> I'd like to see hot machines and clusters built out of something I could afford > to buy on a couple month's wages.
Well, im sure we all do. I also want a house for what I can pay in two months wages.
But these things do have costs. Even if each computer was $1 total, for 2000 of them thats $2000 right there. So even as much as $10 a computer would be 'affordable' thou definatly more than two months pay. But I have hope of actually saving up $20,000 after awhile.
You find me $10 computers that can do 10 gflop, and we will be in business:)
> Workable? Hardly. If lots of companies did this, I would have to remember each > one that I'd sent the mail server's IP to.
Try reading the article or something.
You have your one mail server on your AT&T dsl/dialup. You KNOW its IP. Why would you want to run many mail servers on multiple IPs on your side of your AT&T internet link? That is not only stupid, but sounds exactly like what a mass-mail sending person would need, and fortunatly these are the people AT&T is trying to block.
This is for allowing mail OUT of AT&T's network. If you dont like it, use AT&T's mail server, or dont run your mail server on an AT&T dsl/dialup line and it wont effect you one bit.
Oh, you were talking about incoming mail whitelists instead? Good for you.. maybe when there is an article on that topic, your post will make sense.
> > The servers will be now identified by customer.
> and if a popular server is identified by many customers? like, say, hotmail?
Hotmail does not buy dialup or broadband from AT&T...
> and there ARE cases where somebody might want to send email to a person with > no prior contact
Did you even read the article? Inbound mail will not be effected by this at all in no way shape or form. Why even bring it up?
But to answer your question, *IF* hotmail gave up their many many OC-3 and faster links and decide to go with a 1mbit DSL or 56k dialup for their hosting, *AND* they choose AT&T as their dialup/dsl provider, then yes hotmail will need to register their mail servers with AT&T before those servers can send mail to the rest of the internet. And if hotmail, as one of AT&T's customers at this point, tried to send out spam, im sure they will be removed from the whitelist.
If your long lost friend in your example became an AT&T customer, and chooses not to use AT&T's mail server but one of their own running on their AT&T internet connection, and they choose not to register, they cant email you or anyone else and this is their problem to fix, not yours.
> but take other examples - say I am active on a mailing list and somebody want > to ask me something, or if somebody is replying to my advertisement on ebay.
So then they email you. If they happen to be AT&T customers that dont register their mail servers IP, they cant send mail to anyone. If they arnt AT&T customers, then it totally doesnt matter to them.
> Nice try. No, where does it tell you to rip it back in any format you want > after you burn it?
Its called copyright law. You already are granted that right by law. Apple doesnt need to state it, because the law makes it legal and even if apple claimed it was not legal, they would just be wrong.
The fair use provision clearly states you can convert or timeshift your media as much as you would like.
Its the other part of copyright law that says you can not distribute that work without the copyright holders permission. And apple says you can not do that (IE for personal use)
> (we all know there's no such thing as The Internet, right? that it's just a > generic term that we use to refer to consumers of IPV4 address space).
That isn't true at all. Not even close.
"The Internet" is a name (Proper noun) of what we choose to call this particular IPv4 network. The _exact same network_ before it was called the Internet and run by comercial backbones, was owned by the government and named "The ArpaNet" whos backbone was created designed and run by universitys and government darpa departments.
Also, if you use 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 for your network, you are using the same IPv4 space, yet are NOT on "The Internet"
> One last point, and perhaps it's nitpicking, but SCO isn't technically charging > to use Linux, they're charging to use their code in Linux
In order to charge someone for something, there has to be something you get in return for your money. They _claim_ you are paying for a licence to use their code, but as of yet they have not demonstrated that they own any code what so ever. Its not legal to do what they are doing. You MUST show proof. Not showing proof is in voilation of the law.
Even if they CAN give proof, that does not mean they didnt break the law from the time between their first statements of 'you must pay us money' and the time the proof is shown to the world.
Proof isnt needed. Even if SCO is right and there is code in linux that SCO is not allowed to distribute, SCO is still not allowed to charge for other peoples copyrighted work.
> But happens when someone who is genetically engineered to be perfect for the job > you're hiring for comes along? Won't they automatically be better for the job > anyway?
Yes, and will probably get it. Just like when the script for a movie calls for a short stocky white man. Not hiring a black person is not discriminating in that case.
> i am still trying to understand something. for years now, proponents to the GPL > keep saying (including this article) that if you adopt GPL code into your > project, then you have to open source and make available your entire project. > > isn't this not true?
Correct, that statement is not true. The 'entire project' is usually everything you do.
If you modify the kernel, your kernel modifications MUST be released.
Now, if that kernel mod was literally the only thing you did, and the kernel already had drivers for your hardware, then i guess yes your whole project would be released then. But usually there is more software needed than that.. what good is a kernel mod with no application to use it. That app has nothing at all to do with the kernel. It is yours and you can licence it however you want.
In this particular case, no one is even asking cisco for the userland code in their router, we just want the changes they made to the kernel.
> It's hard to believe any company trying to sell you something would have no > physical presence in the country.
Why is that?
