They've probably never had common carrier status. For one, they're not a carrier. For another, ISPs don't have common carrier status. Hell, the Wikipedia page on "common carrier" says this.
That line in a ToS is widely regarded as unenforceable. Just because you write down in an agreement, "I'm allowed to change this agreement at any time," doesn't mean that you can actually legally do that. Now, if they change the agreement, you see the new agreement, and continue using the service, you've implicitly accepted the new agreement. If you don't agree with the new ToS, stop using the service, and contact them, you can often terminate your service with them without being subject to penalties (or alternately not being subject to the new ToS).
As a private corporation, Amazon isn't subject to due process. Only the government is subject to due process. (To be fair, that's because the government is the only one that is really allowed to take away your rights -- e.g., when imprisoning you. Amazon deciding to stop hosting your site doesn't infringe upon your rights.)
As long as the real world consists only of companies that don't mind lawsuits and FTC investigations and fines.
Sure, there are plenty of such companies, mostly not in the U.S. But the only thing enforcing the Do Not Call list is the legal repercussions for ignoring it, and it's pretty effective.
NAT is useless well below that. Even if none of the services require port-forwarding, just doing masquerading ties up one port on the NATing router per active connnection.
Actually, some routers know and care about DNS, because they provide a caching DNS resolver and advertise it to DHCP clients. Many home routers don't, though.
Some ISPs care enough about DNS to intercept DNS packets and respond to them using their DNS servers, even if the DNS request wasn't intended for them. That's because they're assholes.
The copyright rule on facts also helps. Facts are not copyrightable. However, a particular collection of facts is copyrightable. So you cannot claim copyright on any particular item in an almanac, but you can claim copyright on the almanac as a whole.
No. The plot, the characters, et cetera are ideas. The body of text is an incarnation of those ideas.
It's more complicated with patents. A general idea is not patentable. A specific method for implementing a general idea (which is also an idea) is patentable. An object that uses that specific method isn't patentable, it's just an object (and an incarnation of the method-idea).
It's true that lots of people don't use it that way. Historians and pedants do. The decades not matching up is particularly annoying. I'm not sure that one way or the other really makes more sense, but usually it's good to at least accept whatever the conventional usage is. (That is, when someone says 20th century, you should accept that they might think of it as ending either on 1999 or 2000. Hey, that's language for you.)
You can't copyright ideas, incidentally -- including the color blue or the Force. You can, however, copyright a body of text or an individual artistic work. Others can use your ideas, but cannot simply duplicate your work.
Except that the traditional 12-hour clock goes from 12:00 to 11:59. Either 1 through 12 and 59/60 or 0 through 11 59/60 would be sane. Instead, 12:00 is the start of the day, 1:00 is an hour into the day, and 11:59 is the end of the day. The point where the hour number wraps around and the breakpoint between two days aren't aligned.
That sucks. The one here doesn't play those kind of games. (Though they do tell you that you have to bring their hardware back to them yourself or they'll charge you for it.)
Depends on what that costs versus what paying up costs. I'm sure the company seriously considered that option. I know Time Warner Cable in our area does whenever stations want to get more money out of them.
Many of the sites that Firesheep attacks use HTTPS for their login, so you don't send your credentials in the clear, but fall back to HTTP for delivery of content. The point Firesheep attempts to make is that this is not sufficient -- your unencrypted HTTP requests contain the session cookie that your encrypted login obtained. The session cookie is just as useful, as long as you make use of it "soon".
I just used confusing wording and skipped an important point.
The X-ray backscatter machines have radiation *intensities* that are much higher than background, of course.
At "low" radiation intensities (which includes these devices), damage (like cancer) is simply linearly proportional to the dose -- the total amount of radiation energy dumped into your body, adjusted for the effectiveness on humans of that particular type of radiation.
So you're comparing the effects of continual exposure to the background radiation to 2-second bursts of X-ray backscatter machines.
What aspect of the backscatter scanners? There are a ton of papers out there about Compton backscattering.
There isn't direct measurement of the frequency of the TSA's backscatter X-ray machines on cancer frequency, because that's far too difficult to measure. (You'd need hundreds of millions of scans on a test object to cause the equivalent of a 1% increase in chance of dying of cancer.) The impact of radiation on humans, though -- including radiation of this type and energy -- is well-studied enough to estimate the risks based on the known properties of the scanners.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, unless it was in response to a court order.
They've probably never had common carrier status. For one, they're not a carrier. For another, ISPs don't have common carrier status. Hell, the Wikipedia page on "common carrier" says this.
That line in a ToS is widely regarded as unenforceable. Just because you write down in an agreement, "I'm allowed to change this agreement at any time," doesn't mean that you can actually legally do that. Now, if they change the agreement, you see the new agreement, and continue using the service, you've implicitly accepted the new agreement. If you don't agree with the new ToS, stop using the service, and contact them, you can often terminate your service with them without being subject to penalties (or alternately not being subject to the new ToS).
