Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
Well, a game is a software
I didn't say games can't be software, I said the other software entries are not games related:P
#3. Computer programs - "unlocking" of cellphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, or wearable devices #4. Computer programs - "jailbreaking" of smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, or other all-purpose mobile computing devices #5. Computer programs - diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of motorized land vehicles #6. Computer programs - security research #7. Computer programs - 3D printers
While I would fully expect some slashdot reader out there has or is attempting to get Doom 3 installed on their cars ECU to control cylinder firing timings, most of these new items do in fact mention the "to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" bit or similar.
I'm not sure what a judge would think of someone making such a claim. All I do know is I wish I could be there when they tried:P
#8 Video games requiring server communication - for continued individual play and preservation of games by libraries, archives, and museums
applies to discontinued game servers
Page 52 has some other limited uses of stripping drm on games specifically for preservation by a limited class. Likely won't apply to you and I, but would to the internet archive for instance.
Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
That's actually quite interesting to hear. When I first heard of Aptoide in passing, I was under the impression it was another store front akin to say Amazons or something.
It didn't help that the guy talking about it pronounced the name as "App - Toy'ed" instead of the now-obvious "Apt - [dr]oid"
Now knowing it is effectively an "apt-get" style system where you control the repo sources, I'm actually going to take a much closer look. So thank you for that!
A Mooney M20 has a top speed of 165 knots and a typical cruising speed of around 130
Where did you get those numbers from?
I selected your own words "Mooney M20 has a top speed", right-clicked and searched Google. The blurb right at the top of the search results contradict your numbers:
Through the efforts of his engineering group, various improvements were made to the M20 with the goal of increasing its speed, and the M20J was introduced in July 1976. It was also known as the Mooney 201 because it was capable of 201 miles per hour (323 km/h) with its 200 horsepower (150 kW) engine. Mooney M20 - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If this is intended to provide facts why not show the results of a collision at 100, 130, or 165... nah, letÃ(TM)s show almost 250 mph so we can hype the shit out of this and win the argument with people who donÃ(TM)t actually know or understand what they are seeing
I'm guessing they tested at almost 238 because the plane at 200 and the drone at 38 adds up to 238.
After the change, if a hacker impersonates the (unavailable) update server, the device can only find the hacked firmware, never the legit one. How is this exactly improving security?
"The change" was to push an update that modifies the software to never attempt to retrieve updates.
It improves the security in a way, because a hacker impersonating the update server would never get any hits to download those updates.
Obviously it isn't the type of improvement that's desired, to sign updates to ensure they are from the right source, but ultimately if the computers aren't connecting anywhere to attempt to download updates, both methods still result in no malicious updates being retrieved.
You keep using that term, even though the definition is meaningless today. Your central office simply cannot look at an incoming number and know that it is spoofed based on your definition of "neighborhood number". I already gave you examples of why it is technically impossible to know. I'll repeat one: I have a valid phone number in an area code and prefix that is 2000 miles away. If I call someone there it would look like I'm spoofing a "neighborhood number", but I am not.
This is exactly the point. We haven't asked the phone company to do anything, based on location or caller ID data. The person you originally responded to asked for software to block numbers matching a pattern we input. I've been doing just that and recommended robokiller to him.
That's it. Nothing more. Central office - doesn't matter and not involved. Their physical location, doesn't matter, not involved. The caller ID being sent (spoofed in this case but it shows up just the same) is all that is needed to choose if the phone should ring or not.
There is a difference between criminalizing the act and being able to detect it automatically. Of course make it illegal. Of course NOT demand that telcos automatically block any call from someone that claims to have the same area code and prefix.
But both myself and the original poster you replied to never said the *telcos* should block it, he was asking for a program similar to google voice so *he* could block it, thus I suggested one.
You do say it has nothing to do with location, which of course is true, but we don't care about the location of the caller. If their caller ID matches a wildcard pattern I enter, then I don't want my phone to ring, no matter if they are next door or across the world.
This right here is why the term "neighborhood number" isn't useless. With two words he and I knew exactly what was wanted and what can handle that, and kept either of us from typing out the full paragraphs above in its place:P
Yes, it may feel very nice, until your child cannot call you from a friend's home to get you to come pick him up because the call is from a "neighborhood number"
I suppose that's my fault for only giving the specific details on the app that I use to the other person and not you. By "block" all robokiller does is make the phone not ring and then send the call to voicemail. It's also the end users choice to do this or not. So long as the child knows to leave one, we would still get in touch just with a slight delay of a minute or two.
But even then, sure, perhaps a person with a child would choose not to install such an app, but the original poster has already chosen to do so (google voice) so seems pretty OK with that. We didn't suggest forcing it on a parent (or anyone) that didn't want it.
I should also say I don't actually have a child, but that said, I don't see what possible emergency or situation that 60 seconds or even a few minutes would make much of a difference. Again, maybe just me. But to pick up a kid at a friends house, a couple minutes delay doesn't sound like an issue. If something really bad like a medical emergency happened, I'd far prefer them to call 911 first. Of course I'd want to know too, but even then, if someone is being rushed to the ER I can't see what I can do to help. Any sort of stabilization or surgery would mean I can't go back and see them right away anyway. I'd just be in the way.
