My point is that "Digital" is entirely the wrong term to use, if you mean to distinguish between 'transfer information over a network' and 'transfer information by storing it on a physical medium and transferring the physical medium'.
Not to mention that the physical media you get (DVDs, CDROMs, etc) is *still* digital.
The mass media and jox-sixpack 'consumer' seem to have this confusion that 'digital' means you downloaded it over teh Intrawebs.
Music and videos have been 'digital' ever since shiny discs replaced mylar magnetic film as the most common media. And I've never heard of a "computer game" being distributed in an analog form.
Of course there is also this mass delusion that the US Govt is mandating tv broadcasters to switch to HDTV. They are mandating "DTV" - digital transmission, but that is entirely separate from the resolution of the program - HD can be broadcast over analog, just as standard def can be broadcast over digital.
Analog -> 8-tracks, LP's, cassette tapes, VHS tapes,
Digital -> CD's, DVD's, floppy discs, CD-ROMs, game 'cartidges' (aka [[E]P]ROMs).
"Digital" does not describe the distinction between buying music on a physical CD versus (for example), paying to make a copy over a network (for example, the Internet) of that same music via Apple's iTunes. *BOTH* are "DIGITAL".
One *big* difference is that the digital copy on a CD is in an open, standards compliant DRM-free (except for some Windows users) format, whereas the downloaded copy (may) be in a proprietary DRM format.
That was my point, sort of, minus the pictures and witnesses.
If you say something about someone that most people already believe, you aren't injuring their reputation - it's already injured.
Like if you go into a morgue and shoot at the dead bodies, you aren't guilty of murder (you might be guilty of tampering with evidence, or other crimes, but as long as everyone you shot is already dead, you haven't murdered anyone)
If a statement is not 'extreme' and already meshes with the pre-existing world-view of a certain threshold of 'most people', there is a good chance that it is true, and if it is true it is not defamatory.
Ah yes, but of course MS wants to force everyone to pay to upgrade to the newest version. Thats part of the reason why people should be actively discouraged from using MSWord files to exchange information (barring them actually co-authoring a document and specifically agreeing on a specific version of a specific software to do so)
Unless you are co-authoring documents with other persons, exchanging word processor files in order to exchange information is just stupid. If its a quick note, tech them to just TYPE IT IN THE EMAIL CLIENT.
If its something formal, they should print it (either to real paper, or 'electronic' paper such as PDF)
Imagine any situation wherein if person A uses Google, that any other person B is *required* to use Google to interact with that person.
Can't think of any? Neither can I.
Now consider random users and business than routinely send/distribute (or demand from others) information, applications, reports, homework, etc, in "DOC" format.
Now imagine a situation where one business has such complete and total control over the resource and entry points to a particular market, that it is impossible for anyone else to even enter that market, let alone try to compete if they have a better offering. Microsoft, and the incumbent phone companies both fit that scenario.
Yet if someone has a 'better idea' for Internet advertising, nothing is stopping them from trying to market it. Anyone can set up a website and do anything they want on it, with very little investment.
Yet in the "OS" market, the primary mechanism by which the vast majority of users gets it OS is 'with the computer'. Everyone here should be aware of the vast history of people trying to get a PC even without Windows, let alone with something else. For wired telecom, good luck getting those rights of away, or the financing to build out your own outside plant.
Incumbent telecom, and Microsoft are and were the primary 'abusive' monopolies in the US. Google doesn't even register on the meter.
Caller ID is not and never has been a reliable way of determining the origin of a call (either the number, the person, or even the location).
Caller ID 'blocking' is not and never has been a reliable way of hiding the origin of a phone call (either the number, the person, or the location).
Knowing a phone number at which you can reach a particular person or organization (or from which they placed a call to you), does not necessarily tell you anything about their location.
Prior to cell phones and the Internet, a number could certainly give you a general idea as to the state/city/county/etc where a given line was located. If it was the public number of a business or organization, you could often find that information.
Enter cellphones - all you could tell was the general location of the address of the person that opened the cell account. Given the mobile nature of a cell, only the cell company would be able to have any idea as to the actual location of the person/phone, and only when it was turned on.
