they're always one step ahead. By the time counterfeiters master copying the old bills, they've already got a new one ready to go into circulation. If you're saying "Can we think of an expermient" meaning "how hard is it to counterfeit", then the answer is "easy to do, hard to do well". I have a counterfeit $20 bill I got at work which is clearly not the work of a small-potatoes domestic counterfeiter. I think that the treasury decides it's time to change when foreign countries start covertly printing money beyond a certain quantity.
At the next election, add a line item to the ballot: Replace dollar bills with coins or add national sales tax of 1% to cover cost of printing paper money?
First, in the US, a national sales taxes would be unconstitutional. Second, there's no mechanism for federal level popular referendums-- we have a strictly representative republic. Third, using the threat of taxation to make people feel good about a format change in currency is ridiculous. If replacing paper 1's become that much of a drain on the treasury, then the change to coins will happen. As it is, the Dept. of the Treasury has only made the case that it would make their lives a little easier. We the taxpayers pay 'em to work. Let 'em work. The extra expense is really nothing in comparison to the federal budget as a whole.
So, tell me, if I'm a counterfitter, why wouldn't I just copy the older bills and 'age' them in the washing machine?
Counterfeiters can't wash the money they make. While real US currency can go through the wash, most counterfeit bills will come apart, or at least lose their ink. Matching the paper is always bandied about as the "hard part" of counterfeiting, but it's not (cough)Crane's Crest Fluorescent Opaque White(/cough). The ink is even harder. Ink on paper money is raised and waterproof. Counterfeiters have to pass new-looking bills because people aren't used to handling brand-new bills. If one passes a fake bill that looks new, the taker will usually think "ah, a new bill; that's why it feels funny", whereas if one passes a carefully worn fake bill the taker will likely think "why does this money feel funny".
You exhibit a frightening lack of knowledge of both chess and algorithms. If chess was "purely mathematical" then there would exhist an optimal solution(s).
Whoa, I didn't say it was a simple mathematical problem. Besides, something being "purely mathematical" does not mean it must have an "optimal" solution. I'm just saying that there's no mystical thaumaturgic aspects to chess that require you to be human to master it. At some point someone will develop a chess playing computer that can outplay any human player. Not one that can win all the time, by any means, but one that can play better than any human. From a cellular automata standpoint, there's nothing in the universe* that can't be simulated exactly, including the brain of a chess master.
That's not exactly how it works. If that is how it works, then Vonage would not have been able to transfer my existing phone number to their service that I'd had with the local monopoly for 16 years before that. Surely it is not magically in some block of numbers they have. Their trunks are clearly integrated in the routing infrastructure of phone numbers in the local office here, however that works, for one number to be able to re rerouted from the incumbent carrier to them.
They clearly are hooked into the infrastructure much more like a phone company than an PBX on DID lines. I don't know all the specifics, but it ain't just DID.
Jeezly crow, man, I didn't say they "just using DID". Of course there's more to it than that. But they most certainly are not any more integrated into the routing infrastructure than any other company with lines delivered via HDSL (T1). Number portability is simply a matter of the old local monopoly "forwarding" calls on that number to Vonnage's incoming line pool. The call goes to the old #, bounces to Vonnage, and their system is automatically given all the pertinent info, including what number the caller dialed. Anyone connecting to the PSTN via a T1 gets this info, not just "phone companies". I know. I'm a telecom technician. I install this crap for a living. I do know the specifics.
When a computer can learn to play chess by itself and then beat the top players, then we have something to look at.
Indeed we will, because not even humans learn to play chess by themselves-- we learn it from other people. In the case of chess-playing computers, I see no real distinction between a man taught how to play chess by a master and a computer taught by a programmer. In terms of AI issues, yes, there's a difference; but this is just chess, not a Turing test.
Why? Is it not conceivable that computers may perhaps be weaker in some THING than humans?
Yeah, but chess ain't it. Chess is purely mathematical. The limitation is in the human programmers crafting a complete algorithm that will analyze a chess game properly. For a while guys like Kasparov will be able to beat machines by noticing weaknesses in the alogorith-- blind spots, if you will. But at some point all of the human-findable weak points in the program will be found and freakishly talented weirdos like Kasparov will no longer rule.
