You mentioned "hundreds of crimes" they looked for.
Here are some more numbers.
Nineteen attorneys and 50 FBI agents "issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses".
All that and they found nothing he hasn't posted to Twitter. Why? I have a theory.
Let's compare some other investigations.
Investigating Bill Clinton turned up Gennifer Flowers, Jaunita Broderick, Leslie Millwee, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc. In short, it revealed he's a serial sexual predator and that was the bombshell.
Investigating Gary Hart turned up Donna Rice. Bombshell, Gary Hart was a womanizer.
With enough investigation might we find that Trump, too, likes to "grab em by the pussy"? We knew that before the election. He doesn't make any effort to paint himself as the all American boy, a good boy. His jackass is on full display for everyone to see and he likes it that way. Perhaps, investigating Trump reveals that he's exactly the asshole he portrays on Twitter.
> it's more like there's a couple hundred different posts. > There's campaign finance. There's tax evasion (lots and lots of that).
Yeah there are thousands of different crimes defined by law, thousands of laws. Hundreds that Mueller's team and other investigators looked for. Over two years of investigations found clear evidence that Trump commited how many of the hundreds of different things Dems wish they could charge him with? Zero.
I don't think the conclusion which your post indicates is the one you wanted it to.
You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.
Is that what you wanted to point out? Having accidentally pointed it out, are you intellectually capable of reading your own writing and seeing the point that you made (accidentally), or are you a mindless fanboi for team D?
> and you would only do this since the 1-800 line is not your actual phone number.
Which if the four numbers that may ring my phone is my "real" number, in your opinion?
Again, there is no fixed mapping between DIDs and stations. When you first start thinking about phones, if you've never used anything more complex than the default Cricket setup it's easy to start off thinking that way, but that in way lays madness. You will drive yourself crazy trying to decide which DID is the "real" or "first" DID for a station, or what it the "default" station for a given DID. You'll really go crazy when you realize I have DIDs that can never reach a station, and DIDs which normally don't end at a station. I have nearly the simplest PBX there is, Coca-Cola's is far more complex, yet even I have DIDs without stations.
After driving yourself insane trying to map them to some sort of "first DID" and "default station", you'll next realize that was all for naught, because the other DIDs and other stations also have to work. You can't make it work only for the "default station", which doesn't exist anyway.
Btw before even trying to figure out a technical protocol, don't forget you need to fix the logic. A station is not a DID and a DID is not a station. It *may* be that your station (phone) has a phone number, only one phone number, and you never use call forwarding, and no other phone uses that number. Those things might be true for you today, but those are absolutely not rules in the phone system. Some people DO have call forwarding, and a a lot more.
It's a lot like the name Google.com - that does NOT identify a particular server. A dialed number doesn't identify a particular phone any more than Google.com identifies a particular computer. There are many buildings full of servers, and any request for Google.com will use several randomly selected servers from among thousands.
For example, I volunteer to receive calls for a crisis hotline which gets a few calls per month. The person in need of help calls the crisis number. They know which service they are trying to reach. They have no idea which phones will ring, and they don't care. They are asking for a service (1-800-help), not for a specific device (an IMEI or other station ID).
I'm not always able to answer the phone of course, so the crisis line doesn't just forward the call to my mobile phone. It rings my phone, and while it's ringing my phone if I don't answer within 10 seconds it starts also ringing another volunteer, ten seconds later it adds a third, etc, until someone both answers and presses 1 to accept the call.
Now suppose my phone were to call the person back, asking "did you call Ray's phone?" Their phone has no idea whether they called my phone or not! They called 1-800-help, not "Ray's LG phone, the one he just bought". Their phone has no way of answering that question.
The number you dial doesn't identify a device. "Did you call Ray's mobile" isn't an answerable question.
Similarly, if I miss a call that rings my mobile, I don't know if the caller was calling the crisis line, my business number, or my personal number. Any of those three numbers, identifying three different services, might ring the same device.
So get it out of your head that there is some fixed relationship between a phone and a number that someone can call. There isn't.
Name and area is enhanced caller ID, a separate protocol launched several years later. The additional information is fetched via Analog Display Services Interface. It has a lookup delay and is subject to DIP fraud. Anyway that's a different topic than caller ID, which sends the phone number.
> Why do you figure it would take until after the third ring?