Enter the Internet - previously, if you knew a name, and that person has a listed number, you could find it. Once that database became available electronically, it was a simple matter to sort (or search) by the number, making the reverse true. You might get just a name, you might get an address. Again, only if its 'listed'. Now there are companies that (for a fee) claim to be able to do lookups for unlisted numbers as well.
Enter VoIP - all bets are off. You can be in NY and get a CA number. You can sign up in TX, have the service there, and you can take your ATA on a roadtrip to FL, plug it into your cousin's Internet, and when you call it will still show your TX phone number as the origin of the call (either directly or via this 800-forwarding silliness) There are even cheap services that let you make outbound calls to the PSTN, without even having an actual line or number - they either send no caller ID, or a number from one of their pools, which could be anywhere, even dozens of states away.
Solution for 'women's shelters': The residents chip in together and get a basic prepaid cellphone. This could be done with coordination of the staff, or without. No name or address ever gets associated with the number. The residents share it to make calls to anyone to whom they do not want to reveal their location. They let the cell's callerID show up, but they turn off the ringer, or block all inbound calls so they go to voicemail. Instruct their 'abusive' husbands that they are sharing a phone and that they must leave a voicemail to reach them, which must state who they are and who they are calling. This also leaves the 'abusive' husband a means to reach his ex, but without knowing where she is.
Solutions for 'people who want to know is calling' - lowtech: screen with an answering machine - hightech - answer if you recognize caller ID, i there is none or you don't recognize it,let it go to voicemail (It is possible for someone you want to talk to to call from a number you don't recognize, or from somewhere that provides no caller id - maybe your bank's antifraud dept is calling you to verify a transaction)
Notwithstanding the right of an adult (including a battered spouse) to withhold their location from another adult (such as the spouse doing the battering,) both parents of a child have the right to know where the *child* is living, until and unless a court says otherwise.
The Internet is a communications network. I happens to be a "the world's" communications network, more or less.
Just like in the real world, you are (mostly) anonymous as long as you chose. Just like in the world you can choose what information you want to send, and what information you want to request (Notwithstanding the tendency of certain mainstream operating systems to make some of those choices for you)
Just like in the world, there are certain networks which are connected to the Internet in a restricted way (compare to 'gated communities'). To communicate with them, you may need some form of credential (password, public key, etc).
The Internet as it exists today is an entirely different network than it was even just 10 years ago. Its continuously being 'rebuilt'.
Also, there are many 'private' networks that are built on top of the Internet as it currently stands.
Basically, this is never going to happen, and yet is already is happening, it's just hard to see for the average clueless moron.
So you know if they were originally part of the big AT&T network before it was broken up? Or were they one of the independent companies?
Unless they are somehow exempt, I'm pretty certain FCC requires that you can select both inter and intra LATA carriers. Can you dial 1010XXX codes to get around that?
You could always use a VoIP service to bypass them for phone.
Whats the terrain like out there? If its reasonably flat you might consider options for fixed wireless, if there are any providers out there.
And in MS' case, its more like "riddled with defects that create security holes a semi truck could drive through" which most certainly does not describe "pretty much all" software, MS software doesn't have much company in that category.
Any person that has anything to do with information technology (computers) anywhere in the world, that can read and understand the language commonly used in their part of the world, that doesn't already know that most software produced by MS is riddled with "defects", is either not paying attention or is seriously brainwashed.
I wasn't trying to debate the issue, I was just trying to get specifics because I find that a very unusual situation, that I've never heard of happening anywhere else. And sorry, I missed it the first time you mentioned the company's name.
And I've since managed to find both windstream.com and windstreamcable.com - and thats scary. Do you happen to know what the name of the cable co was prior to being bought by Windstream?
Ok, I think at one point I mixed up your reply with someone else's.
In any case, assuming you are certain that they do in fact have a standalone coax network for TV in addition to a copper pair network for phone, that is quite unusual.
What is the name of the company? And what areacode is it in? Broadbandreports lists a variety of phone and cable providers in that zipcode, but as you noted, each probably offers service only in some areas.
Are you *certain* that they have both networks running on the poles (or buried), as opposed to one or the other, which 'breaks out' either within your house or in a curbside box to provide multiple services over different connections?