I'm sorry to hear that. I like my consistent circuit-switched connection just fine.
Damn straight. The beauty of the current PSTN is that the technology at the customer end doesn't have to be any more complicated than it was 100 years ago, all centrally powered and battery backed. If everything went VoIP, I'd be OK, 'cause I've got a ridiculous UPS system keeping my router and such alive; but what about, say, my mother? Gimme that 48v loop for reliability.
Where does this put VoIP with regards to telemarketers? If it's a data service, the FTC no-call list can't be applied, can it?
Think of the phone system as a network with each access point given its own 10-dibit address. The DNC list is strictly a list of addresses the telemarketers are not allowed to dial. Doesn't matter what sort of device is on the other end, nor how that device is communicated with (copper loop, wireless, TCP/IP network). They simply cannot call that number.
On the other hand, Vonage isn't a purely VoIP company; they actually connect to the telephone network, and they offer telephone network numbers. They're like a traditional telephone company except for how your call gets to their switch; on the other side, they interact with the phone network like a traditional phone company.
No they're not, and no they don't. They are like any other private company out there with an on-site telephone system using Direct-In-Dial. Let me explain how it works:
With DID, you reserve a block of, say, 250 phone numbers. Not 250 lines, just the numbers. These are purely for addressing. Each extension in your company is assigned one of these numbers. Incoming and outgoing calls are handled by, say, a couple T1's. This gives you a pool of 48 lines for incoming and outgoing calls. Many companies and universities do this, and they aren't phone companies. At UCLA they'll even charge you monthly for the DID line, like a phone company! Vonnage is doing exactly this: selling you the use of an extension on their phone system. The only difference is that the extension isn't in their office, it's delivered over the Internet. Delivering a service over the Internet isn't in itself regulable, nor is selling DID phone service managed by private equipment.
Basically, Vonnage isn't delivering service on monopoly infrastructure, they are simply connecting to it like any other business.
What's the reason for regulation of regular telephony companies anyway?
The entire justification for regulation is their monopoly status. Because there is only one set of wires carrying dialtone, and they own it, they are regulated. Wireless carriers aren't regulated-- there's a federal law prohibitting it-- because there's no monopoly of the medium. Regular phone companies are subject to regulation based solely on the fact that they own the copper pair, or are resellers of service on that copper pair. Because VoIP is not dependent on a particular delivery medium, nor tied to a particular physical location of delivery, there's absolutely not justification for state regulation.
As someone that used to be a locksmith, I have to disagree with you. Popping the lock with a slim-jim on a modern car sets off the alarm. Opening it via remote does not. Go and scoff somewhere else.
I am currently a locksmith, and have been for over a decade. Car alarms are a joke. Nobody looks when they go off, so they don't really affect security. Pop the hood and yank the siren or pull the horn wires and it shuts up. I've popped open cars in the middle of the night everywhere from crowded streets to dewserted alleys and only once has anyone asked if I was supposed to be doing that-- and he just took my word for it when I said "I'm the locksmith". I scoff from experience.
Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.
[scoff!]
You think the reason car thieves haven't taken advantage of weaknesses in remote unlock systems is because they're so well designed? Think again, man. The reason no one's making black-market code-grabbers for remote door lock systems is because the slim-jim class of opening tools still work. There's no reason to attempt to exploit a complicated electronic system on the front door when the back door is secured with a plastic padlock labeled "do not cut off this padlock"! If you ask me, Windows is just like cars. They add on all sorts of fancy things but don't fix the security holes that are already there.
one wonders if this is one reason some asian languages are up-down, not left-right; it's left/right hand neutral!)
Actually, it's only hand-neutral for the first column. It's probably just chance that asian characters are written vertical instead of horizontal. If one's goal is to keep one's hand off the ink, when one writes a symbol with the right hand, one has the choice of writing the next symbol either to the right of the first or below it. Fifty-fifty chance, they just chose differently.
Can someone please tell me why we are looking to a centralised (and billable, taxable) VOIP strategy, instead of a direct peered (or even client/server) model? I honestly don't get it!