The first ring "wakes up" the receiving station. It is then ready to receive the 1500 baud, 450ms FSK caller ID frame. In your proposal, it would then call back that number. After the first ring of the second call (second ring of the first call), it could send the "did you call me?" query. Then it would await the response coming back.
> as technology improved, I'd imagine that the delay before getting the lookup info back would get shorter and shorter
There are 10 billion phones, which all have to interoperate. Any phone can call any other phone. For that reason, POTS ring protocol doesn't slowly improve. It doesn't gradually change. That's what you seem to be missing. It's not like Facebook Messenger, where a company can decide to switch up the protocol. The last major change was over 50 years ago, in the 1960s, when we started introducing touch tone dialing. It took 20 years after that to get rid of pulse dialing.
Caller ID didn't require most callers to get a second line, so no, most calls showed the number.
But let's pretend it had. In every other case, it would show the caller's number - useful information.
A call-back system could only flag an incoming call as suspicious (after the third ring). Before it is widely adopted, it would flag all calls as suspicious.
If you're going to introduce a new protocol and get everyone to start using it, a certificate works after the first ring, rather than the third.
To clarify, if I'm understanding your proposal correctly:
In order to make a call and not have it show up as suspicious, the caller would need to both switch their service to handle incoming calls while an outgoing call is ringing, and upgrade their equipment.
The receiving station would otherwise show the call as suspicious. Therefore, upon initial rollout by a station manufacturer, almost all calls would show as suspicious.
Is that correct?
Assuming that's correct, people would quickly learn that all calls they receive show as suspicious. They would stop using it within a week. Callers would have no reason to implement it, given that calllees ignore it.
They only want it would work would be if the whole world pretty much switched over all at once, everyone gets new phones, etc. Experience shows such ideas have not worked.
Btw, if you're going to require a "everyone switch this week", we have PKI, so there is no need for a callback. All callers could simply send their signed certificate, which all calleees would use to authenticate the call.
We've tried for nearly twenty years to get people to upgrade to IPv6. Even given that IPv4 requires goofy hacks, and there are no more IPv4 addresses to issue, people haven't switched to IPv6 - even with strong reasons for both sides to do so.
You need a system where it makes sense for either most callers or most calleees to switch, before the other end has done so.
PS if by chance you do network or server admin, you may have a modem you can dial to work on the equipment. (You can't use the network to connect to a router that it down.). If you've ever done that, you've probably used telephone equipment that isn't caller ID capable. Many modems aren't.
The point being - they don't have to be. Caller ID does not and did not require everyone around the world to simultaneously replace everything.
Thanks for the idea, though. We'll put it in the file.
As a factual point, you can actually still use a 1980 phone, to either make or receive calls. I still have a box of 1980s phone equipment that still works fine. Just because you have caller ID capability does NOT require me to update my stations, my PBX, or anything else in order to call you. You just won't get a caller ID frame if I don't send one, sonon your end it will show up as "unknown".
Let's explore your idea. Maybe there is a kernel of a possible idea there; perhaps you just don't know the terminology to express it clearly.
What information, exactly, are you expecting to get from this reverse lookup? I take it the input is the CID (caller ID).
Do you have some idea of what you plan to send this reverse lookup to?
Here's some background information on how the phone system and CID works, using a real example I did for a Coca-Cola facility. Note, btw, that DIDs and bandwidth connections come from separate companies. Just like you can order a domain name from Verisign and an internet connection from Comcast.
The facility needed to support 200 phones, 20 concurrent internal calls, and at least 10 concurrent calls in and out. So they ordered a PBX (private branch exchange) capable of meeting those requirements.
They ordered bandwidth for incoming / outgoing. A T-1 supports 24 consecutive calls, so that was a good match for their needs. They shipped several local providers for their T-1.
We made a list of how many DIDs (phone numbers) they'd need to list on the POTS, it was about 20. They ordered 20 DIDs.
We configured the PBX to route each DID to the appropriate pool of stations. So for example if a supplier is calling, that's routed to a certain hunt group, job listings get a different DID and go to a different hunt group. The same phone may be in multiple hunt groups, with reception at the end of every hunt group.
We also set an appropriate CID for each station. Note a station (phone) may be in multiple hunt groups, so it has many DIDs, or no hunt groups, so it has no DID. Therefore the DID and the CID cannot possibly match. For one or two stations, the best CID may be Atlanta headquarters, which is served by a different set of companies.