Note that phone companies that offer tv service dont necesarily call it 'TV over DSL', and it may not run over the same 'DSL' that your Internet uses, it could be a completely seperate box that isnt even identified as 'DSL'.
Er, Ok.. I think we just had a miscommunication of semantics;) Technically, they don't offer 'cable', they offer TV service via mini sat dish or over DSL. I use 'cable' to refer to a type of physical plant (coaxial, as distinguished from copper pairs used by 'phone' network physical plant)
A cable company can't offer you a phone 'line' either, although they can offer phone service via VoIP
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that "Digital" is entirely the wrong term to use, if you mean to distinguish between 'transfer information over a network' and 'transfer information by storing it on a physical medium and transferring the physical medium'.
I can't seep to find this 'Windows Explorer Shell' thing in aptitude or synaptic.
"Digital" and "Physical" are orthogonal terms. There are not antonyms.
Not to mention that the physical media you get (DVDs, CDROMs, etc) is *still* digital.
The mass media and jox-sixpack 'consumer' seem to have this confusion that 'digital' means you downloaded it over teh Intrawebs.
Music and videos have been 'digital' ever since shiny discs replaced mylar magnetic film as the most common media. And I've never heard of a "computer game" being distributed in an analog form.
Of course there is also this mass delusion that the US Govt is mandating tv broadcasters to switch to HDTV. They are mandating "DTV" - digital transmission, but that is entirely separate from the resolution of the program - HD can be broadcast over analog, just as standard def can be broadcast over digital.
Analog -> 8-tracks, LP's, cassette tapes, VHS tapes,
Digital -> CD's, DVD's, floppy discs, CD-ROMs, game 'cartidges' (aka [[E]P]ROMs).
"Digital" does not describe the distinction between buying music on a physical CD versus (for example), paying to make a copy over a network (for example, the Internet) of that same music via Apple's iTunes. *BOTH* are "DIGITAL".
One *big* difference is that the digital copy on a CD is in an open, standards compliant DRM-free (except for some Windows users) format, whereas the downloaded copy (may) be in a proprietary DRM format.
We need to blur the actual buildings too, because they could just take a drive down the street and *see* them directly.
That was my point, sort of, minus the pictures and witnesses.
If you say something about someone that most people already believe, you aren't injuring their reputation - it's already injured.
Like if you go into a morgue and shoot at the dead bodies, you aren't guilty of murder (you might be guilty of tampering with evidence, or other crimes, but as long as everyone you shot is already dead, you haven't murdered anyone)
If a statement is not 'extreme' and already meshes with the pre-existing world-view of a certain threshold of 'most people', there is a good chance that it is true, and if it is true it is not defamatory.
Ah yes, but of course MS wants to force everyone to pay to upgrade to the newest version. Thats part of the reason why people should be actively discouraged from using MSWord files to exchange information (barring them actually co-authoring a document and specifically agreeing on a specific version of a specific software to do so)
Unless you are co-authoring documents with other persons, exchanging word processor files in order to exchange information is just stupid. If its a quick note, tech them to just TYPE IT IN THE EMAIL CLIENT.
If its something formal, they should print it (either to real paper, or 'electronic' paper such as PDF)
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html
Imagine any situation wherein if person A uses Google, that any other person B is *required* to use Google to interact with that person.
Can't think of any? Neither can I.
Now consider random users and business than routinely send/distribute (or demand from others) information, applications, reports, homework, etc, in "DOC" format.
Now imagine a situation where one business has such complete and total control over the resource and entry points to a particular market, that it is impossible for anyone else to even enter that market, let alone try to compete if they have a better offering. Microsoft, and the incumbent phone companies both fit that scenario.
Yet if someone has a 'better idea' for Internet advertising, nothing is stopping them from trying to market it. Anyone can set up a website and do anything they want on it, with very little investment.
Yet in the "OS" market, the primary mechanism by which the vast majority of users gets it OS is 'with the computer'. Everyone here should be aware of the vast history of people trying to get a PC even without Windows, let alone with something else. For wired telecom, good luck getting those rights of away, or the financing to build out your own outside plant.
Incumbent telecom, and Microsoft are and were the primary 'abusive' monopolies in the US. Google doesn't even register on the meter.
cvs on server?
compile via ssh?
