IBM going to handle irate state-owned telecos who are suddenly > deprived of IBM monies?
IBM is using linux for VoIP. This has nothing to do with phone companys.
> How do we know you're not a troll? How do we know you're right and he's wrong? > Your information doesn't match anything I've ever heard. > > Said the AC.;-)
Well I cant speak for the AC, but for myself, lets see here..
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/friends Friends of Nasarius (593729) * Trolling4Dollars (627073)
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/fans Fans of Nasarius (593729) * Trolling4Dollars (627073)
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/foes Foes of Nasarius (593729) * dissy (172727)
Yea, to me that makes him look like a troll.
Additionally, not only do I believe I am right, but my post was modded up. Not only that, someone replied (AC as it was, but still) with an example, and that too was modded up. Nasarius/suspected-troll's posts have not, nor have been in his post history. Mine have been.
Granted its only credibility, but its all I can give at this point. I have worked with a recording studio before and have been told this by people much more knowledgable than myself in this area. A slashdot post with zero evedence and a clear kneejerk reaction attitude will not change that opinion.
>> Um, yes it does. >> Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.
> Only if you click the button maked "Yes" to a message along the lines of "This > browser is not the default web browser. Would you like it to be?".
"Only if you click"... yea, and iTunes only upgrades the iPod driver if you click the OK button to do it.
>> When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.
> No they don't. Mozilla, Netscape and even IE don't prevent you from using any > other browser, they just change the file associations for URL's and HTML pages > so that they point to themselves. They don't prevent you from using any of the > other browsers.
Well iTunes does just that, and upgrades the driver for its hardware. Whats the big deal?
MS did used to bundle IE and tcp stack patches back in the win95/98 days.
>> Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'
> Amen to that. Your post would be the first to get it.
Well, I have installed iTunes on win. My eyes see that you are wrong and I am right. If you would bother to install it, you would see the same thing.
Of course god forbid a slashbot would actually CHECK something before blabing on about it.
Besides, there could very well be technical reasons why only one app should access the iPod at once. Programming issues that myself, nor you, nor many other programmers have managed to solve yet. If you really want to bitch at apple for not doing something that no one else does, its just making you look all the worse for it. People wouldnt bitch about MS's lack of security if most other (all other?) OS's wernt better at it.
Ever try to sync a palm pilot or other such device over multiple computers? Its not easy or fun to do. There is no one technical way to solve all of those problems, so you have to pick which features you give up to get other features (IE cant fully sync both ways if there are more than two end points)
Actually its pretty funny. When apple did NOT do this, and the ipod connected to the mac erased the itunes library (as it should, if the ipod is empty, it has to sync and be exact, so the itunes lib should be just as empty) everyone bitched and moaned. So they fixed it so it did not work that way, and works the only one other way possible, and people still bitch.
make up your mind, or stop using the hardware/software. real simple here.
> The thing is, you ought to have the choice of using whatever program you want. > Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape > when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the > www.
Um, yes it does. Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.
iTunes does the same, it installs a new driver that MM doesnt work with.
When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.
You should take that back and get another iPod, as the iPod does indeed come with a USB cable.
Matter of fact, the cable it comes with has both USB and firewire on the same end. You can use it one of two ways (Well, correct ways, you can also do what you are doing)
a) plug firewire into pc. data and power over same line. b) plug usb into pc, and firewire into the ac adaptor. data over usb, power over firewire.
any other setup is just wrong and doesnt make sense to do. (Yes, this includes what your doing)
> Umm, the point is that you shouldn't have to choose one over the other, you > should be able to use both.
Well, once you figure out how to have multiple drivers controlling the same piece of hardware, not only will you have solved the iTunes problem, but you'll have solved problems that research scientists have been trying to come up with a solution for for years.
Or to put it another way You _should_ be able to double click a linux ELF executable in windows and have it just work even without a.exe extention. You should be able to run a windows exe from the linux command line and have it run flawlessly too.
And no, dont point out how those two items are possible, because using itunes and MM is equally as possible (easier actually)
Alot of things _should_ be, but that doesnt mean its technically possible to do, for you or anyone else.
> I'm sorry, but when I expect to get an honest evaluation of iTunes, and instead > get some witty tripe from a pretentious snot, should I not be disappointed?
You read the onion instead of CNN for your world news too, dont you?