When Coke makes an outgoing call, their PBX sends a CID to the company they bought their T-1 from. Note this isn't the same company they bought their DIDs from. Their T-1 provider includes this DID when they route the call to a regional POTS provider. The regional provider knows that the CID was provided by the T-1 provider and nothing more. They have no way of knowing how I chose the DID or if the local provider changed it. The regional provider hands it to a national backbone, and potentially an international one. Then one of the backbones hands it to Cricket, who sends it to you. Cricket doesn't have any way of knowing which provider added that CID, much less if it's "right" for some arbitrary definition of "right".
> will end up reaching a phone number other than the one the caller is actually calling from (if any).
Your proposal will not work because:... F) it relies on first solving the problem, then using the results to solve the problem
The receiving end has no way of knowing which "number they are actually calling from", in general. In fact, there are no such thing as the number they are calling from.
in the industry a phone number is called a DID number. DID stands for Direct INWARD Dial. The destination in need number is defined, the call can very well come from a phone that has no number. Consider a company with 1,000 employees, each with a phone on their desk. They need a few phone numbers (inward dial IDs) - tech support, billing, HR, and maybe a "main" number. So four phone numbers, 1,000 phones.
>> It states that direct infringement is making, using, selling, or offering for sale. None of which would apply to a mirror.
> By your legal analysis, which I remain sceptical of.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the first sentence or the second sentence. "making, using, selling, or offering for sale" is the exact wording of the Act, also reproduced in the link you mentioned. There is no analysis there - those are the words of the law.
If you're referring to the second sentence, which do you think apply? Do you think a free mirror of CentOS Is selling CentOS? Offering it for sale? Do you have a dictionary handy?
>> An injunction, by the way, is an order to stop doing something. In this case, to stop mirroring the software. I
> AFAIK that's true of a preliminary injunction, but the section I quoted was talking about a permanent injunction.
What so you think a permanent injection is? Again, do you have a dictionary handy?
That's an interesting observation. I'll look for it. I suppose I DO see it in programming tools, such as languages.
I do a lot of code review and mostly I see bad code and good code. Good code tends to be elegant and efficient. Bad code tends to be inelegant and inefficient. They tend to go hand-in-hand. Partly because mathematically they are sometimes correlated, and partly because those who write good code, write good code. I don't often see "good" as in "elegant" code that is also "bad" as is "inefficient".
I wonder though about whether programmers in general have that instinct, that desire, for efficiency, or if that's just the 10% who are particularly good at it. A lot of people do in fact write crap. Do they have a strong desire to do much better, but just don't know how to learn? I'm not sure. Maybe 30% of my teammates signed up for my last series of classes I taught, so those 30% indicate by their actions that they really want to improve.
* Talking about teaching classes sometimes makes people think I'm arrogant. I'm really, really bad at singing. Horrible. I can't play any video or board games. I can't draw for shit. I spend all my time learning about programming and designing information systems. I'm pretty good at that one thing.
I could really use something like this for CAD. Where I draw what looks roughly like a cylinder and it says "do you a want a cylinder?" Even the "easy" CAD programs seem to have quite learning curve.
Example: Cylinders are very common, as are circles. Why don't any of them have a cylinder button? Why do I have to create an oval, set height and width equal to make it a circle, then extrude it?
>. So there is a spectrum I'm sure, but one could likely broadly categorize them into groupings. Would be interesting to know, but I'm not sure how detailed any of the studies would be.
In the link I have you Forbes grouped them into 1-10.
10: Self-made who not only grew up poor but also overcame significant obstacles: Oprah Winfrey... 1: Inherited fortune but not working to increase it: Laurene Powell Jobs
If you don't want to read their results, here's an interesting "bottom line" number they found (quoting): -- Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes. --
For spinning platters, yeah drill a couple holes. Then it can't be spun without vibrating far more than the width of a track. If you can't spin it, you can read the data from it.*
SSDs have a bunch of little memory chips, of course - and each chip can be read with nothing more than a Raspberry Pi. They really need to go into a shredder, or a fire (not ecological).
Wiping an SSD by writing zeroes to each sector may do nothing but add the sector the "zeroes" list. Writing random data to all sectors will wipe most of the memory chips, but not all because there is no stable mapping between sector numbers as seen by the OS and chip locations.
Some SSD vendors provide a wipe utility which actually wipes their drives.
* Someone did a cool parlor trick of reading a few bits off a disk without spinning it by using a million-dollar magnetic microscope. They had an error rate of around 25% and it takes an hour or so to read a few bytes. With 8,000,000,000,000 bits on a 1 TB drive, we'll all be long dead before that technique would find anything interesting on a typical drive.