As a private corporation, Amazon isn't subject to due process. Only the government is subject to due process. (To be fair, that's because the government is the only one that is really allowed to take away your rights -- e.g., when imprisoning you. Amazon deciding to stop hosting your site doesn't infringe upon your rights.)
As long as the real world consists only of companies that don't mind lawsuits and FTC investigations and fines.
Sure, there are plenty of such companies, mostly not in the U.S. But the only thing enforcing the Do Not Call list is the legal repercussions for ignoring it, and it's pretty effective.
She wasn't nearly elected at all. The probability of McCain winning the election was well below 10%.
NAT is useless well below that. Even if none of the services require port-forwarding, just doing masquerading ties up one port on the NATing router per active connnection.
Actually, some routers know and care about DNS, because they provide a caching DNS resolver and advertise it to DHCP clients. Many home routers don't, though.
Some ISPs care enough about DNS to intercept DNS packets and respond to them using their DNS servers, even if the DNS request wasn't intended for them. That's because they're assholes.
"The decades" as in "the '30s" or "the '80s" or "the 1870s". Technically you can have a decade aligned on any year you want.
Earlier poster was talking about whether "the 80s" referred to 80-89 or 81-90.
The copyright rule on facts also helps. Facts are not copyrightable. However, a particular collection of facts is copyrightable. So you cannot claim copyright on any particular item in an almanac, but you can claim copyright on the almanac as a whole.
No. The plot, the characters, et cetera are ideas. The body of text is an incarnation of those ideas.
It's more complicated with patents. A general idea is not patentable. A specific method for implementing a general idea (which is also an idea) is patentable. An object that uses that specific method isn't patentable, it's just an object (and an incarnation of the method-idea).
It's true that lots of people don't use it that way. Historians and pedants do. The decades not matching up is particularly annoying. I'm not sure that one way or the other really makes more sense, but usually it's good to at least accept whatever the conventional usage is. (That is, when someone says 20th century, you should accept that they might think of it as ending either on 1999 or 2000. Hey, that's language for you.)
Fundamental rights are protected by law. The word "right" is simply a legal term of art.
You can't copyright ideas, incidentally -- including the color blue or the Force. You can, however, copyright a body of text or an individual artistic work. Others can use your ideas, but cannot simply duplicate your work.
You don't know of any businesses that need a static IP address?
So, you don't know of any businesses that use VPN or having public-facing servers? These businesses don't run their own e-mail servers?
Actually, UPnP and such technologies do a pretty good job of letting applications set up their own port forwarding without user interaction.
Granted, having your ISP run a UPnP-enabled NATing router to be shared among multiple customers probably wouldn't be the best of security decisions.
Except that the traditional 12-hour clock goes from 12:00 to 11:59. Either 1 through 12 and 59/60 or 0 through 11 59/60 would be sane. Instead, 12:00 is the start of the day, 1:00 is an hour into the day, and 11:59 is the end of the day. The point where the hour number wraps around and the breakpoint between two days aren't aligned.
Actually, the 20th century is January 1, 1901 to December 31, 2000. Likewise, the 19th century is 1801 to 1900.
The decades, frustratingly, are different. The 80s is 1980-1989.
See for examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s
That sucks. The one here doesn't play those kind of games. (Though they do tell you that you have to bring their hardware back to them yourself or they'll charge you for it.)
Depends on what that costs versus what paying up costs. I'm sure the company seriously considered that option. I know Time Warner Cable in our area does whenever stations want to get more money out of them.
DNSSEC? So, replace a single-root, authoritative domain name system with a single-root, authoritative system system for validating DNS response?
Facebook.com has multiple IP addresses. Would you like to go to 123.52.13.12 or 125.32.13.12?
That's a great solution, sure to confuse nobody!
Many of the sites that Firesheep attacks use HTTPS for their login, so you don't send your credentials in the clear, but fall back to HTTP for delivery of content. The point Firesheep attempts to make is that this is not sufficient -- your unencrypted HTTP requests contain the session cookie that your encrypted login obtained. The session cookie is just as useful, as long as you make use of it "soon".
I just used confusing wording and skipped an important point.
The X-ray backscatter machines have radiation *intensities* that are much higher than background, of course.
At "low" radiation intensities (which includes these devices), damage (like cancer) is simply linearly proportional to the dose -- the total amount of radiation energy dumped into your body, adjusted for the effectiveness on humans of that particular type of radiation.
So you're comparing the effects of continual exposure to the background radiation to 2-second bursts of X-ray backscatter machines.
What aspect of the backscatter scanners? There are a ton of papers out there about Compton backscattering.
There isn't direct measurement of the frequency of the TSA's backscatter X-ray machines on cancer frequency, because that's far too difficult to measure. (You'd need hundreds of millions of scans on a test object to cause the equivalent of a 1% increase in chance of dying of cancer.) The impact of radiation on humans, though -- including radiation of this type and energy -- is well-studied enough to estimate the risks based on the known properties of the scanners.