They are holding patentable when there are two computers involved. So, any networking code may still be patentable since it is a system of multiple computers. This may help to invalidate non-network software. Fraunhofer, I'm looking at you...
Yep, because it looks and acts like CD. However, YOU know how to purchase CDs and if the logo is missing, YOU won't buy it.
If we add enough words to be defined in such a way, like:
-> ISP -> Internet Service Provider -> Internet Provider -> Broadband Access -> Internet Access -> Broadband Provider
If someone advertises "Web Access" you can say, "No thanks."
The problem arises when no company will provide true internet access in a given area, but then you have other pressure, like equal access, etc (small ISPs have to be given access to DSL for example, my provider is Sonic.net, but uses access to AT&T DSL to get access to my house). There are also other laws that mandate access in certain areas, and this access is defined using the words above so they HAVE to provide this level of service.
This is why we need a clear definition of "ISP" and government agency to enforce it.
If we define ISP as:
-> Access to the internet which is unfiltered* and unfettered -> Hosting of DNS, NNTP, SMTP**, HTTP (hosted page for users), POP3 and IMAP
Anything that does not meet this criteria can not be called an "ISP" and can not offer for sale "Internet Access". Selling service that is less than the above yet calling themselves an "ISP" or selling "Internet Access" is "false advertising". FTC is probably the proper agency to enforce, or perhaps state agencies.
*or the ability to turn the filter off on your own. I have this with my ISP, they block 25/tcp by default, but I run my own mail server so I disable it. Blocking 25/tcp is good for the internet as a whole, but for certain users, it should be turned off.
**mail forwarding for those who do not run their own server.
If he believes that video games and rap music are to blame for his kids ills, it might be a better lesson for him to teach individual responsibility and parental responsibility than to burn them.
As far as my credentials helping people, I certainly do not need to wave my resume at an anonymous coward.
Ah, you must be twelve years old, so I will use small words.
There were wireless internet providers that only allowed you to access the Web via a browser instead of the whole internet. Meaning you could not have email except in a web browser, or ssh, or, your favorite, eMule.
They said they provided "Internet access" when really, it was only WWW access. Understand now?
I do believe that many carriers will find it quite inconvenient if they can not label themselves as an ISP or providing Internet access, and furthermore, I believe the FTC will have no trouble finding Comcast's world headquarters.
I think the FTC should get involved and determine what the definition of "Internet Access" and "ISP" are. If net neutrality was a requirement to be labeled "ISP" or providing "Internet Access" I think it would help the consumer greatly. This would have also helped with those old wireless carriers who used to provide web-only access but called it "Internet Access" (I think the are all gone now).
Similar to:
"USDA Organic"
Or
"This product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
It will be interesting because they probably don't have standing to collect. They would either have to collect from the customer or setup a customs system when the goods enter (are imported?) to the state.
Slashdot Mirror
They are holding patentable when there are two computers involved. So, any networking code may still be patentable since it is a system of multiple computers. This may help to invalidate non-network software. Fraunhofer, I'm looking at you...
Huh? I am using AGK and my CPU never does anything. It is always waiting for I/O. I must be doing something wrong...
Yep, because it looks and acts like CD. However, YOU know how to purchase CDs and if the logo is missing, YOU won't buy it.
If we add enough words to be defined in such a way, like:
-> ISP
-> Internet Service Provider
-> Internet Provider
-> Broadband Access
-> Internet Access
-> Broadband Provider
If someone advertises "Web Access" you can say, "No thanks."
The problem arises when no company will provide true internet access in a given area, but then you have other pressure, like equal access, etc (small ISPs have to be given access to DSL for example, my provider is Sonic.net, but uses access to AT&T DSL to get access to my house). There are also other laws that mandate access in certain areas, and this access is defined using the words above so they HAVE to provide this level of service.
This is why we need a clear definition of "ISP" and government agency to enforce it.
If we define ISP as:
-> Access to the internet which is unfiltered* and unfettered
-> Hosting of DNS, NNTP, SMTP**, HTTP (hosted page for users), POP3 and IMAP
Anything that does not meet this criteria can not be called an "ISP" and can not offer for sale "Internet Access". Selling service that is less than the above yet calling themselves an "ISP" or selling "Internet Access" is "false advertising". FTC is probably the proper agency to enforce, or perhaps state agencies.
*or the ability to turn the filter off on your own. I have this with my ISP, they block 25/tcp by default, but I run my own mail server so I disable it. Blocking 25/tcp is good for the internet as a whole, but for certain users, it should be turned off.
**mail forwarding for those who do not run their own server.
...tick...tick...tick...
No commercial applications until 2018. Nothing to see here, move along.
Here is the link from the email.
That's not what she said.
Google: Shielded Twisted Pair (STP). Quite common. Probably can get a 1.5m STP cable for about $3.
I was going to come here to discuss their exclusionary nature. It seems I will have to take a number...
Number 32?
If he believes that video games and rap music are to blame for his kids ills, it might be a better lesson for him to teach individual responsibility and parental responsibility than to burn them.
As far as my credentials helping people, I certainly do not need to wave my resume at an anonymous coward.
and that b*tch Ann Murry too!
As long as we always have SOMETHING or SOMEONE to blame, we never have to be responsible for our own actions.
Slashdot made me do it!
http://reactrix.com/
http://www.wilife.com/Default.aspx
Welcome to Slashdot, home of the paraphrased, ST:TNG, obscure quote.
Episode 17, "Home Soil":
"Ugly bags of mostly water!"
It refers to humans; which make this a double-jab as geeks are notorious for not interacting with humans very well.
...until the medicine ball full of water bursts open.
I for one welcome our new water overlords.
My business would be harmed by a lawsuit? DUH!
It reminds me of "Liar Liar":
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
Ah, you must be twelve years old, so I will use small words.
There were wireless internet providers that only allowed you to access the Web via a browser instead of the whole internet. Meaning you could not have email except in a web browser, or ssh, or, your favorite, eMule.
They said they provided "Internet access" when really, it was only WWW access. Understand now?
I do believe that many carriers will find it quite inconvenient if they can not label themselves as an ISP or providing Internet access, and furthermore, I believe the FTC will have no trouble finding Comcast's world headquarters.
I think the FTC should get involved and determine what the definition of "Internet Access" and "ISP" are. If net neutrality was a requirement to be labeled "ISP" or providing "Internet Access" I think it would help the consumer greatly. This would have also helped with those old wireless carriers who used to provide web-only access but called it "Internet Access" (I think the are all gone now).
Similar to:
"USDA Organic"
Or
"This product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
That sounds "unconscionable"!
As in "unconscionable contract".
Sorry, Ralph, "unpossible".
Executive Order? ;-)
It will be interesting because they probably don't have standing to collect. They would either have to collect from the customer or setup a customs system when the goods enter (are imported?) to the state.
Why would I buy another set-top box? Unless it can do everything that TiVo can do and better/cheaper, why bother?
Why am I going to buy an AppleTV/vudu that's a TiVo that can't record live TV?
FTP has been around since the 70's and http since the 90's and they want to take MAXIMUM BANDWIDTH.