** But it could be useful if someone did: dd bs=32 count=1 of=bitcoin_key_billion_dollars
Real time encoding and decoding means that if the source is one hour long, the output will last for one hour. It does NOT mean that it somehow violates the laws of physics and does things without taking any time to do it. So if you press the button to start encoding and 1 minute later the output starts, then when you press stop it takes no more than 1 minute for the output to finish, that's real time encoding.
"Low latency" video hardware is defined as three frames (100ms) or less. Per device. So 100ms to encode it, 100ms to push it out to the pipe, and 100ms to decode it would be a system of low latency devices.
The document you linked to has more to say. It states that direct infringement is making, using, selling, or offering for sale. None of which would apply to a mirror. It then explains what COULD potentially apply to distribution: -- Liability requires proving that the party charged intended to cause a third party to infringe. Additionally, the inducer must either know the patent exists, or strongly suspect its existence and make efforts not to know.... Moreover, if the software has substantial non-infringing uses, it is not contributory infringement to provide it, even if it is subsequently used in an infringing combination --
So yeah if you KNOW that it infringes a patent, AND you know it can't be used in a way that doesn't infringe, best not to distribute that package.
An injunction, by the way, is an order to stop doing something. In this case, to stop mirroring the software. It's not a penalty and doesn't assume liability for past acts.
Slashdot Mirror
You mentioned "hundreds of crimes" they looked for.
Here are some more numbers.
Nineteen attorneys and 50 FBI agents "issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses".
All that and they found nothing he hasn't posted to Twitter. Why? I have a theory.
Let's compare some other investigations.
Investigating Bill Clinton turned up Gennifer Flowers, Jaunita Broderick, Leslie Millwee, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc. In short, it revealed he's a serial sexual predator and that was the bombshell.
Investigating Gary Hart turned up Donna Rice. Bombshell, Gary Hart was a womanizer.
With enough investigation might we find that Trump, too, likes to "grab em by the pussy"? We knew that before the election. He doesn't make any effort to paint himself as the all American boy, a good boy. His jackass is on full display for everyone to see and he likes it that way. Perhaps, investigating Trump reveals that he's exactly the asshole he portrays on Twitter.
> it's more like there's a couple hundred different posts.
> There's campaign finance. There's tax evasion (lots and lots of that).
Yeah there are thousands of different crimes defined by law, thousands of laws. Hundreds that Mueller's team and other investigators looked for. Over two years of investigations found clear evidence that Trump commited how many of the hundreds of different things Dems wish they could charge him with? Zero.
I don't think the conclusion which your post indicates is the one you wanted it to.
You've pointed out that after years of investigations, they've not found evidence of Trump commiting tax evasion, no campaign finance crimes like AOC and Bernie, there's not even evidence of him obstructing justice - you almost ALWAYS get obstructing justice if you investigate someone long enough. So many things they were looking for and they found none of it.
Is that what you wanted to point out? Having accidentally pointed it out, are you intellectually capable of reading your own writing and seeing the point that you made (accidentally), or are you a mindless fanboi for team D?
Trump is very clearly a jackass, though.
> and you would only do this since the 1-800 line is not your actual phone number.
Which if the four numbers that may ring my phone is my "real" number, in your opinion?
Again, there is no fixed mapping between DIDs and stations. When you first start thinking about phones, if you've never used anything more complex than the default Cricket setup it's easy to start off thinking that way, but that in way lays madness. You will drive yourself crazy trying to decide which DID is the "real" or "first" DID for a station, or what it the "default" station for a given DID. You'll really go crazy when you realize I have DIDs that can never reach a station, and DIDs which normally don't end at a station. I have nearly the simplest PBX there is, Coca-Cola's is far more complex, yet even I have DIDs without stations.
After driving yourself insane trying to map them to some sort of "first DID" and "default station", you'll next realize that was all for naught, because the other DIDs and other stations also have to work. You can't make it work only for the "default station", which doesn't exist anyway.
Again, DIDs and stations are orthogonal concepts.
When I was going to build a primitive gun, I did a muzzleloader. I made my black powder from scratch, starting with wood.
Btw before even trying to figure out a technical protocol, don't forget you need to fix the logic. A station is not a DID and a DID is not a station. It *may* be that your station (phone) has a phone number, only one phone number, and you never use call forwarding, and no other phone uses that number. Those things might be true for you today, but those are absolutely not rules in the phone system. Some people DO have call forwarding, and a a lot more.