It honestly doesn't seem that person minded this situation. I certainly don't. To anyone who does mind it, they shouldn't follow my advice that I didn't give them:P
I even just went up and looked at Jason Levine's comment, in case I was mis-remembering and talking out of my ass or something here:
"Google Voice has a feature where you can mark a number as spam" and " Perhaps there should be a "block neighborhood numbers not on your c
"Neighborhood number" is, today, a useless phrase. That's what makes a proposal to block "neighborhood numbers" as spam technically wrong.
I suppose that makes me jealous of you. The area code I'm in ranks #5 in most neighborhood number spam calls in north america.
Spam calls spoofed with my area code and prefix number 7-10 nearly every single day for the past two years. Last December near Christmas time was a week or two that count dropped to 1-3 per day.
I count 16 voicemails on my phone from such numbers, all real people who are calling back to bitch and complain about the spam calls all night after my own number was spoofed to them.
Now looking back at my robokiller history, between March 2016 and today, I have received a total of 6 calls flagged as spam from non-neighborhood numbers which I don't recognize the area codes of.
Yes, six (6!), in two years. Compared to over 5000 neighborhood number spam calls.
So to many people around here "neighborhood number" is far from useless of a phrase, it's nearly required language both in discussing such calls as well as naming the feature used to block them in software on our phones.
The problem has gotten so bad that it drew attention from lawmakers over a year ago and is being used as a basis to criminalize not just neighborhood number spoofing but any unwanted call spoofing, but of course the law moves slow as hell and it will likely be another year before any results come from it.
In the mean time, we have few options and taking matters into our own hands for blocking rule purposes is going to give the best results. It's very nice to block 99.998% of your spam calls with a single toggle switch in software conveniently named "block neighborhood numbers"
In 10 digit dialing, neighborhood number is one that shares the same first 3 digits, and area code. "Current" 7 digit dialing is the same since it simply assumes the area code remains the same if excluded.
Original 7-digit dialing was the first two letters and the next two numbers, and specifically was only the numbers on the same local-exchange, where the operator could route your call without patching into any other exchange.
The rest of your questions and assumptions are unfounded and unrelated.
Google is a net newbie, and although they think and act (incorrectly) like they know what they're doing, they want to be a (bad) nanny to everyone. What ever happened to "don't be evil?"
You say this as if Google de-trusting this CA in October is a Google choice.
FireFox limited trust for this CA back in May already, and will be revoking it in October as well.
May 2018 (Firefox 60): Websites will show an untrusted connection error if they have a TLS cert issued before 2016-06-01 that chains up to a Symantec root. October 2018 (Firefox 63): Removal/distrust of Symantec roots, with caveats described below.
Only Microsoft hasn't announced intent to do so for IE/Edge, in violation of the certificate authority standards I might add.
There are clear rules CAs must follow and they are not ignorant of this. Symantec knew full well they would have all of their CA certs revoked from all web browsers the second they sold wildcard certificates for traffic interception systems.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
You did, it was just rarely abused and not cheap or easy to gain access to.
Any company owning a PBX system trunked to the phone exchange, was the owner of the device (the PBX) being asked by your exchange, what the caller ID should be.
The staff that programmed the PBX defined the caller ID rules, and as is common practice, would have defined all "internal only" extensions to return a different phone number, likely the companies main number or reception desk.
A PBX wasn't cheap, nor was the trunk fees to connect it to the network.
Today we have a new thing that didn't exist in the 80s, called VoIP, where the PBX is replaced by software (some even free), and "trunk" connections over IP that cost less per month than the average person spends at mcdonalds.
Being cheap and easily accessible only now and not in the 80s, is exactly why you see this kind of crap now and not in the 80s.
And are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible to make certain that the number that pops up is the number that is calling?
There is, it is called ANI, and part of the networks billing system. It isn't that it doesn't exist, it has since the 60s as far as I'm aware (probably longer), but you likely don't want to pay for the requirement to decide it nor the service levels needed for the phone company to offer it.
If you get a toll or toll-free number, you will be given access to the ANI info of the caller, since for toll-free it will be you paying for the call and so you need to know what that will cost before answering. You also need to be trunked into the network, a POTS or cell line has no method to transmit this info to you.
Now you can certainly argue this shouldn't be the way it is, such service should be free, and the phone company should be forced to pay for the hardware to give to you at a loss. But that's another story unrelated to the technology existing.
No one is talking about removing the ability to die. We're talking about removing the ability for old age to kill us.
A bullet to the head, as well as thousands of other ways to be killed, not only remains but then becomes even more of a thing to avoid when it will cost you hundreds of years of your life ahead instead of just a small handful.
Then clearing out the old to make way for the new becomes a choice regarding how. Either you move aside and live out the rest of your long and healthy life, or refuse and are moved out of the way.
Without intimate knowledge on the circuit boards original design, it would be next to impossible to find anything differing from the original. In other words you would need a before and after to compare with each other.
The SuperMicro systems you and I have were designed to be sold to the general public, so there's next to no way in hell SM will be giving out their board layout files.
That's part of the stories problem, it explicitly names a few huge cloud providers who ARE privy to such info. Perhaps a more basic or even a special model, but Apple and Amazon make their own huge customization to those designs to send back to SM and essentially order millions of them to be made.
Bloomberg is claiming some of his anonymous sources are involved with those companies and designing their custom systems, so in those companies cases they do have a "before" cad file to start from. The anonymous sources are making claims that the original custom cad file and the actual manufactured servers they order differ from each other by this one chip.