"Warning! You are now installing Windows XP. If you have previously installed any third-party Internet browsers or email programs, they may not function properly after the upgrade. Microsoft does not support the use of third-party Internet browsers and email programs. If you want to use those functions, you must use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or use an operating system not published by Microsoft. "
Heres the thing about your point. Windows XP does not say that. Or anything CLOSE to that. Atleast not on the copies of XP home and XP pro I have.
There are two issues in my response to you (I think you are more interested in the second)
A) If windows did have a message such as the one you quoted above, I would see that, not aggree, and not install windows. Problem solved.
B) Even if they did have that notice, you are arguing that it is not good to allow such a thing. Arguable, but as we have all seen in the past, if people are so stupid as to call their ISP when netscape ruins the registry, or call palm about a 3rd party app not doing what that app claims on their palm pilot, or calls MS tech support for a harddisk failure on a drive that is 9 years old, how could you even think a company nowadays will claim support for anything they dont have full control over?
Now if installing windows trashed everything else (IE linux partitions) that you add on AFTER the installer is done, then I can see a problem. But if the installer claims it will do something, and then does it, its your own fault for allowing it to do exactly what it told you it would.
If windows installer would delete linux, I would pull that drive out of the machine first. I would complain when after the installer is done and windows is there and working, if i connected the linux disk and it then found and deleted it.
But apple is stating up front it will definatly break this feature. If you run a program that says it will break something, and it does, its your fault. Now if you reinstalled musicmatch and itunes did somethng AFTERWARDS to break musicmatch again, there would be a problem. That doesnt happen. Thou itunes may stop working properly with the ipod. but they explicity state that both wont work at the same time.
So yes you are right, if apple or MS did this, we would all be up in arms. But nether company is doing so. So what is your problem again?
> You can see inside the envelope using backscatter xrays. > > Using these technologies together they can tell not only what the shape of > something inside the envelope or other package is, regardless of packing > material, but also what it consists of.
Yea, and they *could* open the package up and look inside too....
The whole point of the article is they dont need to do these things with the new technology they are bragging about.
That isnt a troll what so ever, its a perfectly valid point.
> Speed is not an issue. I just want something reasonable where i can do what > i want.
Those are called T1's. T1's are resonable for what you get. DSL is resonable for what you get. Expecting one service for another services super low price is not resonable however.
> If im paying for the connection i should be able to do what i want with it.
But you arnt paying for it. You dont want to pay $400, you want to pay $60. The $60 line does not include those abilities, that is WHY its $60.
> I am willing to pay considerably more then $60 a month if the service is right. > My main point of this question was finding out what other nerds are doing.
Personally, I have a 56k dialup which my ISP routes a/24 and a/26 to me over. I have no ports filtered and can run any services I want over it. The dialup is 24/7 as well.
I have a special deal worked out with the ISP, however if one was to pay normal prices for this, it only runs about $150/month.
My connection is also alot more stable than the cable or dsl line of everyone I know, many times over. My modem may disconnect and redial once every 30-45 days, but the redial takes under 2 minutes, and besides the 2 minute 'lag', nothing gets disconnected or dropped TCP wise.
I'm sure you wont need mad IPs like I have, but you can generally find dedicated dialup for at or under $100/mo, and get some IPs thrown on that.
My next upgrade will be to a T1. I am waiting until I move, as i'm not paying install charges twice in the same year:P But I refuse to use cable or dsl, because those are not the level of service I require. On the other hand, I dont complain that the cheaper options that dont apply to me are cheaper.
> My car my suck at 20 mpg, but I love my Lexus RX300 SUV. It rides VERY smooth, > VERY comfortable, VERY luxurious. > I can afford it easily, so why can't I have it.
I can afford the fine I would possibly get if I came up and pissed on your front door. It doesnt effect me in a bad way at all, matter of fact it effects me in a good way assuming I had to go before doing so. But out of concideration for whos door that is, I would not, as would not most people.
You are not taking in concideration our planet, which is not yours, and no you can not afford.
I'm far from saying you should switch, or there are better (or really any realistic) other options right now, and I am glad to see you would change if there was another option, but your attitude not only is greedy/selfish, but the root cause why so few people are even looking for options, and thus why so few other optinos exist.
> Made by MicroOptical and like everything made by MicroOptical they're "not on the > market yet". Vapour.
Fortunatly for this project however, every item I would need to build this setup myself is available right now. As a matter of fact, the only part I cant have this very second is the software (Designing something from scratch to emulate someone elses software is easier than totally making it from scratch however)
HUD glasses have been available for a couple of years in different forms. The wearable computer existd in multiple forms. Think about the CPU power of an iPaq, and then its size.
