Between the modem and the router. Hook the phone into the adapter as usual.
The adapter is what guarantees bandwidth for your phone.
Re:Brian D. Westby of St. Louis
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
The spamhaus.org folks have had a file on him for some time; he's been in the ROKSO (Register of Known Spam Operations) since late last year. Here's his master record.
1) The $320 million Comcast and Cox (NOT AT&T) are paying @Home will be the last revenue @Home will ever see. Both Comcast and Cox are planning to have their users migrated to their own networks well in advance of the expiration of the 90-day contract term.
2) By flipping the bird to AT&T, @Home lost whatever bargaining leverage it had with them. AT&T said they could have their network up and running in short order, and they appear well on track to do so. I'm one of the disconnected AT&T@Home users, and here in San Mateo CA, we were down for a total of 48 hours. I was back up this morning with full connectivity. (And to all you people whinging about the AWFUL 1.5Mbps download cap, please inform me where you can get T-1 speed for under $50/month and I'll gladly sign up. Didn't think so.)
3) Item 2 above led directly to today's all-hands at @Home where CEO Patti Hart announced that @Home is history after the Comcast and Cox contracts finish on March 1, 2002. AT&T has pulled their bid for the company, and barring a rescue at the 11th hour, @Home will convert their Chapter 11 filing to Chapter 7 in March.
Add them all up, and that's one dead company. Maybe AT&T did put them in this position, but speaking for the subscribers, we really don't care whose fault it was.
Selling a high-profile domain name like this on eBay at this point is pretty useless. There are too many people out there who'll bid on it just to up the price, with no intent of paying.
Anyone remember year2000.com and the big deal over that putz's eBay auction? He sold his name for $10 mil; there were tons of press stories over "highest amount paid for a domain name ever." Then he found out that every bid was either retracted or an outright joke. Doesn't look like it's sold yet, judging by the stale y2k scare hype that's still up there.
The same thing will happen here. If unix.com sells, it will be privately. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just an elaborate publicity stunt to drum up interest from serious buyers, and not the bid-kiddies on eBay.
Incidents like this are likely going to increase in frequency over time, what with the ongoing proliferation and consolidation of providers. And under current law, ISP reliability is more or less limited to what's in the contract the end-user or business has with said ISP.
Does anyone think we're going to get dial-tone-level reliability without imposing something like common-carrier status on ISPs and hosting providers? Of course, this particular path opens up Costco-size cans of worms in other arenas; spam leaps to mind as one, and the sheer cost of maintaining 99%+ uptime is another. But I have a sneaking feeling that sooner or later, we're heading down that road...
>Just for giggles, imagine that Microsoft were in >the same position it is now. Now let's also >imagine that the whole line of Windows OS's were >the most secure, easiest to use, and >best there was. Would you hate them as much?
No, but to paraphrase the great Willy Wonka, let's imagine that my beard is made of spinach and the moon is made of green cheese. That ain't gonna happen any time soon either.
>My feeling is that MS has finally seen that it's customers/want/ a stable, fast, and secure OS.
If this is true, this is wonderful news. But it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that a silly PR stunt like this is not the way to do it. What will happen if nobody can crack this box? All that will prove is that nobody chose to notify Microsoft of any vulnerabilities found in a Windows 2000 system running no services other than IIS 4.0 on port 80. Ideally, this box should have absolutely EVERY SERVICE available in W2000 running: after all, if the goal really is to test W2000 security, shouldn't all aspects of the operating system be examined? And that doesn't even begin to cover the issue raised above: if a vulnerability is found, and nobody reports it to Microsoft, does it make a sound? Or does it just lurk about until Back Orifice 2001 or something like it comes out next year?
As it stands now, this is simply standard operating procedure for Microsoft. It's a biased test, designed to give deceptive, free PR for the mothership. Sound familiar?
From http://www.thirty-days.com/content/faq/index.html : [ignore the obvious grammatical error for a second]
"We spend some time debating how much of our journey we are going to expose - and we rededicated ourselves to the idea of letting you see everything. If you don't know - you can't help right?"
From http://www.thirty-days.com/content/theplan/index.h tml
"The details of [the company's primary asset] are themselves proprietary..." [followed by lots of buzzword blather]
Anyone see any contradictions here? But at least they're planning a site dedicated to amateur porn...I'm so glad, we really NEED more of those sites around.
Anybody who gives these guys 50 cents, let alone $50,000, needs to lay off the crack pipe.
Of course, it's all the MP3 piracy that's causing the record industry to lose valuable CD sales.
Nevermind that the industry has been relying on people replacing their vinyl collections with CDs for the past 16 years for a big chunk of their sales, and that most people who wanted to convert have already done so...
Nevermind that the industry won't invest in new artist development, instead using the indie labels as "farm teams", signing whatever some market researcher tells them is "hot," and dumping any artist who fails to go multi-platinum within two records...
And nevermind that the industry continues to hike the price of CD's, even though the cost of manufacturing them has declined and the artists are getting smaller and smaller royalties from their own work...
No, it's MP3 that's killing the music industry. Just like home taping was before. GET REAL.
Somebody needs to send the RIAA a massive dose of coffee and smelling salts before it drowns in its own self-promotional, self-congratulatory swill. At most, MP3 is simply another nail in the coffin of the major labels. The industry bigwigs wrote and signed their own death warrants years ago for precisely the reasons mentioned above.