So unless you work at a company large enough to get this kind of treatment from manufacturers like super micro, there's no way for us to know. And if you are, go talk to your engineers, they likely already did this with numerous machines and beat you to the punch.
Super micro could know by comparing their cad files to what's being sold, presuming they aren't in on this officially. I'd say either option would destroy their reputation so badly however it's unlikely they would admit it even if they weren't involved but found out, and zero chance they would admit it if they were involved.
and if Stage 9 didn't agree to the terms of the contract?
Stage 9 agreeing or not agreeing would both continue to have no effect on the fact CBS is allowed to offer such a contract if they wished to do so, which was the claim being made.
So yes, if Stage 9 declined the terms of any contract, that does NOT suddenly change copyright law to make all such contracts illegal. Nor would such contracts all be illegal if Stage 9 agreed to it.
Rights holders are allowed to make whatever contract terms they want. Someone liking or disliking that has NO effect on that fact.
Why even make a post suggesting that would be the case? Did you not even pay attention to what you are replying to?
They lose the right to sue people who really rip them off (as opposed to Stage 9) unless they defend their rights across the board. I wish this law was changed.
Care to point out the exact number in title 17 of this non-existent law?
With any luck, while searching for your non-existent law, it will have the side effect that you actually read and learn about what exactly is in copyright law.
In fact I'd like to draw your attention to chapter 1, section 106a, under "E) Transfer and Waiver" Seems to me the law explicitly allows a waiver of rights, far from disallowing such a thing and forcing a copyright holder to lose any rights by not exercising such a wavier as you claim.
Why would copyright law provide the optional ability to grant a waiver if as you say the law forces a holder to never be allowed to grant a waiver?
And as I'm sure someone will reply such, let me explicitly say, I am not claiming Stage 9 is *entitled* to a wavier, nor is CBS required to even entertain the option. I only claim the *option* for CBS to do so is right there encoded into law, versus the parent poster claiming such a thing doesn't exist (it's awfully right here for not existing)
none of that fixes what is ultimately wrong with AMP.
If i cant host the js files on my own server then there is a problem with the standard. FULL STOP.
Regardless of who caches the page or where ever it is hosted the fact remains that google has spoiled the AMP project by mandating that everyone call a script that is hosted from their servers. This leads to many issues the top one of them being: what happens if google abandons this project?
The question was "where are the pages hosted", which is what I answered with. Of course none of that is about the other problems, I'm not sure why you'd think it would be.
But you are still conflating two separate use cases.
You don't *have* to link their javascript file at all to USE amp. You have to host it for them to CACHE your amp pages.
If they abandon caching, you wouldn't need or want the js file in the first place.
You are making a complaint along the lines that your web browser or email client has no offline mode and must be on the Internet to use. If you aren't on the Internet, those programs would be useless.
If you don't want google to cache your pages, don't link in the script that lets them cache your pages. The fact your amp pages exist and the fact google offers to cache them are separate.
Bing also requires you to load a javascript file from them if you want Bing to cache your pages. Bing and Google require you to include that to grant them permission to make copies of your amp pages, something they are not allowed to do by default under the law.
You'll note that DuckDuckGo has no javascript file to link to at all, and no such requirement. This is because DuckDuckGo doesn't offer caching at all.
This is separate from the fact DuckDuckGo will still return AMP links to your hosted AMP files if it finds them on your server. Same with Bing.
If Google abandons caching, then Google would turn it all off right? Their search results wouldn't link back to the now-non-existent google cache URLs. At that point Google search would either return direct links to your AMP pages like all the other search engines do, or actively stop their bots from crawling/indexing AMP pages and go back to returning the desktop site URLs, depending how far they want to stop supporting AMP.
But even Google abandoning AMP doesn't mean all the other search engines would too. That's their call to make.
Hovering shows the URL. The URL does not imply a document's media type (PDF vs. HTML), and it certainly does not imply what subset of HTML is used. Technically, AMP is a subset of HTML5.
You have that backwards. Imply is all the URL can possibly do, and it most certainly does do that in many cases. What it can't do is guarantee anything.
This becomes difficult when the majority of the results on the first page are on an unwanted domain or in an unwanted format.
Well as the topic at hand was DuckDuckGo, let's use the first few results on the first page, as zero of them are to any domain but what the result implies.
If you'd like to play along at home, go there, search for a common term that the news outlets always have results for, and hit the news tab. I'll also remove the http so slashdot doesn't linkify them. I used "political news" as the search, and it goes here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=political+news&t=h_&ia=news&iar=news
Result #1 "Chicago Tribune" - www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-political-nonprofits-donors-20180918-story,amp.html See the part before the extension? Amp.
#2 "Forbes" - www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/18/facebook-increases-security-for-political-campaign-staff/amp/ See the last part of the path? Amp.
#3 is also forbes so #4 "Washington Post" - www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/entertainment/tv/political-commentator-schmidt-joins-showtimes-the-circus/2018/09/13/f98fe0ea-b772-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c96d79_story.html See the first part of the path? Amphtml
#5 is fox news which doesn't seem to be an amp page, first one! #6 "The Idaho Statesman" - amp.idahostatesman.com/entertainment/article218331115.html See the sub-domain? Amp.