If you sold a widget and were in the US (Selling it to americans) you would most likely outsource your telemarketing to me (Not being in the US at all) I would be spamming for your product, and avoid all the US laws, and not need a presence in the US for any reason. You are not telemarketing and thus not breaking any laws.
> Just NFS mount your/dev directory. Problem solved.
Give that a try. I think you will be surprised for about 30 seconds until you see what happens.
If I mounted your/dev directory on my machine at/mnt/not-my-dev/ for example, and I did a cat sound.wav >>/mnt/not-my-dev/dsp/mnt/not-my-dev/dsp will have a major and minor node number (From your system) and lets assume nether of us changed anything funky so both of our dsp devices have the same node numbers like they are suppost to (14,3).
So my kernel sees im sending data to major X minor Y as listed on/mnt/not-my-dev/dsp
My kernel knows those numbers are for the sound device, and thus plays the sound on my machine, like it is suppost to.
Matter of fact, nothing is special about/dev
As root, in any other directory of your system (home dir works) type mknod dsp-with-odd-name c 14 3 (c = character device, 14 and 3 are the dev devices.. put any filename where i have dsp-with-odd-name)
Then write to that file as you would to/dev/dsp. Will function the same. With NFS you have effectivly done that by copying someone elses/dev directory to your system.
Maybe there can be two layers to drivers then. Perhaps call then 'direct kernel drivers' and 'external module drivers'
One driver that comes with the kernel will be for a module API. This will remain the same for x.y.* in the stable branches, but of course in the odd y dev branches this wont really be true, but thats what they exist for.
So, direct kernel drivers are what we have now for the most part. They stay with the kernel and can be updated like wise. Nothing changes.
Then, you have an API you can turn on in the kernel. Perhaps even make a module. This API will be the same for say 2.4.*, and be the same for 2.6.*, but possibly different between the two.
The kernel developers hands are tied as far as this API goes, but only until the next major kernel release.
This would atleast give _some_ option for binary only modules and 3rd party drivers that just dont want them in the kernel for whatever reason. And still wont take away from the ever-changing life of kernel modules. A developer can submit their drivers to be included that way if some feature is not available from the API or the API is not good enough for their needs. As long as the API is good enough for some, id say its worth it.
1. Dumbass parents sue school 2. School spends lots of money on lawsuit 3. School then sues parents for endangering their childrens lives at home with microwaves TVs and radios. 4. School has parents children taken away from them and parents issued jail time.
Once the president is set, may as well use it to an advantage...
> It is fundamentally unjust for anybody to have to go out of their way to insure > that a person has not said no in regards to you specifically when they have said > yes generally.
I'm sorry, im not sure if I just dont understand the comment or simply am not following your line of thought.
Do you mean to say that it is unfair to the telemarketing companys to need to check the list to see if i have said no (by being on it), when what they do has a default 'yes'?
Basically there is a seperation between what the govt says is legal and what people want to happen. Just because it is legal and not banned does not mean everyone wants it, and just because something is illegal and banend does not mean that nobody would want it.
Yes the government has not outlawed it, nor should they (nor can they in any useful way that wouldnt also hurt other peoples rights.) But that doesnt mean everyone wants to get telemarketing calls.
Maybe I am just missing what you mean..
Basically with a sign like in my example saying no, you say that is ok because it says no. But without a sign (an unknown, just like everyone on a phone) you should assume yes?
> It would be no different from you having to check with Washington before > entering every store you approach, or viewing every website you wish to view.
Again, I dont understand this comment either. I dont see how it would be similar to your examples at all.
If anything what so ever, it would be similar to a list of IPs of people that do not wish to look at your website, and on each request you check the list and if they are on it you send them elsewhere. Alot of adult sites do this already with things like netnanny and the like.
> If you put a 'no soliciting' sign on your lawn it tells the visitor without him > having to go out of his way to check. For this reason it is a completely > different situation.
This part I do understand, and even half agree. I think its a little odd that the government charges money for this list. It should be made free to the telemarketing companys as a tool to obide by the law. They should never charge so that you can see part of the law.
Ignorance is no excuse, unless your too poor to by access to the law to know.
I think their goal was so that noone could just grab the list without doing some work, but I think there could have been many better ways to do this.
For most government-messed-with businesses and industrys, you have to file with the govt to start doing whatever it is that company will do. Telemarketing should become the same way (You have to register special with the govt, for free) and then you get access to the free list.
Anyone telemarketing and not using the list is fined. Anyone telemarketing and not registered gets fined, taxed, and all the other fun stuff that happens with other regulated industrys.
I'm sure there are better ways even yet. Oh well, nothing is perfect.
> But this law doesn't attack those who harrass by that definition. > It attacks everyone making that first call.
Ok. So, lets rip the situation apart here.
Currently. Telemarketer calls me. I do not wish this to happen. They do not know this fact yet. I tell them of the fact, and now they know. As of yet, no crime has been commited.
If they DO call back, it is a crime. It is harassment.
Now. With the do-not-call-list. They already know the fact I dont want to listen to them before they call. This makes their first call purposly going agisnt MY WISHES and they have no excuse not to know it.
How is the first call with the do-not-call-list any less harassing than the second call now?
How many times does the girl have to say 'no' to you before you personally concider it rape? Granted not to compare telemarketing with sex crimes at all, but the point I am making is that for some things, the first NO should be enough.