I had this idea myself not 3 years ago, except i desired face/voice/OCR reconition in my device, but still dont think we are close enough to some of those technologies to currently do it. OCR is about the only thing that may work, IE you look at a store sign and it pops up info, or a street sign and you can bring up a map of the area, etc.
The hardest part is getting data INTO the system, not out. But I dont doubt for a second that people are already working on the out part like this, as they have been doing it for atleast 4 years.
> If Windows would do this to your drive there would be a public outcry. Here on >/. it is more like "ah well, shit happens, it's mentioned in the errata so suck > it up and get over it".
But windows could do this. All it would have to do is send one of the two normal APATI commands to this cdrom drive, and it will fry just the same.
LG stated the bug is in their cdrom drive, and one of two commands sent to it will execute the buggy routine in firmware, causing it to dump its firmware totally. They cant be fixed because to flash firmware, you have to use a program that is in the firmware in the first place.
> I've also heard you can just delete the playlist and create a new one, but I'm > not sure if that works or not.
Yes, it works. The 'limit' is only there so you cant script automated mass-burns and pay a monkey $1/hr to just swap cds out. Takes a bit more work.
If you burn one cd, and then just dupe that cd, its no longer itunes software that is doing the disc copy, so they dont have to worry about it legally.
Actually, the library of congress is suppost to have a copy of anything copyright is used to protect.
The reason is because copyright does expire, and at that point that work becomes public property so that we can innovate by using it in ways the creator did not think of.
I've wondered why noone has used this argument in court yet.
"But I looked for that song at loc.gov and they show no record of it what so ever. Naturally, they cant have a copyright on the [whatever] or else that wouldnt be so. So when i distributed [whatever] to my best knowledge it was not illegal to do so."
> Wouldn't it be all right if the site said something like [snip]
Actually its all right, right now. There is no legal defense in the US they could possibly use to enforce this.
Even libel and slander have restrictions.
If you call someone a word, and the definition of that word is actually fitting, its turned from 'a slanderous opinion' into 'fact'.
Additionally, until its defined legally, there is no legal method to say they are or arnt 'spyware'
It would be like you suing me because i called you a hapfalpostbataca. Ideally these cases are simply thrown out instantly and arnt even heard by a judge. Even if it wasnt, judges arnt allowed to set definitions of a word. Followed with the fact even if it amazingly went this far, all one would have to do is tell the judge "I did a google search on the word spyware, and the first 200 pages all describe spyware as this ______, so i based my assuption on the definition being used currently."
The day that becomes illegal is the day 99% of slashdot goes to jail or gets fined for not using the term 'DSL' correctly.
> I did. I responded on the basis of the mails as linked.
> Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the linked e-mails it says that?
http://www.sosdg.org/attmail.html This is the only email I see linked from the article.
In it, 4th paragraph down:
Therefore, we need to know which IP address(es) are used by your outbound e-mail service so we can selectively permit them. Please send this information to the following e-mail address (rm-antiattspam@ems.att.com).
This email is sent to AT&T customers. They use the word 'your'. They are talking about their own customers mail servers.
> That doesn't excuse your rudeness, of course.
Granted, but seeing 90% of slashdot complain about something that isnt even happening, but they dont realize it because noone reads the articles, and responds based on the almost certain incorrect description slashdot provides, tends to do that to a person:P
I do appologize for the rudeness, but now that you know what this whitelist is really about, go back and read the slashdot comments, even at +4, and you can see why posting anything factual on this article is an almost impossible thing to do.
> [snip] I think that most ISPs will probably configure their near-edge/gateway > routers to drop any packets that have source addresses not within their > respective network.
Ironically, this is the same solution to stop spoofing with IPv4.
Spoofing can be stopped with IPv4 using that exact method right now. Clearly that isnt the case however, and wont be with IPv6 either.:(
> The address space exhaustion is here already. I cannot get any more IP > addresses. I only get two, and I pay extra for the second.
No, it isnt here. At your ISP it looks to be, but that doesnt mean squat. Some 3rd world countries have very little food. Does this mean there is a global food shortage? Your statement implys so.
> If I want more I need to switch away from cable modem to something > more expensive.
And this continues to prove my point. If there was truly an IP shortage, how would it be possible to switch to ANYTHING to get more?
There is no shortage. As a matter of fact, only about 75% of the IPv4 space is even allocated.