#7 "Detroit Free Pres" - amp.freep.com/amp/1250872002 Lots of amp!
and now the sites start to repeat so that's good enough. All of those URLs imply AMP and it took nothing more than to pay attention and actually look. Do you really think those aren't amp pages? I haven't clicked any of those links so I am not guaranteeing they are amp any more than the URL does, but they sure as hell imply it.
How is it possible to avoid AMP sites entirely? Genuine question.
The same way you avoid any other content you don't want, like PDFs. If you hover over a link that leads you to a PDF or AMP page, don't click it.
Or avoid websites hosting content you don't want. It's the only way to really be sure.
I thought by use of ublock etc I was doing a reasonable job of staying out of googles data capture silo, but now I'm not so sure
AMP pages can contain anything HTML pages do, so the same tools and methods will work on both. ublock will continue to block ads, at least as well as usual, linked to from either type of page.
But Google tracks not just by ads so you'll want to continue using whatever you use now to block websites from loading googles content on their page. It will continue to work on AMP pages just the same as HTML.
Unless you mean "in general", in which case an ad blocker, java script whitelist addon, and due diligence is the best we really have.
Google search popping up AMP pages convinced me to ditch Google search and switch to DuckDuckGo.
You should probably be aware then that DuckDuckGo redirects you to AMP pages in their search results too.
It's far easier to see by doing a search and switching to the "news" tab, since every news site seems to host AMP pages. Just hover over any link and you'll see like 90% go to AMP versions of the news site.
Bing and Yahoo both also serve AMP pages in their search results.
You aren't going to be able to avoid websites AMP versions just by changing search engines, they all do it now.
AMP is hosted by you on your web server. You take your existing pages and run them through the AMP library and it outputs AMP.html pages.
There are new <amp> tags mirroring the same syntax as normal tags but indicate mobile optimized content. So your site has <img src='moo.png'> and the amp page has <amp-img src='moo2.png'> indicating an optimized for mobile image file.
In your real page you add a <link rel='index-amp.html'> thing to point to the amp version of the page. Though it sounds like a bad idea to have them side-by-side like my examples, you'd probably want a sub-dir and just prefix the paths with that, or a sub-domain so long as having https enabled on both works right in your setup.
Once google search next indexes your website and finds the "link rel" tags, the search result will link to the normal page for desktops and the amp page for mobiles.
Same goes for Bing and Yahoo once they index you, they all do amp now.
At least Google and Bing will also cache your amp content if you have a tag in the header saying they can. (I don't know if yahoo does caching or not) After that the search results point to the caching proxy for whichever search engine you are using, and the cache only checks your server for changes.
From what I can remember of my college years, I didn't have any digital devices, but I was overserved on many occasions
For us, overserved was when you had three cups of noodles to throw together in a pot for a single meal. Those were always great days to look forward to:D
Thank God we haven't done that in automotive yet. You still can buy replacement male and female bits for them. (I have yet to see a computer cable which can be either-gendered referred to in any way other than male or female, though.)
It's funny you mention that. I couldn't come up with a computer cable related example for one of those either, and the first example that came to mind was actually is automotive related.
The Los Angeles County tried to ban Master/Slave for IDE cables in 2003
In the electronic manufacturing industry I work kinda-in (purely IT, but still) we had a similar push not long ago to ban Male/Female when referring to connectors and instead use Plug/Jack. "Mating", the verb form, was changed to "Connect"
A bit later this was changed again as the previously-female term "Jack" was offensive being a predominantly male name, so it became Plug/Socket.
Even later as more complex connectors came into common use, it was noticed that things like the USB-A connectors had an outside shield component that made ground contact when plugged in, but at the same time the inserting component went *into* the cable where the 4 conductive plate traces were. Basically the previously-male side has a shroud that completely envelops the entire previously-female side when connected.
The decades old term for these are "hermaphroditic shrouded connectors", which was also found offensive and changed to "surround connector"
There was also "hermaphroditic non-shrouded connectors" previously called "genderless" which can connect both cable-to-panel as well as cable-to-cable, which are now to be called "combination connectors"
The latest change we had to make was to retain the Plug/Socket terms but on the technical side no longer use "Plug" to replace "Male" and "Socket" to replace "Female" Instead "Socket" is whichever end is fixed in place (IE on a circuit board or a panel) and "Plug" to refer to a movable connector (IE at the end of a cable) So, the terms no longer indicate the obvious physical appearance of the connector, but how the connector is used.
This also means for the previously-genderless instances of a cable-to-cable connection, you are to say it is two *sockets* connecting, and you can't have two plugs that connect.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
Well, a game is a software
I didn't say games can't be software, I said the other software entries are not games related :P
#3. Computer programs - "unlocking" of cellphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, or wearable devices
#4. Computer programs - "jailbreaking" of smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, or other all-purpose mobile computing devices
#5. Computer programs - diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of motorized land vehicles
#6. Computer programs - security research
#7. Computer programs - 3D printers
While I would fully expect some slashdot reader out there has or is attempting to get Doom 3 installed on their cars ECU to control cylinder firing timings, most of these new items do in fact mention the "to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" bit or similar.
I'm not sure what a judge would think of someone making such a claim. All I do know is I wish I could be there when they tried :P
The final ruling document isn't due to publish until tomorrow, but here is the 2018 exemptions ruling:
(PDF warning)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf
Scroll down to page 19
#8 Video games requiring server communication - for continued individual play and
preservation of games by libraries, archives, and museums
applies to discontinued game servers
Page 52 has some other limited uses of stripping drm on games specifically for preservation by a limited class.