Well, because at present they are interfacing with the regular phone network, which requires a translation from the 10-digit phone system addressing to IP addressing and back. Additionally, if you want to be able to plug in your VoIP phone anywhere, there needs to be a central location that keeps track of which IP address you're currently reachable at. Peer-to-peer is great for things like music, where ANY copy of a song/movie/etc will do. Phone calls, on the other hand, pretty much require a connection to a specific individual. If you're calling John Smith (your boss), it's not good enough for a P2P system to give you the closest John Smith it finds.
Dialing-via-IP might work, but that means anyone on DHCP gets their VoIP number changed at regular intervals. Can you imagine having to tell people "my phone number is 213-555-1234 for the next 72 hours"? Wouldn't work. You need some sort of fixed addressing, which requires centralization.
So, if the telco I worked for was trying to replace conventional telephone service with VoIP then why wouldn't it be considered a telephone service?
What makes telco's accountable to regulation is their monopoly ownership of the last mile delivery medium. It don't matter a crap whether they used analog loop, TCP/IP, or fuggin' morse code to deliver service-- the salient point is that they own the copper, and that's what the regulation is based on. No one is suggesting that using VoIP exempts one from regulation, only that a company that does nothing but provide VoIP service isn't the same as a local loop provider.
Let's go over this again. Cellular providers don't have a natural monopoly, but they are regulated. CLECs, who don't have a natural monopoly, are regulated.
Sorry, try again. Federal law says states can't set prices or erect barriers to companies entering or exiting the mobile telephone marketplace. Cellular service is regulated a bit by the FCC, but unlike the copper-loop-providers, the state PUC's can't touch 'em. States have the usual power to regulate the terms and conditions of service contracts, but that's true for ANY industry.
Are you arguing that only ILECs deserve to be regulated (because of their monopoly)?
I would argue that YES, the monopoly providers of the last-mile copper should be regulated, as there is no competition. That is, in fact, the entire justification behind PUCs regulating ILECs.
Or are you arguing that VoIP is somehow special?
I would say that VoIP is more like cellular service than POTS. It's not dependent on a single provider of a physical medium for delivery. Internet connectivity is available from numerous competing providers, therefore the only valid justification for PUC oversight (monopoly provider) is not present.
AIDS is not a viral disease but a nervous system disorder caused by the death of brain cells by chemicals. Those that are "treated" for HIV are given AZT, a highly-toxic drug given to cancer patients, which causes the same nervous-system disorders that the nitrites family of drugs cause (such as poppers).
Interesting theory, but I'm curious how it explains the concurrent explosion of AIDS cases in Africa, where they certainly don't have a lot of AZT being handed out.
There were already predictions that this would be an unusually heavy hurricane season before it started - those were due to climate models that showed the ocean area responsible would be warmer than normal.
But remember that the same models predicted a heavy hurricane season last year and it didn't happen. Weather predictions are still only a little better at this point than a man in a loincloth shaking a bone at the moon. It's not enough for them to predict right once. I want to see a good record of accurate predictions before I give them THAT much credence.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's precisely the point he was making.
they're always one step ahead. By the time counterfeiters master copying the old bills, they've already got a new one ready to go into circulation. If you're saying "Can we think of an expermient" meaning "how hard is it to counterfeit", then the answer is "easy to do, hard to do well". I have a counterfeit $20 bill I got at work which is clearly not the work of a small-potatoes domestic counterfeiter. I think that the treasury decides it's time to change when foreign countries start covertly printing money beyond a certain quantity.
Nah, it needs at least a dozen sides. They need to be able to be stacked like round coins because they're distributed in paper wrapped rolls.
First, in the US, a national sales taxes would be unconstitutional. Second, there's no mechanism for federal level popular referendums-- we have a strictly representative republic. Third, using the threat of taxation to make people feel good about a format change in currency is ridiculous. If replacing paper 1's become that much of a drain on the treasury, then the change to coins will happen. As it is, the Dept. of the Treasury has only made the case that it would make their lives a little easier. We the taxpayers pay 'em to work. Let 'em work. The extra expense is really nothing in comparison to the federal budget as a whole.
