All the magic is in there. If what the IETF wants to do is not compromised by greedy telecom companies, you will be able to reach everybody, with the quality YOU want, and actualy have the choice between "best effort", high quality or mid range, by choosing your provider for the media transport, at call time. The sip address might impose a choice on the last network used, but not on the entire path. And if a subscriber choosed to be with a very poor quality provider to save money, be it! I'm sure the telco will be willing to offer you a service "I want to call this poor guy on a bad network but with good quality" if you give them some bucks.:)
If all goes well, a company not giving a "routable" sip address to it's subscribers will be forced to do so or will run out of businness. But of course, that is blue sky, and that's not for this year.
Al least that's my partial understanding of how things are going on.
>who the fsck are you going to call with an IP phone without the POTS people to terminate your call? Your'e going to call a SIP address (like sip:joe_user@somewhere.com). SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) is rapidly becoming THE big thing in IP telephony. Everybody's working on it. You can get more info about SIP here.
I don't know what you exactly mean by that, but I know a lot of people will read "major corporations that have an interest in the thing".
Corporations vs individuals is not a debate that I have to introduce to the slashdot crowd, but I really think it shows here.
When I read an RFC, of course companies did put money in the thing and are trying to influence it so they can cash in. But at least, at the top of the RFC I don't only see company names! I see the names of the actual individuals who worked on it. People that are competent, that I can email, and that actually try to do a good job because their name is on the thing. If they try to push too hard for their company, they get flamed on the mailing list and they loose credibility, THE only thing that really matters on a mailing list.
But then I check www.linuxbase.org, and what I see as "current members" is almost only company names (at least there is Debian & SPI). This makes me think this linuxbase.org thing isn't going to be as wonderful and open as linux and the IETF.
The sentence "What seems like science fiction" made me think that this "from home" situation was just an example in the article, and wasn't really what the NASA was doing.
Really good post. I agree. I would also suggest another action for him.
In the lines of :
"If you are still interested in doing the webpage, then talk to someone at coke and see what you can work out."
He could work out that they give him some money to start a coke addict webpage on another domain name (with a better name than coke.sh which is not a very good name IMHO for a coke addicted help web site).
Then everybody would be happy. Of course I don't think he is in position to get money from coke, but maybe if he did sign something to make sure the money goes to a coke addict web site, then maybe coke would actually profit from this deal and get out with a positive PR + the coke.sh domain for some insignificant (for them) amount of cash.
I particularly like Page 23 (part 1a) of Einstein's file, where a guy named "J Edgar Hoover" writes :
"[...] the files of this Division, therefore, contain no information relative to the activities of Dr. Einstein in the United States in connection with the Communist Party. [...]"
Maybe I just don't get it, but from what I can read on the my.mp3.com site, the songs from your CD aren't really uploaded. I'm I wrong ?
***quote** Beam-it(TM) software is a revolutionary program that lets us instantly identify what CDs you own so that we can add them to your My.MP3.com account. With Beam-it(TM), you'll never have to upload song files or convert your CDs to MP3s. ***unquote**
From what I understand, the client would send info on the CD (the same identifier used to recognize a CD when inserted and link it with a CD database?) and then the site would automagically, without upload, add the mp3 files of that album to your list @ my.mp3.com for your pleasure.
Not that I would do something like that, but is it then possible for somebody who hacks the client to make it believe he has any CD he wants to have and magically have access to the mp3s for those CDs on my.mp3.com??
What is intended to be done to counter the fact that for many Debian volunteers, helping debian "is just not fun anymore", because of the size & complexity of the project , politics, flame wars,... ?
A lot of people here seem to be happy of the ruling but think code isn't really speech.
Someone mentionned that the primary goal of code is a language to talk to the machine, not to exchange ideas. I think this is a valid point, but in the case we care, the crypto law created a particular circumstance where one was unable to communicate an idea (crypto algorithm) via source code. So for that particular case, the code was *really* used as a way to communicate an idea to others. If this guy is able to phone somebody else and describe the algorithm, why should it be prohibited that he sends a page of source code instead. Source code here is clearly used as a way of communicating something to others, not giving instructions to the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
openspot.com doesn't look like it's related to Allaire.
Can't find related press release at http://www.allaire.com/co mpany/pressbox/pressreleases.cfm.
This story sure looks like coming from nowhere!