Slashdot Mirror
Between the modem and the router. Hook the phone into the adapter as usual.
The adapter is what guarantees bandwidth for your phone.
The spamhaus.org folks have had a file on him for some time; he's been in the ROKSO (Register of Known Spam Operations) since late last year. Here's his master record.
They did a good job of hiding them, but you can go here to get the old RealPlayer software.
1) The $320 million Comcast and Cox (NOT AT&T) are paying @Home will be the last revenue @Home will ever see. Both Comcast and Cox are planning to have their users migrated to their own networks well in advance of the expiration of the 90-day contract term.
2) By flipping the bird to AT&T, @Home lost whatever bargaining leverage it had with them. AT&T said they could have their network up and running in short order, and they appear well on track to do so. I'm one of the disconnected AT&T@Home users, and here in San Mateo CA, we were down for a total of 48 hours. I was back up this morning with full connectivity. (And to all you people whinging about the AWFUL 1.5Mbps download cap, please inform me where you can get T-1 speed for under $50/month and I'll gladly sign up. Didn't think so.)
3) Item 2 above led directly to today's all-hands at @Home where CEO Patti Hart announced that @Home is history after the Comcast and Cox contracts finish on March 1, 2002. AT&T has pulled their bid for the company, and barring a rescue at the 11th hour, @Home will convert their Chapter 11 filing to Chapter 7 in March.
Add them all up, and that's one dead company. Maybe AT&T did put them in this position, but speaking for the subscribers, we really don't care whose fault it was.
Anyone remember year2000.com and the big deal over that putz's eBay auction? He sold his name for $10 mil; there were tons of press stories over "highest amount paid for a domain name ever." Then he found out that every bid was either retracted or an outright joke. Doesn't look like it's sold yet, judging by the stale y2k scare hype that's still up there.
The same thing will happen here. If unix.com sells, it will be privately. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just an elaborate publicity stunt to drum up interest from serious buyers, and not the bid-kiddies on eBay.
Incidents like this are likely going to increase in frequency over time, what with the ongoing proliferation and consolidation of providers. And under current law, ISP reliability is more or less limited to what's in the contract the end-user or business has with said ISP.
Does anyone think we're going to get dial-tone-level reliability without imposing something like common-carrier status on ISPs and hosting providers? Of course, this particular path opens up Costco-size cans of worms in other arenas; spam leaps to mind as one, and the sheer cost of maintaining 99%+ uptime is another. But I have a sneaking feeling that sooner or later, we're heading down that road...
>Just for giggles, imagine that Microsoft were in
/want/ a stable, fast, and secure OS.
>the same position it is now. Now let's also
>imagine that the whole line of Windows OS's were
>the most secure, easiest to use, and
>best there was. Would you hate them as much?
No, but to paraphrase the great Willy Wonka, let's imagine that my beard is made of spinach and the moon is made of green cheese. That ain't gonna happen any time soon either.
>My feeling is that MS has finally seen that it's customers
If this is true, this is wonderful news. But it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that a silly PR stunt like this is not the way to do it. What will happen if nobody can crack this box? All that will prove is that nobody chose to notify Microsoft of any vulnerabilities found in a Windows 2000 system running no services other than IIS 4.0 on port 80. Ideally, this box should have absolutely EVERY SERVICE available in W2000 running: after all, if the goal really is to test W2000 security, shouldn't all aspects of the operating system be examined? And that doesn't even begin to cover the issue raised above: if a vulnerability is found, and nobody reports it to Microsoft, does it make a sound? Or does it just lurk about until Back Orifice 2001 or something like it comes out next year?
As it stands now, this is simply standard operating procedure for Microsoft. It's a biased test, designed to give deceptive, free PR for the mothership. Sound familiar?
From http://www.thirty-days.com/content/faq/index.html :
h tml
[ignore the obvious grammatical error for a second]
"We spend some time debating how much of our journey we are going to expose - and we rededicated ourselves to the idea of letting you see everything. If you don't know - you can't help right?"
From http://www.thirty-days.com/content/theplan/index.
"The details of [the company's primary asset] are themselves proprietary..." [followed by lots of buzzword blather]
Anyone see any contradictions here? But at least they're planning a site dedicated to amateur porn...I'm so glad, we really NEED more of those sites around.
Anybody who gives these guys 50 cents, let alone $50,000, needs to lay off the crack pipe.
Of course, it's all the MP3 piracy that's causing the record industry to lose valuable CD sales.
Nevermind that the industry has been relying on people replacing their vinyl collections with CDs for the past 16 years for a big chunk of their sales, and that most people who wanted to convert have already done so...
Nevermind that the industry won't invest in new artist development, instead using the indie labels as "farm teams", signing whatever some market researcher tells them is "hot," and dumping any artist who fails to go multi-platinum within two records...
And nevermind that the industry continues to hike the price of CD's, even though the cost of manufacturing them has declined and the artists are getting smaller and smaller royalties from their own work...
No, it's MP3 that's killing the music industry. Just like home taping was before. GET REAL.
Somebody needs to send the RIAA a massive dose of coffee and smelling salts before it drowns in its own self-promotional, self-congratulatory swill. At most, MP3 is simply another nail in the coffin of the major labels. The industry bigwigs wrote and signed their own death warrants years ago for precisely the reasons mentioned above.