Likely won't apply to you and I, but would to the internet archive for instance.
Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
That's actually quite interesting to hear. When I first heard of Aptoide in passing, I was under the impression it was another store front akin to say Amazons or something.
It didn't help that the guy talking about it pronounced the name as "App - Toy'ed" instead of the now-obvious "Apt - [dr]oid"
Now knowing it is effectively an "apt-get" style system where you control the repo sources, I'm actually going to take a much closer look. So thank you for that!
A Mooney M20 has a top speed of 165 knots and a typical cruising speed of around 130
Where did you get those numbers from?
I selected your own words "Mooney M20 has a top speed", right-clicked and searched Google.
The blurb right at the top of the search results contradict your numbers:
Through the efforts of his engineering group, various improvements were made to the M20 with the goal of increasing its speed, and the M20J was introduced in July 1976. It was also known as the Mooney 201 because it was capable of 201 miles per hour (323 km/h) with its 200 horsepower (150 kW) engine.
Mooney M20 - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If this is intended to provide facts why not show the results of a collision at 100, 130, or 165... nah, letÃ(TM)s show almost 250 mph so we can hype the shit out of this and win the argument with people who donÃ(TM)t actually know or understand what they are seeing
I'm guessing they tested at almost 238 because the plane at 200 and the drone at 38 adds up to 238.
After the change, if a hacker impersonates the (unavailable) update server, the device can only find the hacked firmware, never the legit one.
How is this exactly improving security?
"The change" was to push an update that modifies the software to never attempt to retrieve updates.
It improves the security in a way, because a hacker impersonating the update server would never get any hits to download those updates.
Obviously it isn't the type of improvement that's desired, to sign updates to ensure they are from the right source, but ultimately if the computers aren't connecting anywhere to attempt to download updates, both methods still result in no malicious updates being retrieved.
You keep using that term, even though the definition is meaningless today. Your central office simply cannot look at an incoming number and know that it is spoofed based on your definition of "neighborhood number". I already gave you examples of why it is technically impossible to know. I'll repeat one: I have a valid phone number in an area code and prefix that is 2000 miles away. If I call someone there it would look like I'm spoofing a "neighborhood number", but I am not.
This is exactly the point.
We haven't asked the phone company to do anything, based on location or caller ID data.
The person you originally responded to asked for software to block numbers matching a pattern we input. I've been doing just that and recommended robokiller to him.
That's it. Nothing more.
Central office - doesn't matter and not involved. Their physical location, doesn't matter, not involved.
The caller ID being sent (spoofed in this case but it shows up just the same) is all that is needed to choose if the phone should ring or not.
There is a difference between criminalizing the act and being able to detect it automatically. Of course make it illegal. Of course NOT demand that telcos automatically block any call from someone that claims to have the same area code and prefix.
But both myself and the original poster you replied to never said the *telcos* should block it, he was asking for a program similar to google voice so *he* could block it, thus I suggested one.
You do say it has nothing to do with location, which of course is true, but we don't care about the location of the caller. If their caller ID matches a wildcard pattern I enter, then I don't want my phone to ring, no matter if they are next door or across the world.
This right here is why the term "neighborhood number" isn't useless. :P
With two words he and I knew exactly what was wanted and what can handle that, and kept either of us from typing out the full paragraphs above in its place
Yes, it may feel very nice, until your child cannot call you from a friend's home to get you to come pick him up because the call is from a "neighborhood number"
I suppose that's my fault for only giving the specific details on the app that I use to the other person and not you.
By "block" all robokiller does is make the phone not ring and then send the call to voicemail.
It's also the end users choice to do this or not.
So long as the child knows to leave one, we would still get in touch just with a slight delay of a minute or two.
But even then, sure, perhaps a person with a child would choose not to install such an app, but the original poster has already chosen to do so (google voice) so seems pretty OK with that.
We didn't suggest forcing it on a parent (or anyone) that didn't want it.
I should also say I don't actually have a child, but that said, I don't see what possible emergency or situation that 60 seconds or even a few minutes would make much of a difference. Again, maybe just me.
But to pick up a kid at a friends house, a couple minutes delay doesn't sound like an issue.
If something really bad like a medical emergency happened, I'd far prefer them to call 911 first.
Of course I'd want to know too, but even then, if someone is being rushed to the ER I can't see what I can do to help. Any sort of stabilization or surgery would mean I can't go back and see them right away anyway. I'd just be in the way.
It honestly doesn't seem that person minded this situation. I certainly don't. :P
To anyone who does mind it, they shouldn't follow my advice that I didn't give them
I even just went up and looked at Jason Levine's comment, in case I was mis-remembering and talking out of my ass or something here:
"Google Voice has a feature where you can mark a number as spam" and
" Perhaps there should be a "block neighborhood numbers not on your c
"Neighborhood number" is, today, a useless phrase. That's what makes a proposal to block "neighborhood numbers" as spam technically wrong.
I suppose that makes me jealous of you.
The area code I'm in ranks #5 in most neighborhood number spam calls in north america.
Spam calls spoofed with my area code and prefix number 7-10 nearly every single day for the past two years. Last December near Christmas time was a week or two that count dropped to 1-3 per day.