Do you feel I can not put up a 'no soliciting' sign on my door? Do you disagree with the current laws that DO have harsher penaltys if you solicit to a building with one of these signs?
Do you disagree with 'disturbing the peace' laws? Do you really not care if hundreds or thousands of people were outside in the streets just waiting for you to leave the house so they can hound you with what they have to say?
Would you agree with the parent poster that the best solution to that is to move? Dispite the fact it happens everywhere so there is no way to move away from it, nor to change your phone number to a form they will not call?
> The law is a bad one,
but you STILL havent made a single valid or correct point about why.
> just defining another victimless crime
Huh? I am a victim here. I can assure you I exist.
> and providing another example of Americans running to their government at the > slightest annoyance.
Yes. The government said what certain telemarketers are doing is illegal. Oddly, they did this hundreds of years before telemarketing, and phones, existed. Yea it must be purposly targeted at the telemarketers!
My annoyance is with the fact I would have to spend TONS of money and time to press multiple lawsuits for the same exact thing aginst thousands of people. That is annoying. That is not called for.
If I am not allowed to say NO to them before they call (You seem to want no harsher penaltys for calling someone on this do-not-call-list) then why am I allowed to say NO on the first phone call, and impose a harsher penalty for it on the second?
It must be a bad law in your eyes to fine telemarketers more money after they call you back a 2nd or 3rd time, after you tell them to not call you during the first call.
I'm sorry, if you cant see how silly and rediculous that sounds, I dont think anything I say will be able to convince you its true.
*sigh* you just dont get it do you. I appologize if it sounds like I am losing my temper, but it really sounds like you are purposly ignoring what I am telling you, and then repeating your first incorrect comments again. Going by my insightful mods and your troll mods, I can only assume its not just me seeing things.
Ok, lets try this a different way.
> OK, so why make a law to dodge telemarketing calls?
It isnt. Its a law to fight a form of harassment (as defined currently in our law) aginst an industry that traditional legal defenses are not apt to use (IE court orders to not call me, taken out aginst each company)
> You could just not answer calls that have blocked numbers.
This is what I am forced to do. Ligit callers that do not show up on caller ID now must leave a message.
> You could get a TeleZapper. Verizon has Call Intercept. > How hard is it to be proactive?
I dont call that being proactive. It is not solving the problem.
Using that logic, every time a stalker finds where their target lives, the burden and cost is on the target to move, and not the person commiting the crime of stalking.
You can stalk and harass over the phone too. And there are thousands of them out there doing this to everyone.
> I'll bold the relevant portions: > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or > of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition > the government for a redress of grievances.
So I will reply to the bolded portions. Noone, congress or otherwise, is planning to make a law aginst telemarketing, nor abridge them from doing it. Telemarketing will still be legal after the do-not-call-list is activated. That is why it is a list. If they were gonig to outlaw telemarketing as a form of speech, there would be no need for a list. If it was a law, everyone is included, like it or not.
Maybe this is the part you are getting confused on.
Harassment laws already trump freedom of speech. Ask a lawyer. Once a telemarketer crosses the line from marketing to harassment, they have broke existing laws.
The first item of your post asked why I want them to pass a new law. I'll tell you. Because its annoying as hell for me to go to court and pay tons of money (atleast to a lawyer, if not to actually get the court order, depending where you file it) many thousands of times, and it would be much easier for me to say no once. That is all the do-not-call-list is.
So, if you are in person harassing me, its already illegal. Then, i get a court order aginst you to not come near me. Why on earth do you feel there shouldnt be a stronger punishment if you continue to come near me after the court order is issued to you???
I aggree with the law that there should be. And its no different with the do-not-call-list. There should be a siffer penalty for those that continue to commit the crime aginst me after being told to stop.
Next...
> Really. Someone held you down and forced you to listen. > No.
Clearly if people like you had their way, this would be their next step. Assult is just as illegal as harassment. Id like to keep it that way.
To answer you, they dont need to hold you down to force you. And you are suggesting I do things proactivly to fix the problem. I wouldnt very well have to do that if i wasnt being forced into it, now would i?
> No one forced you to lease a telephone line. No one forced you to answer > that phone.
I live here in the real world. So yes, I am forced to do so if i wish to keep my chosen life style. Are you suggesting I let criminals force me to change my life style too?
Other people may be happy living as a hermit in the woods with no connectivity to others, but that isnt me
> If you don't want people calling your phone number, it shouldn't be publicly > listed. That's why people have private phone numbers, so they aren't bothered.
My number is unlisted, and I do not give it out to companys. At quick count only about 4 or 5 of my closest friends even have that phone number. I generally use my cell phone for my other friends and a very small list of companys which i assume would be safe (IE Doctors office)
I do get telemarketer calls on the landline. And the only documented proof I have is my caller ID box showing the multiple calls from the same company, and my word that I indeed told them to not call me again during the first call.
Unfortuatly in the past couple years almost all telemarketers showup as 'unknown' anyway, so I have no way to prove I already talked to someone selling the exact same thing.