IP blocks cost money. Companys dont wish to pay this money. People dont either. Still doesnt mean there is a shortage, just noone wants to pay what is being asked.
Using the same logic, there is almost a music shortage, seeing as alot of people dont wish to pay the huge prices being asked for music.
> My point wes to exemplify the fact that a phone or doesn't need to host > services to THE INTERNET
NAT does not prevent this. Using NAT, you are bridging two networks together. NAT doesnt mean you cant talk from one network to the other.
If I had access to (or broke into using an exploit) your NAT gateway, I would have full access to your private IPs.
Firewalls are what you want for security, which decides based on rules (that you set) what is allowed to go throuhg it and what isnt.
And do you have any idea how much memory a NAT device would require to store its state table on IPv6?
For every single connection through it, it has to remember the first connection, who made it (Internal IP), IP flags, destiantion (Internet IP), and all sorts of other goodies. It needs this so when the reply comes back in destined to the NAT device (Which did not make the request) it will know where the request really needs to go. IPv6 allows more IPs, thus more machines using private space generally. Even if not (IE: for you, who would just be switching existing systems from IPv4 to IPv6) the table will still take atleast 4 times the memory to hold. For small networks and a moderatly decent system doing NAT this may not be a problem, but for any decent sized network, NAT would be slightly worse than it is currently.
Also, even though most ISPs will filter RFC1819 space (private IPs), if you happen to get one that doesnt, a nice trick you can do is this (under linux atleast):
route add 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 via [your NAT system IP] With the via, any packets I address to the 192.168.1.0/24 network are routed directly to your NAT gateway for processing. Unless you specifically block my traffic using a firewall, I can now reach your network. Does your nat gateway magically do this for you? Does your ISP? May wanna look into it.. Chances are one of the two is saving your ass, but I wouldnt want to count on it for my network.
Slashdot Mirror
> If a significant proportion of the profitable lines are abandoned in favour of
> voip, the teleco gets upset.
But you cant replace a phone line with a protocol to no-where.
You still need a PSTN connection if you plan on talking to other peoples phones.
I cant see IBM cutting their phones off from the rest of the world, and no longer accepting any phone calls. Why do you think this is what they will do? that would be very stupid, for any company do give up their phone presence.
> The parent point was about the primary part of the news: moving so many PBXs from
> PSTN to VoIP will cut the profit of PSTN providers, specifically from long
> distance calls. The questions is: what are they going to do about it? Do they
> afraid a potential death of "long distance call" industry?
Yes, I know this. Aparneltly you and the parent poster (and most of the replys Ive read) dont understand the difference between a PBX and the PSTN.
Think of a PBX as a network switch, or a NAT device.
Then think of the PSTN as the Internet.
(Ok horid comparisons but go with me on this for a sec)
Now, basically what you are saying is "If you replace your home switch/NAT device, with another one, wont your ISP get pissed off that you are by-passing them for internet access?"
Now you can see, you still would need an ISP to get to the internet, and having a number of computers connected to a switch has nothing what so ever to do with the internet, even thou the possibility of being connected to the internet is there.
If you have a PBX, you still need to conect to the PSTN if you plan on making calls to any other phones on the PSTnetwork.
I can't see IBM chaning from older PBX to newer VoIP technology, and then for no reason what so ever disconnecting from the PSTN and not paying the phone company. Noone would be able to call IBM, and they couldnt call out!
Now a little network leason.
I'm sure you have heard of what a T1 is. A T1 is a type of service (NOT a type of line/connection) which most people dont make that distinction.
The physical line is called a DS1. A DS1 is 24 B channels (Each B channel is 64k/sec of bandwidth)
A DS0 is one channel (ISDN has one or two of these), a DS1 is 24, and a DS3 is 720 B's (I think, a DS3 is 30 DS1's)
So, a DS1 is the line. When you use all those B channels as one data line, the DS1 is called a T1. But a T1 is not the only option.
You can also keep those 24 channels seperate, and in this case the DS1 is called a PRI. With this setup, you generally turn up one or more of these 24 channels each as its own phoneline, so you can get 24 phonelines.
Due to switching, this isnt exactly acurate. You either set the PRI to have 24 channels of 56k each, or 23 channels of 64k. The extra space is used for signaling. If you are doing voice, or analog dialup for an isp, you can go with 24 chanels of 56k.. the extra 8k is switching.