Counterfeiters can't wash the money they make. While real US currency can go through the wash, most counterfeit bills will come apart, or at least lose their ink. Matching the paper is always bandied about as the "hard part" of counterfeiting, but it's not (cough)Crane's Crest Fluorescent Opaque White(/cough). The ink is even harder. Ink on paper money is raised and waterproof. Counterfeiters have to pass new-looking bills because people aren't used to handling brand-new bills. If one passes a fake bill that looks new, the taker will usually think "ah, a new bill; that's why it feels funny", whereas if one passes a carefully worn fake bill the taker will likely think "why does this money feel funny".
Whoa, I didn't say it was a simple mathematical problem. Besides, something being "purely mathematical" does not mean it must have an "optimal" solution. I'm just saying that there's no mystical thaumaturgic aspects to chess that require you to be human to master it. At some point someone will develop a chess playing computer that can outplay any human player. Not one that can win all the time, by any means, but one that can play better than any human. From a cellular automata standpoint, there's nothing in the universe* that can't be simulated exactly, including the brain of a chess master.
* except, of course, the universe itself
Jeezly crow, man, I didn't say they "just using DID". Of course there's more to it than that. But they most certainly are not any more integrated into the routing infrastructure than any other company with lines delivered via HDSL (T1). Number portability is simply a matter of the old local monopoly "forwarding" calls on that number to Vonnage's incoming line pool. The call goes to the old #, bounces to Vonnage, and their system is automatically given all the pertinent info, including what number the caller dialed. Anyone connecting to the PSTN via a T1 gets this info, not just "phone companies". I know. I'm a telecom technician. I install this crap for a living. I do know the specifics.
Indeed we will, because not even humans learn to play chess by themselves-- we learn it from other people. In the case of chess-playing computers, I see no real distinction between a man taught how to play chess by a master and a computer taught by a programmer. In terms of AI issues, yes, there's a difference; but this is just chess, not a Turing test.
Yeah, but chess ain't it. Chess is purely mathematical. The limitation is in the human programmers crafting a complete algorithm that will analyze a chess game properly. For a while guys like Kasparov will be able to beat machines by noticing weaknesses in the alogorith-- blind spots, if you will. But at some point all of the human-findable weak points in the program will be found and freakishly talented weirdos like Kasparov will no longer rule.
Damn straight. The beauty of the current PSTN is that the technology at the customer end doesn't have to be any more complicated than it was 100 years ago, all centrally powered and battery backed. If everything went VoIP, I'd be OK, 'cause I've got a ridiculous UPS system keeping my router and such alive; but what about, say, my mother? Gimme that 48v loop for reliability.
Think of the phone system as a network with each access point given its own 10-dibit address. The DNC list is strictly a list of addresses the telemarketers are not allowed to dial. Doesn't matter what sort of device is on the other end, nor how that device is communicated with (copper loop, wireless, TCP/IP network). They simply cannot call that number.
No they're not, and no they don't. They are like any other private company out there with an on-site telephone system using Direct-In-Dial. Let me explain how it works:
With DID, you reserve a block of, say, 250 phone numbers. Not 250 lines, just the numbers. These are purely for addressing. Each extension in your company is assigned one of these numbers. Incoming and outgoing calls are handled by, say, a couple T1's. This gives you a pool of 48 lines for incoming and outgoing calls. Many companies and universities do this, and they aren't phone companies. At UCLA they'll even charge you monthly for the DID line, like a phone company! Vonnage is doing exactly this: selling you the use of an extension on their phone system. The only difference is that the extension isn't in their office, it's delivered over the Internet. Delivering a service over the Internet isn't in itself regulable, nor is selling DID phone service managed by private equipment.
Basically, Vonnage isn't delivering service on monopoly infrastructure, they are simply connecting to it like any other business.
The entire justification for regulation is their monopoly status. Because there is only one set of wires carrying dialtone, and they own it, they are regulated. Wireless carriers aren't regulated-- there's a federal law prohibitting it-- because there's no monopoly of the medium. Regular phone companies are subject to regulation based solely on the fact that they own the copper pair, or are resellers of service on that copper pair. Because VoIP is not dependent on a particular delivery medium, nor tied to a particular physical location of delivery, there's absolutely not justification for state regulation.