It's a lot like the name Google.com - that does NOT identify a particular server. A dialed number doesn't identify a particular phone any more than Google.com identifies a particular computer. There are many buildings full of servers, and any request for Google.com will use several randomly selected servers from among thousands.
For example, I volunteer to receive calls for a crisis hotline which gets a few calls per month. The person in need of help calls the crisis number. They know which service they are trying to reach. They have no idea which phones will ring, and they don't care. They are asking for a service (1-800-help), not for a specific device (an IMEI or other station ID).
I'm not always able to answer the phone of course, so the crisis line doesn't just forward the call to my mobile phone. It rings my phone, and while it's ringing my phone if I don't answer within 10 seconds it starts also ringing another volunteer, ten seconds later it adds a third, etc, until someone both answers and presses 1 to accept the call.
Now suppose my phone were to call the person back, asking "did you call Ray's phone?" Their phone has no idea whether they called my phone or not! They called 1-800-help, not "Ray's LG phone, the one he just bought". Their phone has no way of answering that question.
The number you dial doesn't identify a device. "Did you call Ray's mobile" isn't an answerable question.
Similarly, if I miss a call that rings my mobile, I don't know if the caller was calling the crisis line, my business number, or my personal number. Any of those three numbers, identifying three different services, might ring the same device.
So get it out of your head that there is some fixed relationship between a phone and a number that someone can call. There isn't.
Name and area is enhanced caller ID, a separate protocol launched several years later. The additional information is fetched via Analog Display Services Interface. It has a lookup delay and is subject to DIP fraud. Anyway that's a different topic than caller ID, which sends the phone number.
> Why do you figure it would take until after the third ring?
The first ring "wakes up" the receiving station. It is then ready to receive the 1500 baud, 450ms FSK caller ID frame. In your proposal, it would then call back that number. After the first ring of the second call (second ring of the first call), it could send the "did you call me?" query. Then it would await the response coming back.
> as technology improved, I'd imagine that the delay before getting the lookup info back would get shorter and shorter
There are 10 billion phones, which all have to interoperate. Any phone can call any other phone. For that reason, POTS ring protocol doesn't slowly improve. It doesn't gradually change. That's what you seem to be missing. It's not like Facebook Messenger, where a company can decide to switch up the protocol. The last major change was over 50 years ago, in the 1960s, when we started introducing touch tone dialing. It took 20 years after that to get rid of pulse dialing.
On top of all that, it's not a gun.
> The electric energy merely heats it to above its boiling point and autoignition temperature.
I don't think I want a non-flammable substance at 2,000 degrees in my ear either.
Caller ID didn't require most callers to get a second line, so no, most calls showed the number.
But let's pretend it had. In every other case, it would show the caller's number - useful information.
A call-back system could only flag an incoming call as suspicious (after the third ring). Before it is widely adopted, it would flag all calls as suspicious.
If you're going to introduce a new protocol and get everyone to start using it, a certificate works after the first ring, rather than the third.
Again, thanks for the idea.
To clarify, if I'm understanding your proposal correctly:
In order to make a call and not have it show up as suspicious, the caller would need to both switch their service to handle incoming calls while an outgoing call is ringing, and upgrade their equipment.
The receiving station would otherwise show the call as suspicious. Therefore, upon initial rollout by a station manufacturer, almost all calls would show as suspicious.
Is that correct?
Assuming that's correct, people would quickly learn that all calls they receive show as suspicious. They would stop using it within a week. Callers would have no reason to implement it, given that calllees ignore it.
They only want it would work would be if the whole world pretty much switched over all at once, everyone gets new phones, etc. Experience shows such ideas have not worked.
Btw, if you're going to require a "everyone switch this week", we have PKI, so there is no need for a callback. All callers could simply send their signed certificate, which all calleees would use to authenticate the call.
We've tried for nearly twenty years to get people to upgrade to IPv6. Even given that IPv4 requires goofy hacks, and there are no more IPv4 addresses to issue, people haven't switched to IPv6 - even with strong reasons for both sides to do so.
You need a system where it makes sense for either most callers or most calleees to switch, before the other end has done so.
PS if by chance you do network or server admin, you may have a modem you can dial to work on the equipment. (You can't use the network to connect to a router that it down.). If you've ever done that, you've probably used telephone equipment that isn't caller ID capable. Many modems aren't.