Or you can just reserve one whole channel for switching, and use the remaining 23 at their full 64k and do all of voice, analog dialup, and additionally ISDN dialup. For voice, one generally uses 24 chans at 56k, as a phone line wont use much more than 8-16k of bandwidth anyways, and specifically for a phone system, modems dont come into play.
Now back to why I typed all that.
If you have say 3 offices, one being the main office. You get a number of PRI's into the building for your PSTN connection, each PRI giving you 24 phone lines.
Then you get a T1 connection from that office to the other two.
The PBX is able to route calls over the T1's between offices, and then route however is needed to get to the PRIs when someone needs to use an external line.
PBX's ususally use their own wierd data format, so an entire T1 is wasted on this one function. (IP is not running over it)
With VoIP, they can either use existing point-to-point IP links (Im sure IBM has faster than a single T1 internal links between offices already) and just use those. They can also take that T1 they had before and convert it to IP, or just get rid of it if they have much faster bandwidth already (IE a T3 or better)
The links between offices are ALREADY being provided by the phone companys.
It really depends if they continue to use their dedicated phone links with IP, or if they cancel those lines to use existing backbone connections they already have for IP. That will be the ONLY change the phone company would see.
VoIP just adds more
> How is IBM going to handle irate state-owned telecos who are suddenly
> deprived of IBM monies?
IBM is using linux for VoIP. This has nothing to do with phone companys.
> How do we know you're not a troll? How do we know you're right and he's wrong? ;-)
> Your information doesn't match anything I've ever heard.
>
> Said the AC.
Well I cant speak for the AC, but for myself, lets see here..
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/friends
Friends of Nasarius (593729)
* Trolling4Dollars (627073)
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/fans
Fans of Nasarius (593729)
* Trolling4Dollars (627073)
http://slashdot.org/~Nasarius/foes
Foes of Nasarius (593729)
* dissy (172727)
Yea, to me that makes him look like a troll.
Additionally, not only do I believe I am right, but my post was modded up. Not only that, someone replied (AC as it was, but still) with an example, and that too was modded up. Nasarius/suspected-troll's posts have not, nor have been in his post history. Mine have been.
Granted its only credibility, but its all I can give at this point.
I have worked with a recording studio before and have been told this by people much more knowledgable than myself in this area. A slashdot post with zero evedence and a clear kneejerk reaction attitude will not change that opinion.
>> Um, yes it does.
>> Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.
> Only if you click the button maked "Yes" to a message along the lines of "This
> browser is not the default web browser. Would you like it to be?".
"Only if you click"... yea, and iTunes only upgrades the iPod driver if you click the OK button to do it.
>> When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.
> No they don't. Mozilla, Netscape and even IE don't prevent you from using any
> other browser, they just change the file associations for URL's and HTML pages
> so that they point to themselves. They don't prevent you from using any of the
> other browsers.
Well iTunes does just that, and upgrades the driver for its hardware. Whats the big deal?
MS did used to bundle IE and tcp stack patches back in the win95/98 days.
>> Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'
> Amen to that. Your post would be the first to get it.
Well, I have installed iTunes on win. My eyes see that you are wrong and I am right. If you would bother to install it, you would see the same thing.
Of course god forbid a slashbot would actually CHECK something before blabing on about it.
Besides, there could very well be technical reasons why only one app should access the iPod at once. Programming issues that myself, nor you, nor many other programmers have managed to solve yet.
If you really want to bitch at apple for not doing something that no one else does, its just making you look all the worse for it.
People wouldnt bitch about MS's lack of security if most other (all other?) OS's wernt better at it.
Ever try to sync a palm pilot or other such device over multiple computers? Its not easy or fun to do. There is no one technical way to solve all of those problems, so you have to pick which features you give up to get other features (IE cant fully sync both ways if there are more than two end points)
Actually its pretty funny. When apple did NOT do this, and the ipod connected to the mac erased the itunes library (as it should, if the ipod is empty, it has to sync and be exact, so the itunes lib should be just as empty) everyone bitched and moaned.
So they fixed it so it did not work that way, and works the only one other way possible, and people still bitch.
make up your mind, or stop using the hardware/software. real simple here.
> but what if you like the audio CD? what if you prefer lossless music, with
> coverart, booklet and printed media you can hold in your hand?
Your two questions dont go hand in hand.
If you like lossless music, you sure as hell wont like a CD, being lossy just like AAC and MP3 and all.