I'd have to guess that I can think of a good 10 products being sold (I generally didnt ask for a company name) where they did call back after being told not to. Now I realize some of those 10 could very well be totally different companys selling the same item, but I cant believe 'most' of them, and its definatly not all of them.
> It disturbs me that people will piss on the First Amendment so easily for a > little comfort. Hello, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are a bit more important than > dodging a phone call. UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!
Um. Well, you'll be glad to hear that the First Amendment has nothing what so ever to do with anything in this thread.
I dont care if they pitch their sales to people that care to hear it. All I know is I dont want to hear it, have told them so, and am still _forced_ to listen to it aginst my will.
And the do not call list, by its very definition and nature, is a *list* of people that are clearly stating they do not wish to listen to telemarketers. It is not the place for you or the government to force this speach onto me if I do not wish to hear it, and have made my wishes known by stating so on the do-not-call-list which I had to ask the government to add me to in the first place.
The First Amendment does not grant you the right to force me into anything aginst my will.
And as to your "UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!" comment, thank you for suggesting what I did as I ordered the phone line 9 years ago. Got any suggestions that may have something to do with solving the problem of harassing calls? As it would seem, adding or removing my number from the public phone books should have no physical means or otherwise to magically make that number removed from the telemarketers lists.
> Did the envelope just WALK AWAY? No: You never put it there in the first place. > > People, hanging up on the telemarketer is not the same as telling them to > not call you!
Right.... And ???
I am here telling you that I tell them to not call me. I generally even say please first. Usually I say "Please do not call this number back. Thank you, Bye." or something similar, then wait to hear if they hangup or start talking. I will not speak after this point, even though I am listening. Only once did the telemarketer actually hang up the phone. The rest just ignored my polite request and continued to annoy me. After a couple of seconds I will then hangup.
If they ever call me back, at that point everything legally is in place for me to obtain a court order to keep the person out of my life.
This holds true no matter how a person is bothering you and not stopping after you ask. If they did this exact same thing in person, and were selling whatever it is door to door, and refused to leave my porch after both asking them to leave and also closing the door on them. They have no right to stand out side and ring my door bell continuously. If one would call the cops they would be arrested. This is the law.
The exact same harassment laws can also apply over the phone. There is even a system in the USA where you can dial *57 and log a trace of the last person tha called you with the phone company and authorize them to share that log with the authorities. Ironically this feature costs $5 to use, but as its for preventing harassment and not to be used lightly (You never see the trace, only the cops and phone co do)
Harassment is defined in the law. Calling you multiple times on the phone after being told to stop is indeed covered.
Perhaps you made the mistake in using the dictonary definition of the word harassment, or something like that. I dont know. But as far as legalitys go, the words in law are usually defined very detailed and very differetly.
I personally do not feel I should be forced into getting court orders aginst the thousands of thousands of telemarketing companys out there. Not to mention when they 'fold' and turn up under a different name, and the court order will not apply.
And since there are thousands upon thousands of telemarketing companys, this is in effect a legal DDoS, which is not the easiest thing to beat.
The do not call list is actually just enforcing existing harassment laws in a new day and age to adapt to our situation. After all, im sure when the first harassment laws for this country were made, phones wernt around just yet.
> Telemarketing is not, and never was, harassment. You have a phone number. People > are allowed to call the phone and try to talk to you.
No one claimed the first call was harassment. Possibly even the second. Its when you tell them to stop calling you and they do so multiple times a week, then it is harassment. And this is aparently common between my own experences and those I have heard from others.
Well, when people code DNS clients and librarys, they generally do so by following the RFC.
The RFC states that when a domain does not exist, the name server returns the code NXDOMAIN.
So, logically, if you get a NXDOMAIN code back, the domain does not exist. Verisign changed this RFC defined rule, and every single DNS using application is now broken, as they assume the information in the RFC spec is correct, and it is not so any longer.
There are many different things that broke because of this, which as an end-user of the internet you probably wont notice much of. People that run service on the internet however do need to know how such servers are suppost to act. Verisign changed the rules without so much as telling anyone.
RFC stands for request for comments. You submit one, and _request comments_ Only after that phase is the RFC out of draft and so people start concidering to use it. This is how a standard is born via RFC. Verisign did not submit a new RFC requeting a change to the original one.
It would be like a web server chaning the numerical error codes. 404 means page not found. 900 is not defined. Sending a 900 code when page isnt found would break every existing client. This is what verisign did for DNS
Slashdot Mirror
> First you say these tanks are the perfect place to murder/body disposal. Then
:P
> you say it's underutilized. How do you know, then ?
> > My first thought (and that of many others I've spoken with) is that the
> > aeration tanks are perfect places to murder / dispose of bodies in.
Re-read the first three words of what you are quoting.
That was his first thought.
THEN he followed up with his 2nd, 3rd, and following thoughts.
Finally, he never claimed to know anything, simply those were his thoughts.
But yea, way to attack him
> I'd like to see hot machines and clusters built out of something I could afford
:)
> to buy on a couple month's wages.
Well, im sure we all do.
I also want a house for what I can pay in two months wages.
But these things do have costs.
Even if each computer was $1 total, for 2000 of them thats $2000 right there.