The point being - they don't have to be. Caller ID does not and did not require everyone around the world to simultaneously replace everything.
Thanks for the idea, though. We'll put it in the file.
As a factual point, you can actually still use a 1980 phone, to either make or receive calls. I still have a box of 1980s phone equipment that still works fine. Just because you have caller ID capability does NOT require me to update my stations, my PBX, or anything else in order to call you. You just won't get a caller ID frame if I don't send one, sonon your end it will show up as "unknown".
Thanks for the explanation.
You propose to replace the existing world wide phone network with new protocol.
https://craphound.com/spamsolu...
1, 10, 2 & 9 & 10, none, 1
This SOUNDS bad to me, uninformed on the topic as I am.
I wonder what else can be done to stop this multi-year outbreak.
Let's explore your idea. Maybe there is a kernel of a possible idea there; perhaps you just don't know the terminology to express it clearly.
What information, exactly, are you expecting to get from this reverse lookup? I take it the input is the CID (caller ID).
Do you have some idea of what you plan to send this reverse lookup to?
Here's some background information on how the phone system and CID works, using a real example I did for a Coca-Cola facility. Note, btw, that DIDs and bandwidth connections come from separate companies. Just like you can order a domain name from Verisign and an internet connection from Comcast.
The facility needed to support 200 phones, 20 concurrent internal calls, and at least 10 concurrent calls in and out. So they ordered a PBX (private branch exchange) capable of meeting those requirements.
They ordered bandwidth for incoming / outgoing. A T-1 supports 24 consecutive calls, so that was a good match for their needs. They shipped several local providers for their T-1.
We made a list of how many DIDs (phone numbers) they'd need to list on the POTS, it was about 20. They ordered 20 DIDs.
We configured the PBX to route each DID to the appropriate pool of stations. So for example if a supplier is calling, that's routed to a certain hunt group, job listings get a different DID and go to a different hunt group. The same phone may be in multiple hunt groups, with reception at the end of every hunt group.
We also set an appropriate CID for each station. Note a station (phone) may be in multiple hunt groups, so it has many DIDs, or no hunt groups, so it has no DID. Therefore the DID and the CID cannot possibly match. For one or two stations, the best CID may be Atlanta headquarters, which is served by a different set of companies.
When Coke makes an outgoing call, their PBX sends a CID to the company they bought their T-1 from. Note this isn't the same company they bought their DIDs from. Their T-1 provider includes this DID when they route the call to a regional POTS provider. The regional provider knows that the CID was provided by the T-1 provider and nothing more. They have no way of knowing how I chose the DID or if the local provider changed it. The regional provider hands it to a national backbone, and potentially an international one. Then one of the backbones hands it to Cricket, who sends it to you. Cricket doesn't have any way of knowing which provider added that CID, much less if it's "right" for some arbitrary definition of "right".
> will end up reaching a phone number other than the one the caller is actually calling from (if any).
Your proposal will not work because: ...
F) it relies on first solving the problem, then using the results to solve the problem
The receiving end has no way of knowing which "number they are actually calling from", in general. In fact, there are no such thing as the number they are calling from.
in the industry a phone number is called a DID number. DID stands for Direct INWARD Dial. The destination in need number is defined, the call can very well come from a phone that has no number. Consider a company with 1,000 employees, each with a phone on their desk. They need a few phone numbers (inward dial IDs) - tech support, billing, HR, and maybe a "main" number. So four phone numbers, 1,000 phones.
I see autocorrect spat out "injection" rather than "injunction".
It STILL doesn't want me to type injunction. Maybe my phone needs
https://thelawdictionary.org/i...
>> It states that direct infringement is making, using, selling, or offering for sale. None of which would apply to a mirror.
> By your legal analysis, which I remain sceptical of.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the first sentence or the second sentence. "making, using, selling, or offering for sale" is the exact wording of the Act, also reproduced in the link you mentioned. There is no analysis there - those are the words of the law.
If you're referring to the second sentence, which do you think apply? Do you think a free mirror of CentOS Is selling CentOS? Offering it for sale? Do you have a dictionary handy?
>> An injunction, by the way, is an order to stop doing something. In this case, to stop mirroring the software. I
> AFAIK that's true of a preliminary injunction, but the section I quoted was talking about a permanent injunction.
What so you think a permanent injection is? Again, do you have a dictionary handy?