And if you like CDs, then you have no technical excuse not to like the other same lossy formats like MP3 or AAC.
So, what was the point of your comment again?
> The thing is, you ought to have the choice of using whatever program you want.
> Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape
> when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the
> www.
Um, yes it does.
Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.
iTunes does the same, it installs a new driver that MM doesnt work with.
When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.
Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'
> No USB cable comes with the iPod!
You should take that back and get another iPod, as the iPod does indeed come with a USB cable.
Matter of fact, the cable it comes with has both USB and firewire on the same end. You can use it one of two ways (Well, correct ways, you can also do what you are doing)
a) plug firewire into pc. data and power over same line.
b) plug usb into pc, and firewire into the ac adaptor. data over usb, power over firewire.
any other setup is just wrong and doesnt make sense to do.
(Yes, this includes what your doing)
> Umm, the point is that you shouldn't have to choose one over the other, you
.exe extention.
> should be able to use both.
Well, once you figure out how to have multiple drivers controlling the same piece of hardware, not only will you have solved the iTunes problem, but you'll have solved problems that research scientists have been trying to come up with a solution for for years.
Or to put it another way
You _should_ be able to double click a linux ELF executable in windows and have it just work even without a
You should be able to run a windows exe from the linux command line and have it run flawlessly too.
And no, dont point out how those two items are possible, because using itunes and MM is equally as possible (easier actually)
Alot of things _should_ be, but that doesnt mean its technically possible to do, for you or anyone else.
> I'm sorry, but when I expect to get an honest evaluation of iTunes, and instead
> get some witty tripe from a pretentious snot, should I not be disappointed?
You read the onion instead of CNN for your world news too, dont you?
"Warning!
You are now installing Windows XP. If you have previously installed any third-party Internet browsers or email programs, they may not function properly after the upgrade. Microsoft does not support the use of third-party Internet browsers and email programs. If you want to use those functions, you must use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or use an operating system not published by Microsoft.
"
Heres the thing about your point. Windows XP does not say that. Or anything CLOSE to that.
Atleast not on the copies of XP home and XP pro I have.
There are two issues in my response to you (I think you are more interested in the second)
A) If windows did have a message such as the one you quoted above, I would see that, not aggree, and not install windows.
Problem solved.
B) Even if they did have that notice, you are arguing that it is not good to allow such a thing. Arguable, but as we have all seen in the past, if people are so stupid as to call their ISP when netscape ruins the registry, or call palm about a 3rd party app not doing what that app claims on their palm pilot, or calls MS tech support for a harddisk failure on a drive that is 9 years old, how could you even think a company nowadays will claim support for anything they dont have full control over?
Now if installing windows trashed everything else (IE linux partitions) that you add on AFTER the installer is done, then I can see a problem. But if the installer claims it will do something, and then does it, its your own fault for allowing it to do exactly what it told you it would.
If windows installer would delete linux, I would pull that drive out of the machine first. I would complain when after the installer is done and windows is there and working, if i connected the linux disk and it then found and deleted it.
But apple is stating up front it will definatly break this feature.
If you run a program that says it will break something, and it does, its your fault.
Now if you reinstalled musicmatch and itunes did somethng AFTERWARDS to break musicmatch again, there would be a problem.
That doesnt happen. Thou itunes may stop working properly with the ipod. but they explicity state that both wont work at the same time.
So yes you are right, if apple or MS did this, we would all be up in arms.
But nether company is doing so. So what is your problem again?
> What fraction of that $740 profit do you think is generated by printer
> cartridges versus printers?
I'd have to say the order from most to least profitable is as such:
1) laser printers
2) ink jet ink
3) toner ink
4) ink jet printers
Oh yea, the gap between #1 and all the others is about tripple as well.
I'm sure they will feel it, but it wont be the worst thing to happen to HP.
When you need a color laser that can photocopy and print from the network, a $10k HP wont compare to the inkjet market/problems at all.
> Who says they will stop at using this to scan mail? Or to scan for drugs.
The same guy that says they definatly will use it to invade your privacy, i'd imagine.
> You can see inside the envelope using backscatter xrays.
>
> Using these technologies together they can tell not only what the shape of
> something inside the envelope or other package is, regardless of packing
> material, but also what it consists of.
Yea, and they *could* open the package up and look inside too....
The whole point of the article is they dont need to do these things with the new technology they are bragging about.
> Your trolling, but i'll bite.
/24 and a /26 to me over. I have no ports filtered and can run any services I want over it. The dialup is 24/7 as well.