I count 16 voicemails on my phone from such numbers, all real people who are calling back to bitch and complain about the spam calls all night after my own number was spoofed to them.
Now looking back at my robokiller history, between March 2016 and today, I have received a total of 6 calls flagged as spam from non-neighborhood numbers which I don't recognize the area codes of.
Yes, six (6!), in two years. Compared to over 5000 neighborhood number spam calls.
So to many people around here "neighborhood number" is far from useless of a phrase, it's nearly required language both in discussing such calls as well as naming the feature used to block them in software on our phones.
The problem has gotten so bad that it drew attention from lawmakers over a year ago and is being used as a basis to criminalize not just neighborhood number spoofing but any unwanted call spoofing, but of course the law moves slow as hell and it will likely be another year before any results come from it.
In the mean time, we have few options and taking matters into our own hands for blocking rule purposes is going to give the best results.
It's very nice to block 99.998% of your spam calls with a single toggle switch in software conveniently named "block neighborhood numbers"
Define "neighborhood number"
It's been defined since the 1950's.
In 10 digit dialing, neighborhood number is one that shares the same first 3 digits, and area code.
"Current" 7 digit dialing is the same since it simply assumes the area code remains the same if excluded.
Original 7-digit dialing was the first two letters and the next two numbers, and specifically was only the numbers on the same local-exchange, where the operator could route your call without patching into any other exchange.
The rest of your questions and assumptions are unfounded and unrelated.
Google is a net newbie, and although they think and act (incorrectly) like they know what they're doing, they want to be a (bad) nanny to everyone. What ever happened to "don't be evil?"
You say this as if Google de-trusting this CA in October is a Google choice.
FireFox limited trust for this CA back in May already, and will be revoking it in October as well.
May 2018 (Firefox 60): Websites will show an untrusted connection error if they have a TLS cert issued before 2016-06-01 that chains up to a Symantec root.
October 2018 (Firefox 63): Removal/distrust of Symantec roots, with caveats described below.
Only Microsoft hasn't announced intent to do so for IE/Edge, in violation of the certificate authority standards I might add.
There are clear rules CAs must follow and they are not ignorant of this.
Symantec knew full well they would have all of their CA certs revoked from all web browsers the second they sold wildcard certificates for traffic interception systems.
This is no ones doing other than Symantec.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
You did, it was just rarely abused and not cheap or easy to gain access to.
Any company owning a PBX system trunked to the phone exchange, was the owner of the device (the PBX) being asked by your exchange, what the caller ID should be.
The staff that programmed the PBX defined the caller ID rules, and as is common practice, would have defined all "internal only" extensions to return a different phone number, likely the companies main number or reception desk.
A PBX wasn't cheap, nor was the trunk fees to connect it to the network.
Today we have a new thing that didn't exist in the 80s, called VoIP, where the PBX is replaced by software (some even free), and "trunk" connections over IP that cost less per month than the average person spends at mcdonalds.
Being cheap and easily accessible only now and not in the 80s, is exactly why you see this kind of crap now and not in the 80s.
And are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible to make certain that the number that pops up is the number that is calling?
There is, it is called ANI, and part of the networks billing system.
It isn't that it doesn't exist, it has since the 60s as far as I'm aware (probably longer), but you likely don't want to pay for the requirement to decide it nor the service levels needed for the phone company to offer it.
If you get a toll or toll-free number, you will be given access to the ANI info of the caller, since for toll-free it will be you paying for the call and so you need to know what that will cost before answering.
You also need to be trunked into the network, a POTS or cell line has no method to transmit this info to you.
Now you can certainly argue this shouldn't be the way it is, such service should be free, and the phone company should be forced to pay for the hardware to give to you at a loss.
But that's another story unrelated to the technology existing.
You're telling us you wouldn't take a call from Sitting Bull?
I dunno, is he calling to confirm my address and ask for my PIN?
No one is talking about removing the ability to die.
We're talking about removing the ability for old age to kill us.
A bullet to the head, as well as thousands of other ways to be killed, not only remains but then becomes even more of a thing to avoid when it will cost you hundreds of years of your life ahead instead of just a small handful.
Then clearing out the old to make way for the new becomes a choice regarding how.
Either you move aside and live out the rest of your long and healthy life, or refuse and are moved out of the way.
Without intimate knowledge on the circuit boards original design, it would be next to impossible to find anything differing from the original.
In other words you would need a before and after to compare with each other.
The SuperMicro systems you and I have were designed to be sold to the general public, so there's next to no way in hell SM will be giving out their board layout files.
That's part of the stories problem, it explicitly names a few huge cloud providers who ARE privy to such info.
Perhaps a more basic or even a special model, but Apple and Amazon make their own huge customization to those designs to send back to SM and essentially order millions of them to be made.
Bloomberg is claiming some of his anonymous sources are involved with those companies and designing their custom systems, so in those companies cases they do have a "before" cad file to start from.
The anonymous sources are making claims that the original custom cad file and the actual manufactured servers they order differ from each other by this one chip.
So unless you work at a company large enough to get this kind of treatment from manufacturers like super micro, there's no way for us to know. And if you are, go talk to your engineers, they likely already did this with numerous machines and beat you to the punch.
Super micro could know by comparing their cad files to what's being sold, presuming they aren't in on this officially. I'd say either option would destroy their reputation so badly however it's unlikely they would admit it even if they weren't involved but found out, and zero chance they would admit it if they were involved.