So even as much as $10 a computer would be 'affordable' thou definatly more than two months pay. But I have hope of actually saving up $20,000 after awhile.
You find me $10 computers that can do 10 gflop, and we will be in business
> Workable? Hardly. If lots of companies did this, I would have to remember each
> one that I'd sent the mail server's IP to.
Try reading the article or something.
You have your one mail server on your AT&T dsl/dialup. You KNOW its IP.
Why would you want to run many mail servers on multiple IPs on your side of your AT&T internet link? That is not only stupid, but sounds exactly like what a mass-mail sending person would need, and fortunatly these are the people AT&T is trying to block.
This is for allowing mail OUT of AT&T's network.
If you dont like it, use AT&T's mail server, or dont run your mail server on an AT&T dsl/dialup line and it wont effect you one bit.
Oh, you were talking about incoming mail whitelists instead?
Good for you.. maybe when there is an article on that topic, your post will make sense.
> > The servers will be now identified by customer.
> and if a popular server is identified by many customers? like, say, hotmail?
Hotmail does not buy dialup or broadband from AT&T...
> and there ARE cases where somebody might want to send email to a person with
> no prior contact
Did you even read the article?
Inbound mail will not be effected by this at all in no way shape or form. Why even bring it up?
But to answer your question, *IF* hotmail gave up their many many OC-3 and faster links and decide to go with a 1mbit DSL or 56k dialup for their hosting, *AND* they choose AT&T as their dialup/dsl provider, then yes hotmail will need to register their mail servers with AT&T before those servers can send mail to the rest of the internet. And if hotmail, as one of AT&T's customers at this point, tried to send out spam, im sure they will be removed from the whitelist.
If your long lost friend in your example became an AT&T customer, and chooses not to use AT&T's mail server but one of their own running on their AT&T internet connection, and they choose not to register, they cant email you or anyone else and this is their problem to fix, not yours.
> but take other examples - say I am active on a mailing list and somebody want
> to ask me something, or if somebody is replying to my advertisement on ebay.
So then they email you.
If they happen to be AT&T customers that dont register their mail servers IP, they cant send mail to anyone.
If they arnt AT&T customers, then it totally doesnt matter to them.
> So then what is the point of the DRM that Apple is using? It doesn't seem
> to "Manage" anything.
Well, they got licences to distribute the music on iTMS, and its been argued that without some form of DRM this would never have happened.
Its not useful as a form of protection, its useful as a means to an end.
> Nice try. No, where does it tell you to rip it back in any format you want
> after you burn it?
Its called copyright law. You already are granted that right by law. Apple doesnt need to state it, because the law makes it legal and even if apple claimed it was not legal, they would just be wrong.
The fair use provision clearly states you can convert or timeshift your media as much as you would like.
Its the other part of copyright law that says you can not distribute that work without the copyright holders permission. And apple says you can not do that (IE for personal use)
Don't forget you can also burn an MP3 CD.
.mp3 files that can be copied anywhere and done anything with.
Fits much more than one album and from there you have an ISO formatted CD with
No need to burn one CD at a time that only holds 74 minutes, then re-rip to mp3.
> (we all know there's no such thing as The Internet, right? that it's just a
> generic term that we use to refer to consumers of IPV4 address space).
That isn't true at all. Not even close.
"The Internet" is a name (Proper noun) of what we choose to call this particular IPv4 network.
The _exact same network_ before it was called the Internet and run by comercial backbones, was owned by the government and named "The ArpaNet" whos backbone was created designed and run by universitys and government darpa departments.
Also, if you use 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 for your network, you are using the same IPv4 space, yet are NOT on "The Internet"
> One last point, and perhaps it's nitpicking, but SCO isn't technically charging
> to use Linux, they're charging to use their code in Linux
In order to charge someone for something, there has to be something you get in return for your money.
They _claim_ you are paying for a licence to use their code, but as of yet they have not demonstrated that they own any code what so ever.
Its not legal to do what they are doing. You MUST show proof. Not showing proof is in voilation of the law.
Even if they CAN give proof, that does not mean they didnt break the law from the time between their first statements of 'you must pay us money' and the time the proof is shown to the world.
> Have any proof?
Proof isnt needed.
Even if SCO is right and there is code in linux that SCO is not allowed to distribute, SCO is still not allowed to charge for other peoples copyrighted work.
> But happens when someone who is genetically engineered to be perfect for the job
> you're hiring for comes along? Won't they automatically be better for the job
> anyway?
Yes, and will probably get it.
Just like when the script for a movie calls for a short stocky white man. Not hiring a black person is not discriminating in that case.
> i am still trying to understand something. for years now, proponents to the GPL
> keep saying (including this article) that if you adopt GPL code into your
> project, then you have to open source and make available your entire project.
>
> isn't this not true?
Correct, that statement is not true.
The 'entire project' is usually everything you do.
If you modify the kernel, your kernel modifications MUST be released.
Now, if that kernel mod was literally the only thing you did, and the kernel already had drivers for your hardware, then i guess yes your whole project would be released then.
But usually there is more software needed than that.. what good is a kernel mod with no application to use it. That app has nothing at all to do with the kernel. It is yours and you can licence it however you want.