:P
That isnt a troll what so ever, its a perfectly valid point.
> Speed is not an issue. I just want something reasonable where i can do what
> i want.
Those are called T1's. T1's are resonable for what you get. DSL is resonable for what you get. Expecting one service for another services super low price is not resonable however.
> If im paying for the connection i should be able to do what i want with it.
But you arnt paying for it. You dont want to pay $400, you want to pay $60.
The $60 line does not include those abilities, that is WHY its $60.
> I am willing to pay considerably more then $60 a month if the service is right.
> My main point of this question was finding out what other nerds are doing.
Personally, I have a 56k dialup which my ISP routes a
I have a special deal worked out with the ISP, however if one was to pay normal prices for this, it only runs about $150/month.
My connection is also alot more stable than the cable or dsl line of everyone I know, many times over.
My modem may disconnect and redial once every 30-45 days, but the redial takes under 2 minutes, and besides the 2 minute 'lag', nothing gets disconnected or dropped TCP wise.
I'm sure you wont need mad IPs like I have, but you can generally find dedicated dialup for at or under $100/mo, and get some IPs thrown on that.
My next upgrade will be to a T1. I am waiting until I move, as i'm not paying install charges twice in the same year
But I refuse to use cable or dsl, because those are not the level of service I require. On the other hand, I dont complain that the cheaper options that dont apply to me are cheaper.
> My car my suck at 20 mpg, but I love my Lexus RX300 SUV. It rides VERY smooth,
> VERY comfortable, VERY luxurious.
> I can afford it easily, so why can't I have it.
I can afford the fine I would possibly get if I came up and pissed on your front door. It doesnt effect me in a bad way at all, matter of fact it effects me in a good way assuming I had to go before doing so.
But out of concideration for whos door that is, I would not, as would not most people.
You are not taking in concideration our planet, which is not yours, and no you can not afford.
I'm far from saying you should switch, or there are better (or really any realistic) other options right now, and I am glad to see you would change if there was another option, but your attitude not only is greedy/selfish, but the root cause why so few people are even looking for options, and thus why so few other optinos exist.
> Made by MicroOptical and like everything made by MicroOptical they're "not on the
> market yet". Vapour.
Fortunatly for this project however, every item I would need to build this setup myself is available right now.
As a matter of fact, the only part I cant have this very second is the software (Designing something from scratch to emulate someone elses software is easier than totally making it from scratch however)
HUD glasses have been available for a couple of years in different forms.
The wearable computer existd in multiple forms. Think about the CPU power of an iPaq, and then its size.
I had this idea myself not 3 years ago, except i desired face/voice/OCR reconition in my device, but still dont think we are close enough to some of those technologies to currently do it.
OCR is about the only thing that may work, IE you look at a store sign and it pops up info, or a street sign and you can bring up a map of the area, etc.
The hardest part is getting data INTO the system, not out.
But I dont doubt for a second that people are already working on the out part like this, as they have been doing it for atleast 4 years.
> If Windows would do this to your drive there would be a public outcry. Here on /. it is more like "ah well, shit happens, it's mentioned in the errata so suck
>
> it up and get over it".
But windows could do this. All it would have to do is send one of the two normal APATI commands to this cdrom drive, and it will fry just the same.
LG stated the bug is in their cdrom drive, and one of two commands sent to it will execute the buggy routine in firmware, causing it to dump its firmware totally.
They cant be fixed because to flash firmware, you have to use a program that is in the firmware in the first place.
> I've also heard you can just delete the playlist and create a new one, but I'm
> not sure if that works or not.
Yes, it works.
The 'limit' is only there so you cant script automated mass-burns and pay a monkey $1/hr to just swap cds out. Takes a bit more work.
If you burn one cd, and then just dupe that cd, its no longer itunes software that is doing the disc copy, so they dont have to worry about it legally.
Actually, the library of congress is suppost to have a copy of anything copyright is used to protect.
The reason is because copyright does expire, and at that point that work becomes public property so that we can innovate by using it in ways the creator did not think of.
I've wondered why noone has used this argument in court yet.
"But I looked for that song at loc.gov and they show no record of it what so ever. Naturally, they cant have a copyright on the [whatever] or else that wouldnt be so. So when i distributed [whatever] to my best knowledge it was not illegal to do so."
> Wouldn't it be all right if the site said something like [snip]
Actually its all right, right now.