Besides, some games go easily over multi-GB downloads, PC or consoles (most recent console is a PS2, I'm more of a PC gamer)
Some of my Nintendo Switch console game downloads:
15.6 gb - Zelda, breath of the wild
14.5 gb - Skyrim
17.3 gb - SouthPark, the fractured but whole
21.3 gb - Doom
12.1 gb - Wasteland 2
13.7 gb - Wolfenstein 2
12.8 gb - Hydrule warriors
One doesn't even need a computer to overshoot 15gb, or nearly so.
Even Fallout 4 at 37.6 gb from Steam is about 250% of their limit.
and if Stage 9 didn't agree to the terms of the contract?
Stage 9 agreeing or not agreeing would both continue to have no effect on the fact CBS is allowed to offer such a contract if they wished to do so, which was the claim being made.
So yes, if Stage 9 declined the terms of any contract, that does NOT suddenly change copyright law to make all such contracts illegal. Nor would such contracts all be illegal if Stage 9 agreed to it.
Rights holders are allowed to make whatever contract terms they want. Someone liking or disliking that has NO effect on that fact.
Why even make a post suggesting that would be the case? Did you not even pay attention to what you are replying to?
They lose the right to sue people who really rip them off (as opposed to Stage 9) unless they defend their rights across the board. I wish this law was changed.
Care to point out the exact number in title 17 of this non-existent law?
Here, this will get you started: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17
With any luck, while searching for your non-existent law, it will have the side effect that you actually read and learn about what exactly is in copyright law.
In fact I'd like to draw your attention to chapter 1, section 106a, under "E) Transfer and Waiver"
Seems to me the law explicitly allows a waiver of rights, far from disallowing such a thing and forcing a copyright holder to lose any rights by not exercising such a wavier as you claim.
Why would copyright law provide the optional ability to grant a waiver if as you say the law forces a holder to never be allowed to grant a waiver?
And as I'm sure someone will reply such, let me explicitly say, I am not claiming Stage 9 is *entitled* to a wavier, nor is CBS required to even entertain the option.
I only claim the *option* for CBS to do so is right there encoded into law, versus the parent poster claiming such a thing doesn't exist (it's awfully right here for not existing)
none of that fixes what is ultimately wrong with AMP.
If i cant host the js files on my own server then there is a problem with the standard. FULL STOP.
Regardless of who caches the page or where ever it is hosted the fact remains that google has spoiled the AMP project by mandating that everyone call a script that is hosted from their servers. This leads to many issues the top one of them being: what happens if google abandons this project?
The question was "where are the pages hosted", which is what I answered with.
Of course none of that is about the other problems, I'm not sure why you'd think it would be.
But you are still conflating two separate use cases.
You don't *have* to link their javascript file at all to USE amp.
You have to host it for them to CACHE your amp pages.
If they abandon caching, you wouldn't need or want the js file in the first place.
You are making a complaint along the lines that your web browser or email client has no offline mode and must be on the Internet to use.
If you aren't on the Internet, those programs would be useless.
If you don't want google to cache your pages, don't link in the script that lets them cache your pages.
The fact your amp pages exist and the fact google offers to cache them are separate.
Bing also requires you to load a javascript file from them if you want Bing to cache your pages.
Bing and Google require you to include that to grant them permission to make copies of your amp pages, something they are not allowed to do by default under the law.
You'll note that DuckDuckGo has no javascript file to link to at all, and no such requirement.
This is because DuckDuckGo doesn't offer caching at all.
This is separate from the fact DuckDuckGo will still return AMP links to your hosted AMP files if it finds them on your server. Same with Bing.
If Google abandons caching, then Google would turn it all off right? Their search results wouldn't link back to the now-non-existent google cache URLs.
At that point Google search would either return direct links to your AMP pages like all the other search engines do, or actively stop their bots from crawling/indexing AMP pages and go back to returning the desktop site URLs, depending how far they want to stop supporting AMP.
But even Google abandoning AMP doesn't mean all the other search engines would too. That's their call to make.
Hovering shows the URL. The URL does not imply a document's media type (PDF vs. HTML), and it certainly does not imply what subset of HTML is used. Technically, AMP is a subset of HTML5.
You have that backwards. Imply is all the URL can possibly do, and it most certainly does do that in many cases. What it can't do is guarantee anything.
This becomes difficult when the majority of the results on the first page are on an unwanted domain or in an unwanted format.
Well as the topic at hand was DuckDuckGo, let's use the first few results on the first page, as zero of them are to any domain but what the result implies.
If you'd like to play along at home, go there, search for a common term that the news outlets always have results for, and hit the news tab.
I'll also remove the http so slashdot doesn't linkify them.
I used "political news" as the search, and it goes here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=political+news&t=h_&ia=news&iar=news
Result #1 "Chicago Tribune" - www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-political-nonprofits-donors-20180918-story,amp.html
See the part before the extension? Amp.
#2 "Forbes" - www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/18/facebook-increases-security-for-political-campaign-staff/amp/
See the last part of the path? Amp.
#3 is also forbes so
#4 "Washington Post" - www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/entertainment/tv/political-commentator-schmidt-joins-showtimes-the-circus/2018/09/13/f98fe0ea-b772-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c96d79_story.html
See the first part of the path? Amphtml
#5 is fox news which doesn't seem to be an amp page, first one!