In this particular case, no one is even asking cisco for the userland code in their router, we just want the changes they made to the kernel.
> It's hard to believe any company trying to sell you something would have no
:(
> physical presence in the country.
Why is that?
If you sold a widget and were in the US (Selling it to americans) you would most likely outsource your telemarketing to me (Not being in the US at all)
I would be spamming for your product, and avoid all the US laws, and not need a presence in the US for any reason.
You are not telemarketing and thus not breaking any laws.
Thats unfortunatly how its usually setup
> Just NFS mount your /dev directory. Problem solved.
/dev directory on my machine at /mnt/not-my-dev/ for example, and I did a cat sound.wav >> /mnt/not-my-dev/dsp /mnt/not-my-dev/dsp will have a major and minor node number (From your system) and lets assume nether of us changed anything funky so both of our dsp devices have the same node numbers like they are suppost to (14,3).
/mnt/not-my-dev/dsp
/dev
/dev/dsp. Will function the same. /dev directory to your system.
Give that a try. I think you will be surprised for about 30 seconds until you see what happens.
If I mounted your
So my kernel sees im sending data to major X minor Y as listed on
My kernel knows those numbers are for the sound device, and thus plays the sound on my machine, like it is suppost to.
Matter of fact, nothing is special about
As root, in any other directory of your system (home dir works)
type mknod dsp-with-odd-name c 14 3
(c = character device, 14 and 3 are the dev devices.. put any filename where i have dsp-with-odd-name)
Then write to that file as you would to
With NFS you have effectivly done that by copying someone elses
Maybe there can be two layers to drivers then.
Perhaps call then 'direct kernel drivers' and 'external module drivers'
One driver that comes with the kernel will be for a module API.
This will remain the same for x.y.* in the stable branches, but of course in the odd y dev branches this wont really be true, but thats what they exist for.
So, direct kernel drivers are what we have now for the most part. They stay with the kernel and can be updated like wise. Nothing changes.
Then, you have an API you can turn on in the kernel. Perhaps even make a module.
This API will be the same for say 2.4.*, and be the same for 2.6.*, but possibly different between the two.
The kernel developers hands are tied as far as this API goes, but only until the next major kernel release.
This would atleast give _some_ option for binary only modules and 3rd party drivers that just dont want them in the kernel for whatever reason. And still wont take away from the ever-changing life of kernel modules.
A developer can submit their drivers to be included that way if some feature is not available from the API or the API is not good enough for their needs.
As long as the API is good enough for some, id say its worth it.
> "Exit Light" or whatever it was called they started producing pabulum.
The song is called Enter Sandman, and its off the black album, which was their 5th album.
Just FTI
What I would like to see:
1. Dumbass parents sue school
2. School spends lots of money on lawsuit
3. School then sues parents for endangering their childrens lives at home with microwaves TVs and radios.
4. School has parents children taken away from them and parents issued jail time.
Once the president is set, may as well use it to an advantage...
> It is fundamentally unjust for anybody to have to go out of their way to insure
> that a person has not said no in regards to you specifically when they have said
> yes generally.
I'm sorry, im not sure if I just dont understand the comment or simply am not following your line of thought.
Do you mean to say that it is unfair to the telemarketing companys to need to check the list to see if i have said no (by being on it), when what they do has a default 'yes'?
Basically there is a seperation between what the govt says is legal and what people want to happen. Just because it is legal and not banned does not mean everyone wants it, and just because something is illegal and banend does not mean that nobody would want it.
Yes the government has not outlawed it, nor should they (nor can they in any useful way that wouldnt also hurt other peoples rights.)
But that doesnt mean everyone wants to get telemarketing calls.
Maybe I am just missing what you mean..
Basically with a sign like in my example saying no, you say that is ok because it says no. But without a sign (an unknown, just like everyone on a phone) you should assume yes?
> It would be no different from you having to check with Washington before
> entering every store you approach, or viewing every website you wish to view.
Again, I dont understand this comment either.
I dont see how it would be similar to your examples at all.
If anything what so ever, it would be similar to a list of IPs of people that do not wish to look at your website, and on each request you check the list and if they are on it you send them elsewhere. Alot of adult sites do this already with things like netnanny and the like.
> If you put a 'no soliciting' sign on your lawn it tells the visitor without him
> having to go out of his way to check. For this reason it is a completely
> different situation.
This part I do understand, and even half agree.
I think its a little odd that the government charges money for this list. It should be made free to the telemarketing companys as a tool to obide by the law.
They should never charge so that you can see part of the law.
Ignorance is no excuse, unless your too poor to by access to the law to know.
I think their goal was so that noone could just grab the list without doing some work, but I think there could have been many better ways to do this.
For most government-messed-with businesses and industrys, you have to file with the govt to start doing whatever it is that company will do. Telemarketing should become the same way (You have to register special with the govt, for free) and then you get access to the free list.
Anyone telemarketing and not using the list is fined. Anyone telemarketing and not registered gets fined, taxed, and all the other fun stuff that happens with other regulated industrys.
I'm sure there are better ways even yet.
Oh well, nothing is perfect.
> Isn't that also how Windows XP's activation scheme works?
No, windows installs its data in its registry. Not the boot records.