There is no legal defense in the US they could possibly use to enforce this.
Even libel and slander have restrictions.
If you call someone a word, and the definition of that word is actually fitting, its turned from 'a slanderous opinion' into 'fact'.
Additionally, until its defined legally, there is no legal method to say they are or arnt 'spyware'
It would be like you suing me because i called you a hapfalpostbataca.
Ideally these cases are simply thrown out instantly and arnt even heard by a judge.
Even if it wasnt, judges arnt allowed to set definitions of a word.
Followed with the fact even if it amazingly went this far, all one would have to do is tell the judge "I did a google search on the word spyware, and the first 200 pages all describe spyware as this ______, so i based my assuption on the definition being used currently."
The day that becomes illegal is the day 99% of slashdot goes to jail or gets fined for not using the term 'DSL' correctly.
> > Try reading the article or something.
:P
> I did. I responded on the basis of the mails as linked.
> Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the linked e-mails it says that?
http://www.sosdg.org/attmail.html
This is the only email I see linked from the article.
In it, 4th paragraph down:
Therefore, we need to know which IP address(es) are
used by your outbound e-mail service so we can selectively permit them.
Please send this information to the following e-mail address
(rm-antiattspam@ems.att.com).
This email is sent to AT&T customers. They use the word 'your'.
They are talking about their own customers mail servers.
> That doesn't excuse your rudeness, of course.
Granted, but seeing 90% of slashdot complain about something that isnt even happening, but they dont realize it because noone reads the articles, and responds based on the almost certain incorrect description slashdot provides, tends to do that to a person
I do appologize for the rudeness, but now that you know what this whitelist is really about, go back and read the slashdot comments, even at +4, and you can see why posting anything factual on this article is an almost impossible thing to do.
> [snip] I think that most ISPs will probably configure their near-edge/gateway
:(
> routers to drop any packets that have source addresses not within their
> respective network.
Ironically, this is the same solution to stop spoofing with IPv4.
Spoofing can be stopped with IPv4 using that exact method right now.
Clearly that isnt the case however, and wont be with IPv6 either.
> The address space exhaustion is here already. I cannot get any more IP
> addresses. I only get two, and I pay extra for the second.
No, it isnt here. At your ISP it looks to be, but that doesnt mean squat.
Some 3rd world countries have very little food. Does this mean there is a global food shortage? Your statement implys so.
> If I want more I need to switch away from cable modem to something
> more expensive.
And this continues to prove my point.
If there was truly an IP shortage, how would it be possible to switch to ANYTHING to get more?
There is no shortage.
As a matter of fact, only about 75% of the IPv4 space is even allocated.
IP blocks cost money. Companys dont wish to pay this money. People dont either. Still doesnt mean there is a shortage, just noone wants to pay what is being asked.
Using the same logic, there is almost a music shortage, seeing as alot of people dont wish to pay the huge prices being asked for music.
> My point wes to exemplify the fact that a phone or doesn't need to host
> services to THE INTERNET
NAT does not prevent this. Using NAT, you are bridging two networks together. NAT doesnt mean you cant talk from one network to the other.
If I had access to (or broke into using an exploit) your NAT gateway, I would have full access to your private IPs.
Firewalls are what you want for security, which decides based on rules (that you set) what is allowed to go throuhg it and what isnt.
And do you have any idea how much memory a NAT device would require to store its state table on IPv6?
For every single connection through it, it has to remember the first connection, who made it (Internal IP), IP flags, destiantion (Internet IP), and all sorts of other goodies. It needs this so when the reply comes back in destined to the NAT device (Which did not make the request) it will know where the request really needs to go.
IPv6 allows more IPs, thus more machines using private space generally. Even if not (IE: for you, who would just be switching existing systems from IPv4 to IPv6) the table will still take atleast 4 times the memory to hold.
For small networks and a moderatly decent system doing NAT this may not be a problem, but for any decent sized network, NAT would be slightly worse than it is currently.
Also, even though most ISPs will filter RFC1819 space (private IPs), if you happen to get one that doesnt, a nice trick you can do is this (under linux atleast):
route add 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 via [your NAT system IP]
With the via, any packets I address to the 192.168.1.0/24 network are routed directly to your NAT gateway for processing.
Unless you specifically block my traffic using a firewall, I can now reach your network.
Does your nat gateway magically do this for you? Does your ISP?
May wanna look into it.. Chances are one of the two is saving your ass, but I wouldnt want to count on it for my network.