#6 "The Idaho Statesman" - amp.idahostatesman.com/entertainment/article218331115.html
See the sub-domain? Amp.
#7 "Detroit Free Pres" - amp.freep.com/amp/1250872002
Lots of amp!
and now the sites start to repeat so that's good enough.
All of those URLs imply AMP and it took nothing more than to pay attention and actually look. Do you really think those aren't amp pages?
I haven't clicked any of those links so I am not guaranteeing they are amp any more than the URL does, but they sure as hell imply it.
How is it possible to avoid AMP sites entirely? Genuine question.
The same way you avoid any other content you don't want, like PDFs.
If you hover over a link that leads you to a PDF or AMP page, don't click it.
Or avoid websites hosting content you don't want.
It's the only way to really be sure.
I thought by use of ublock etc I was doing a reasonable job of staying out of googles data capture silo, but now I'm not so sure
AMP pages can contain anything HTML pages do, so the same tools and methods will work on both.
ublock will continue to block ads, at least as well as usual, linked to from either type of page.
But Google tracks not just by ads so you'll want to continue using whatever you use now to block websites from loading googles content on their page.
It will continue to work on AMP pages just the same as HTML.
Unless you mean "in general", in which case an ad blocker, java script whitelist addon, and due diligence is the best we really have.
Google search popping up AMP pages convinced me to ditch Google search and switch to DuckDuckGo.
You should probably be aware then that DuckDuckGo redirects you to AMP pages in their search results too.
It's far easier to see by doing a search and switching to the "news" tab, since every news site seems to host AMP pages.
Just hover over any link and you'll see like 90% go to AMP versions of the news site.
Bing and Yahoo both also serve AMP pages in their search results.
You aren't going to be able to avoid websites AMP versions just by changing search engines, they all do it now.
AMP is hosted by you on your web server. You take your existing pages and run them through the AMP library and it outputs AMP .html pages.
There are new <amp> tags mirroring the same syntax as normal tags but indicate mobile optimized content.
So your site has <img src='moo.png'> and the amp page has <amp-img src='moo2.png'>
indicating an optimized for mobile image file.
In your real page you add a <link rel='index-amp.html'> thing to point to the amp version of the page.
Though it sounds like a bad idea to have them side-by-side like my examples, you'd probably want a sub-dir and just prefix the paths with that, or a sub-domain so long as having https enabled on both works right in your setup.
Once google search next indexes your website and finds the "link rel" tags, the search result will link to the normal page for desktops and the amp page for mobiles.
Same goes for Bing and Yahoo once they index you, they all do amp now.
At least Google and Bing will also cache your amp content if you have a tag in the header saying they can. (I don't know if yahoo does caching or not)
After that the search results point to the caching proxy for whichever search engine you are using, and the cache only checks your server for changes.
There's some basic details up at https://www.ampproject.org/
does edge have a version of ublock origin or any other ad blockers? if the answer is no then it's not more secure.
I was shocked to see that there is an adblock extension for edge in the microsoft store.
I don't use edge so don't know if it works the same, but it was from the same group that the chrome/firefox extension is from.
Only on a 3-second lark did I search for "noscript" and "scriptsafe" finding no results, and I'm not near a win10 computer now to check for ublock.
From what I can remember of my college years, I didn't have any digital devices, but I was overserved on many occasions
For us, overserved was when you had three cups of noodles to throw together in a pot for a single meal. :D
Those were always great days to look forward to
Thank God we haven't done that in automotive yet. You still can buy replacement male and female bits for them. (I have yet to see a computer cable which can be either-gendered referred to in any way other than male or female, though.)
It's funny you mention that.
I couldn't come up with a computer cable related example for one of those either, and the first example that came to mind was actually is automotive related.
I've seen these but didn't know what they were called before:
https://www.amazon.com/Hopkins-47965-2-Pole-Flat-Extension/dp/B0002Q80RW
The Los Angeles County tried to ban Master/Slave for IDE cables in 2003
In the electronic manufacturing industry I work kinda-in (purely IT, but still) we had a similar push not long ago to ban Male/Female when referring to connectors and instead use Plug/Jack.
"Mating", the verb form, was changed to "Connect"
A bit later this was changed again as the previously-female term "Jack" was offensive being a predominantly male name, so it became Plug/Socket.
Even later as more complex connectors came into common use, it was noticed that things like the USB-A connectors had an outside shield component that made ground contact when plugged in, but at the same time the inserting component went *into* the cable where the 4 conductive plate traces were.
Basically the previously-male side has a shroud that completely envelops the entire previously-female side when connected.
The decades old term for these are "hermaphroditic shrouded connectors", which was also found offensive and changed to "surround connector"
There was also "hermaphroditic non-shrouded connectors" previously called "genderless" which can connect both cable-to-panel as well as cable-to-cable, which are now to be called "combination connectors"
The latest change we had to make was to retain the Plug/Socket terms but on the technical side no longer use "Plug" to replace "Male" and "Socket" to replace "Female"
Instead "Socket" is whichever end is fixed in place (IE on a circuit board or a panel) and "Plug" to refer to a movable connector (IE at the end of a cable)
So, the terms no longer indicate the obvious physical appearance of the connector, but how the connector is used.
This also means for the previously-genderless instances of a cable-to-cable connection, you are to say it is two *sockets* connecting, and you can't have two plugs that connect.
Confused yet?