> But this law doesn't attack those who harrass by that definition.
> It attacks everyone making that first call.
Ok. So, lets rip the situation apart here.
Currently.
Telemarketer calls me. I do not wish this to happen. They do not know this fact yet. I tell them of the fact, and now they know. As of yet, no crime has been commited.
If they DO call back, it is a crime. It is harassment.
Now. With the do-not-call-list.
They already know the fact I dont want to listen to them before they call.
This makes their first call purposly going agisnt MY WISHES and they have no excuse not to know it.
How is the first call with the do-not-call-list any less harassing than the second call now?
How many times does the girl have to say 'no' to you before you personally concider it rape?
Granted not to compare telemarketing with sex crimes at all, but the point I am making is that for some things, the first NO should be enough.
Do you feel I can not put up a 'no soliciting' sign on my door?
Do you disagree with the current laws that DO have harsher penaltys if you solicit to a building with one of these signs?
Do you disagree with 'disturbing the peace' laws? Do you really not care if hundreds or thousands of people were outside in the streets just waiting for you to leave the house so they can hound you with what they have to say?
Would you agree with the parent poster that the best solution to that is to move? Dispite the fact it happens everywhere so there is no way to move away from it, nor to change your phone number to a form they will not call?
> The law is a bad one,
but you STILL havent made a single valid or correct point about why.
> just defining another victimless crime
Huh? I am a victim here. I can assure you I exist.
> and providing another example of Americans running to their government at the
> slightest annoyance.
Yes. The government said what certain telemarketers are doing is illegal. Oddly, they did this hundreds of years before telemarketing, and phones, existed. Yea it must be purposly targeted at the telemarketers!
My annoyance is with the fact I would have to spend TONS of money and time to press multiple lawsuits for the same exact thing aginst thousands of people.
That is annoying. That is not called for.
If I am not allowed to say NO to them before they call (You seem to want no harsher penaltys for calling someone on this do-not-call-list) then why am I allowed to say NO on the first phone call, and impose a harsher penalty for it on the second?
It must be a bad law in your eyes to fine telemarketers more money after they call you back a 2nd or 3rd time, after you tell them to not call you during the first call.
I'm sorry, if you cant see how silly and rediculous that sounds, I dont think anything I say will be able to convince you its true.
*sigh* you just dont get it do you.
I appologize if it sounds like I am losing my temper, but it really sounds like you are purposly ignoring what I am telling you, and then repeating your first incorrect comments again.
Going by my insightful mods and your troll mods, I can only assume its not just me seeing things.
Ok, lets try this a different way.
> OK, so why make a law to dodge telemarketing calls?
It isnt. Its a law to fight a form of harassment (as defined currently in our law) aginst an industry that traditional legal defenses are not apt to use (IE court orders to not call me, taken out aginst each company)
> You could just not answer calls that have blocked numbers.
This is what I am forced to do.
Ligit callers that do not show up on caller ID now must leave a message.
> You could get a TeleZapper. Verizon has Call Intercept.
> How hard is it to be proactive?
I dont call that being proactive. It is not solving the problem.
Using that logic, every time a stalker finds where their target lives, the burden and cost is on the target to move, and not the person commiting the crime of stalking.
You can stalk and harass over the phone too. And there are thousands of them out there doing this to everyone.
> I'll bold the relevant portions:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
> of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the government for a redress of grievances.
So I will reply to the bolded portions.
Noone, congress or otherwise, is planning to make a law aginst telemarketing, nor abridge them from doing it. Telemarketing will still be legal after the do-not-call-list is activated. That is why it is a list.
If they were gonig to outlaw telemarketing as a form of speech, there would be no need for a list. If it was a law, everyone is included, like it or not.
Maybe this is the part you are getting confused on.
Harassment laws already trump freedom of speech. Ask a lawyer.
Once a telemarketer crosses the line from marketing to harassment, they have broke existing laws.
The first item of your post asked why I want them to pass a new law.
I'll tell you.
Because its annoying as hell for me to go to court and pay tons of money (atleast to a lawyer, if not to actually get the court order, depending where you file it) many thousands of times, and it would be much easier for me to say no once. That is all the do-not-call-list is.
So, if you are in person harassing me, its already illegal.
Then, i get a court order aginst you to not come near me.
Why on earth do you feel there shouldnt be a stronger punishment if you continue to come near me after the court order is issued to you???
I aggree with the law that there should be. And its no different with the do-not-call-list. There should be a siffer penalty for those that continue to commit the crime aginst me after being told to stop.
Next...
> Really. Someone held you down and forced you to listen.
> No.
Clearly if people like you had their way, this would be their next step.
Assult is just as illegal as harassment. Id like to keep it that way.
To answer you, they dont need to hold you down to force you.
And you are suggesting I do things proactivly to fix the problem.
I wouldnt very well have to do that if i wasnt being forced into it, now would i?
> No one forced you to lease a telephone line. No one forced you to answer
> that phone.
I live here in the real world. So yes, I am forced to do so if i wish to keep my chosen life style. Are you suggesting I let criminals force me to change my life style too?