I am currently a locksmith, and have been for over a decade. Car alarms are a joke. Nobody looks when they go off, so they don't really affect security. Pop the hood and yank the siren or pull the horn wires and it shuts up. I've popped open cars in the middle of the night everywhere from crowded streets to dewserted alleys and only once has anyone asked if I was supposed to be doing that-- and he just took my word for it when I said "I'm the locksmith". I scoff from experience.
1) You can if they're apple pies and pie-shaped apples.
2) It was only a metaphor anyway
3) It wasn't my comparison! The other guy started it!
heh heh.
You should cross the Atlantic instead. It's quicker. :)
[scoff!]
You think the reason car thieves haven't taken advantage of weaknesses in remote unlock systems is because they're so well designed? Think again, man. The reason no one's making black-market code-grabbers for remote door lock systems is because the slim-jim class of opening tools still work. There's no reason to attempt to exploit a complicated electronic system on the front door when the back door is secured with a plastic padlock labeled "do not cut off this padlock"! If you ask me, Windows is just like cars. They add on all sorts of fancy things but don't fix the security holes that are already there.
Actually, it's only hand-neutral for the first column. It's probably just chance that asian characters are written vertical instead of horizontal. If one's goal is to keep one's hand off the ink, when one writes a symbol with the right hand, one has the choice of writing the next symbol either to the right of the first or below it. Fifty-fifty chance, they just chose differently.
Well, because at present they are interfacing with the regular phone network, which requires a translation from the 10-digit phone system addressing to IP addressing and back. Additionally, if you want to be able to plug in your VoIP phone anywhere, there needs to be a central location that keeps track of which IP address you're currently reachable at. Peer-to-peer is great for things like music, where ANY copy of a song/movie/etc will do. Phone calls, on the other hand, pretty much require a connection to a specific individual. If you're calling John Smith (your boss), it's not good enough for a P2P system to give you the closest John Smith it finds.
Dialing-via-IP might work, but that means anyone on DHCP gets their VoIP number changed at regular intervals. Can you imagine having to tell people "my phone number is 213-555-1234 for the next 72 hours"? Wouldn't work. You need some sort of fixed addressing, which requires centralization.
What makes telco's accountable to regulation is their monopoly ownership of the last mile delivery medium. It don't matter a crap whether they used analog loop, TCP/IP, or fuggin' morse code to deliver service-- the salient point is that they own the copper, and that's what the regulation is based on. No one is suggesting that using VoIP exempts one from regulation, only that a company that does nothing but provide VoIP service isn't the same as a local loop provider.
Sorry, try again. Federal law says states can't set prices or erect barriers to companies entering or exiting the mobile telephone marketplace. Cellular service is regulated a bit by the FCC, but unlike the copper-loop-providers, the state PUC's can't touch 'em. States have the usual power to regulate the terms and conditions of service contracts, but that's true for ANY industry.
Are you arguing that only ILECs deserve to be regulated (because of their monopoly)?
I would argue that YES, the monopoly providers of the last-mile copper should be regulated, as there is no competition. That is, in fact, the entire justification behind PUCs regulating ILECs.
Or are you arguing that VoIP is somehow special?
I would say that VoIP is more like cellular service than POTS. It's not dependent on a single provider of a physical medium for delivery. Internet connectivity is available from numerous competing providers, therefore the only valid justification for PUC oversight (monopoly provider) is not present.
Because phone service is a necessity, unlike food. (their logic, not mine; feel free to laugh)
Errr...If they decide one cannot run anything that uses a certain port, then it's not complete and unfettered access, is it.
Interesting theory, but I'm curious how it explains the concurrent explosion of AIDS cases in Africa, where they certainly don't have a lot of AZT being handed out.
But remember that the same models predicted a heavy hurricane season last year and it didn't happen. Weather predictions are still only a little better at this point than a man in a loincloth shaking a bone at the moon. It's not enough for them to predict right once. I want to see a good record of accurate predictions before I give them THAT much credence.