That's an interesting observation. I'll look for it.
I suppose I DO see it in programming tools, such as languages.
I do a lot of code review and mostly I see bad code and good code. Good code tends to be elegant and efficient. Bad code tends to be inelegant and inefficient. They tend to go hand-in-hand. Partly because mathematically they are sometimes correlated, and partly because those who write good code, write good code. I don't often see "good" as in "elegant" code that is also "bad" as is "inefficient".
I wonder though about whether programmers in general have that instinct, that desire, for efficiency, or if that's just the 10% who are particularly good at it. A lot of people do in fact write crap. Do they have a strong desire to do much better, but just don't know how to learn? I'm not sure. Maybe 30% of my teammates signed up for my last series of classes I taught, so those 30% indicate by their actions that they really want to improve.
* Talking about teaching classes sometimes makes people think I'm arrogant. I'm really, really bad at singing. Horrible. I can't play any video or board games. I can't draw for shit. I spend all my time learning about programming and designing information systems. I'm pretty good at that one thing.
Microsoft sure wanted to have the dominant browser.
They have a hundred BILLION dollars.
Still, didn't make sense. They're using the Chrome engine.
I could really use something like this for CAD.
Where I draw what looks roughly like a cylinder and it says "do you a want a cylinder?" Even the "easy" CAD programs seem to have quite learning curve.
Example: Cylinders are very common, as are circles. Why don't any of them have a cylinder button? Why do I have to create an oval, set height and width equal to make it a circle, then extrude it?
You made some interesting guesses.
>. So there is a spectrum I'm sure, but one could likely broadly categorize them into groupings. Would be interesting to know, but I'm not sure how detailed any of the studies would be.
In the link I have you Forbes grouped them into 1-10.
10: Self-made who not only grew up poor but also overcame significant obstacles: Oprah Winfrey ...
1: Inherited fortune but not working to increase it: Laurene Powell Jobs
If you don't want to read their results, here's an interesting "bottom line" number they found (quoting):
--
Looking at the numbers over time, the data lead us to an interesting insight: in 1984, less than half of people on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69% of the 400 created their own fortunes.
--
For spinning platters, yeah drill a couple holes. Then it can't be spun without vibrating far more than the width of a track. If you can't spin it, you can read the data from it.*
SSDs have a bunch of little memory chips, of course - and each chip can be read with nothing more than a Raspberry Pi. They really need to go into a shredder, or a fire (not ecological).
Wiping an SSD by writing zeroes to each sector may do nothing but add the sector the "zeroes" list. Writing random data to all sectors will wipe most of the memory chips, but not all because there is no stable mapping between sector numbers as seen by the OS and chip locations.
Some SSD vendors provide a wipe utility which actually wipes their drives.
* Someone did a cool parlor trick of reading a few bits off a disk without spinning it by using a million-dollar magnetic microscope. They had an error rate of around 25% and it takes an hour or so to read a few bytes. With 8,000,000,000,000 bits on a 1 TB drive, we'll all be long dead before that technique would find anything interesting on a typical drive.
** But it could be useful if someone did:
dd bs=32 count=1 of=bitcoin_key_billion_dollars
Live TV is 10-30 seconds behind.
Real time encoding and decoding means that if the source is one hour long, the output will last for one hour. It does NOT mean that it somehow violates the laws of physics and does things without taking any time to do it. So if you press the button to start encoding and 1 minute later the output starts, then when you press stop it takes no more than 1 minute for the output to finish, that's real time encoding.
"Low latency" video hardware is defined as three frames (100ms) or less. Per device. So 100ms to encode it, 100ms to push it out to the pipe, and 100ms to decode it would be a system of low latency devices.
The document you linked to has more to say. ...
It states that direct infringement is making, using, selling, or offering for sale. None of which would apply to a mirror. It then explains what COULD potentially apply to distribution:
--
Liability requires proving that the party charged intended to cause a third party to infringe. Additionally, the inducer must either know the patent exists, or strongly suspect its existence and make efforts not to know.
Moreover, if the software has substantial non-infringing uses, it is not contributory infringement to provide it, even if it is subsequently used in an infringing combination
--
So yeah if you KNOW that it infringes a patent, AND you know it can't be used in a way that doesn't infringe, best not to distribute that package.
An injunction, by the way, is an order to stop doing something. In this case, to stop mirroring the software. It's not a penalty and doesn't assume liability for past acts.