All the magic is in there. If what the IETF wants to do is not compromised by greedy telecom companies, you will be able to reach everybody, with the quality YOU want, and actualy have the choice between "best effort", high quality or mid range, by choosing your provider for the media transport, at call time. The sip address might impose a choice on the last network used, but not on the entire path. And if a subscriber choosed to be with a very poor quality provider to save money, be it! I'm sure the telco will be willing to offer you a service "I want to call this poor guy on a bad network but with good quality" if you give them some bucks. :)
If all goes well, a company not giving a "routable" sip address to it's subscribers will be forced to do so or will run out of businness. But of course, that is blue sky, and that's not for this year.
Al least that's my partial understanding of how things are going on.
>who the fsck are you going to call with an IP phone without the POTS people to terminate your call? Your'e going to call a SIP address (like sip:joe_user@somewhere.com). SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) is rapidly becoming THE big thing in IP telephony. Everybody's working on it. You can get more info about SIP here.
"major stakeholders" :
:)
I don't know what you exactly mean by that, but I know a lot of people will read "major corporations that have an interest in the thing".
Corporations vs individuals is not a debate that I have to introduce to the slashdot crowd, but I really think it shows here.
When I read an RFC, of course companies did put money in the thing and are trying to influence it so they can cash in. But at least, at the top of the RFC I don't only see company names! I see the names of the actual individuals who worked on it. People that are competent, that I can email, and that actually try to do a good job because their name is on the thing. If they try to push too hard for their company, they get flamed on the mailing list and they loose credibility, THE only thing that really matters on a mailing list.
But then I check www.linuxbase.org, and what I see as "current members" is almost only company names (at least there is Debian & SPI). This makes me think this linuxbase.org thing isn't going to be as wonderful and open as linux and the IETF.
Maybe I didn't have enough sleep
The sentence "What seems like science fiction" made me think that this "from home" situation was just an example in the article, and wasn't really what the NASA was doing.
Egoine
Really good post. I agree. I would also suggest another action for him.
In the lines of :
"If you are still interested in doing the webpage, then talk to someone at coke and see what you can work out."
He could work out that they give him some money to start a coke addict webpage on another domain name (with a better name than coke.sh which is not a very good name IMHO for a coke addicted help web site).
Then everybody would be happy. Of course I don't think he is in position to get money from coke, but maybe if he did sign something to make sure the money goes to a coke addict web site, then maybe coke would actually profit from this deal and get out with a positive PR + the coke.sh domain for some insignificant (for them) amount of cash.
I particularly like Page 23 (part 1a) of Einstein's file, where a guy named "J Edgar Hoover" writes :
"[...] the files of this Division, therefore, contain no information relative to the activities of Dr. Einstein in the United States in connection with the Communist Party. [...]"
:)
zoid@threewave.com
So I think threewave.com IS related to him.
In light of the domain name registrant info, I'm pretty sure it is related to him :)
His website is kind of "under construction" :)
threewave.com
Maybe I just don't get it, but from what I can read on the my.mp3.com site, the songs from your CD aren't really uploaded. I'm I wrong ?
***quote**
Beam-it(TM) software is a revolutionary program that lets us instantly identify what CDs you own so that we can add them to your My.MP3.com account. With Beam-it(TM), you'll never have to upload song files or convert your CDs to MP3s.
***unquote**
From what I understand, the client would send info on the CD (the same identifier used to recognize a CD when inserted and link it with a CD database?) and then the site would automagically, without upload, add the mp3 files of that album to your list @ my.mp3.com for your pleasure.
Not that I would do something like that, but is it then possible for somebody who hacks the client to make it believe he has any CD he wants to have and magically have access to the mp3s for those CDs on my.mp3.com??
Maybe I'm just totally out...
Egoine
For a discussion about zero (and a different conclusion than yours!), follow this link
I don't want to nitpick but somehow I don't think this assumption will resist the /. crowd :
"Assuming that infinity is a constant for this"
What is intended to be done to counter the fact that for many Debian volunteers, helping debian "is just not fun anymore", because of the size & complexity of the project , politics, flame wars, ... ?
Egoine.
How do you know he tried to cancel it?
From what I see he actually cancelled *another* (cancel not ) msg.
Egoine
A lot of people here seem to be happy of the ruling but think code isn't really speech.
Someone mentionned that the primary goal of code is a language to talk to the machine, not to exchange ideas. I think this is a valid point, but in the case we care, the crypto law created a particular circumstance where one was unable to communicate an idea (crypto algorithm) via source code. So for that particular case, the code was *really* used as a way to communicate an idea to others. If this guy is able to phone somebody else and describe the algorithm, why should it be prohibited that he sends a page of source code instead. Source code here is clearly used as a way of communicating something to others, not giving instructions to the machine.
my 2 cents.