Other people may be happy living as a hermit in the woods with no connectivity to others, but that isnt me
> If you don't want people calling your phone number, it shouldn't be publicly
> listed. That's why people have private phone numbers, so they aren't bothered.
My number is unlisted, and I do not give it out to companys.
At quick count only about 4 or 5 of my closest friends even have that phone number. I generally use my cell phone for my other friends and a very small list of companys which i assume would be safe (IE Doctors office)
I do get telemarketer calls on the landline.
And the only documented proof I have is my caller ID box showing the multiple calls from the same company, and my word that I indeed told them to not call me again during the first call.
Unfortuatly in the past couple years almost all telemarketers showup as 'unknown' anyway, so I have no way to prove I already talked to someone selling the exact same thing.
I'd have to guess that I can think of a good 10 products being sold (I generally didnt ask for a company name) where they did call back after being told not to.
Now I realize some of those 10 could very well be totally different companys selling the same item, but I cant believe 'most' of them, and its definatly not all of them.
> It disturbs me that people will piss on the First Amendment so easily for a
> little comfort. Hello, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are a bit more important than
> dodging a phone call. UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!
Um. Well, you'll be glad to hear that the First Amendment has nothing what so ever to do with anything in this thread.
I dont care if they pitch their sales to people that care to hear it.
All I know is I dont want to hear it, have told them so, and am still _forced_ to listen to it aginst my will.
And the do not call list, by its very definition and nature, is a *list* of people that are clearly stating they do not wish to listen to telemarketers.
It is not the place for you or the government to force this speach onto me if I do not wish to hear it, and have made my wishes known by stating so on the do-not-call-list which I had to ask the government to add me to in the first place.
The First Amendment does not grant you the right to force me into anything aginst my will.
And as to your "UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!" comment, thank you for suggesting what I did as I ordered the phone line 9 years ago. Got any suggestions that may have something to do with solving the problem of harassing calls?
As it would seem, adding or removing my number from the public phone books should have no physical means or otherwise to magically make that number removed from the telemarketers lists.
> Did the envelope just WALK AWAY? No: You never put it there in the first place.
>
> People, hanging up on the telemarketer is not the same as telling them to
> not call you!
Right.... And ???
I am here telling you that I tell them to not call me. I generally even say please first. Usually I say "Please do not call this number back. Thank you, Bye." or something similar, then wait to hear if they hangup or start talking. I will not speak after this point, even though I am listening. Only once did the telemarketer actually hang up the phone. The rest just ignored my polite request and continued to annoy me. After a couple of seconds I will then hangup.
If they ever call me back, at that point everything legally is in place for me to obtain a court order to keep the person out of my life.
This holds true no matter how a person is bothering you and not stopping after you ask. If they did this exact same thing in person, and were selling whatever it is door to door, and refused to leave my porch after both asking them to leave and also closing the door on them. They have no right to stand out side and ring my door bell continuously. If one would call the cops they would be arrested. This is the law.
The exact same harassment laws can also apply over the phone.
There is even a system in the USA where you can dial *57 and log a trace of the last person tha called you with the phone company and authorize them to share that log with the authorities. Ironically this feature costs $5 to use, but as its for preventing harassment and not to be used lightly (You never see the trace, only the cops and phone co do)
Harassment is defined in the law. Calling you multiple times on the phone after being told to stop is indeed covered.
Perhaps you made the mistake in using the dictonary definition of the word harassment, or something like that. I dont know. But as far as legalitys go, the words in law are usually defined very detailed and very differetly.
I personally do not feel I should be forced into getting court orders aginst the thousands of thousands of telemarketing companys out there.
Not to mention when they 'fold' and turn up under a different name, and the court order will not apply.
And since there are thousands upon thousands of telemarketing companys, this is in effect a legal DDoS, which is not the easiest thing to beat.
The do not call list is actually just enforcing existing harassment laws in a new day and age to adapt to our situation.
After all, im sure when the first harassment laws for this country were made, phones wernt around just yet.
> Telemarketing is not, and never was, harassment. You have a phone number. People
> are allowed to call the phone and try to talk to you.
No one claimed the first call was harassment. Possibly even the second. Its when you tell them to stop calling you and they do so multiple times a week, then it is harassment. And this is aparently common between my own experences and those I have heard from others.
> I don't get the big deal with this.
Well, when people code DNS clients and librarys, they generally do so by following the RFC.
The RFC states that when a domain does not exist, the name server returns the code NXDOMAIN.
So, logically, if you get a NXDOMAIN code back, the domain does not exist.
Verisign changed this RFC defined rule, and every single DNS using application is now broken, as they assume the information in the RFC spec is correct, and it is not so any longer.
There are many different things that broke because of this, which as an end-user of the internet you probably wont notice much of.
People that run service on the internet however do need to know how such servers are suppost to act. Verisign changed the rules without so much as telling anyone.
RFC stands for request for comments. You submit one, and _request comments_
Only after that phase is the RFC out of draft and so people start concidering to use it. This is how a standard is born via RFC. Verisign did not submit a new RFC requeting a change to the original one.
It would be like a web server chaning the numerical error codes.
404 means page not found. 900 is not defined.
Sending a 900 code when page isnt found would break every existing client.
This is what verisign did for DNS