You missed:
" ... if you had an electrician run two outlets from your breaker box, ... "
If you could afford to pay an electrician to install outlets into the rooms, you can afford to pay to have network cable installed.
Also, I concur with your comment about the extension cord.
I have only two uses for wifi right now:
1. iphone (no wired option)
2. between two buildings 800 feet apart with no right-of-way to run any sort of cable.
I can't imagine any situation where I would want to run networking over the powerline wiring in a house.
I think I'd just scotch-tape cat5 to the walls before trying to use the electrical wiring.
I think we recently had an article on here about that. put tinfoil in the classroom walls.
Caller ID is not and never has been a reliable way of determining the origin of a call (either the number, the person, or even the location).
Caller ID 'blocking' is not and never has been a reliable way of hiding the origin of a phone call (either the number, the person, or the location).
Knowing a phone number at which you can reach a particular person or organization (or from which they placed a call to you), does not necessarily tell you anything about their location.
Prior to cell phones and the Internet, a number could certainly give you a general idea as to the state/city/county/etc where a given line was located. If it was the public number of a business or organization, you could often find that information.
Enter cellphones - all you could tell was the general location of the address of the person that opened the cell account. Given the mobile nature of a cell, only the cell company would be able to have any idea as to the actual location of the person/phone, and only when it was turned on.
Enter the Internet - previously, if you knew a name, and that person has a listed number, you could find it. Once that database became available electronically, it was a simple matter to sort (or search) by the number, making the reverse true. You might get just a name, you might get an address. Again, only if its 'listed'. Now there are companies that (for a fee) claim to be able to do lookups for unlisted numbers as well.
Enter VoIP - all bets are off. You can be in NY and get a CA number. You can sign up in TX, have the service there, and you can take your ATA on a roadtrip to FL, plug it into your cousin's Internet, and when you call it will still show your TX phone number as the origin of the call (either directly or via this 800-forwarding silliness) There are even cheap services that let you make outbound calls to the PSTN, without even having an actual line or number - they either send no caller ID, or a number from one of their pools, which could be anywhere, even dozens of states away.
Solution for 'women's shelters': The residents chip in together and get a basic prepaid cellphone. This could be done with coordination of the staff, or without. No name or address ever gets associated with the number. The residents share it to make calls to anyone to whom they do not want to reveal their location. They let the cell's callerID show up, but they turn off the ringer, or block all inbound calls so they go to voicemail. Instruct their 'abusive' husbands that they are sharing a phone and that they must leave a voicemail to reach them, which must state who they are and who they are calling. This also leaves the 'abusive' husband a means to reach his ex, but without knowing where she is.
Solutions for 'people who want to know is calling' - lowtech: screen with an answering machine - hightech - answer if you recognize caller ID, i there is none or you don't recognize it,let it go to voicemail (It is possible for someone you want to talk to to call from a number you don't recognize, or from somewhere that provides no caller id - maybe your bank's antifraud dept is calling you to verify a transaction)
Notwithstanding the right of an adult (including a battered spouse) to withhold their location from another adult (such as the spouse doing the battering,) both parents of a child have the right to know where the *child* is living, until and unless a court says otherwise.
Yeah but then your md5/sha1 hashes will never verify...
You cant "go" there.
The Internet is a communications network. I happens to be a "the world's" communications network, more or less.
Just like in the real world, you are (mostly) anonymous as long as you chose. Just like in the world you can choose what information you want to send, and what information you want to request (Notwithstanding the tendency of certain mainstream operating systems to make some of those choices for you)
Just like in the world, there are certain networks which are connected to the Internet in a restricted way (compare to 'gated communities'). To communicate with them, you may need some form of credential (password, public key, etc).
The Internet as it exists today is an entirely different network than it was even just 10 years ago. Its continuously being 'rebuilt'.
Also, there are many 'private' networks that are built on top of the Internet as it currently stands.
Basically, this is never going to happen, and yet is already is happening, it's just hard to see for the average clueless moron.
So you know if they were originally part of the big AT&T network before it was broken up? Or were they one of the independent companies?
Unless they are somehow exempt, I'm pretty certain FCC requires that you can select both inter and intra LATA carriers. Can you dial 1010XXX codes to get around that?
You could always use a VoIP service to bypass them for phone.
Whats the terrain like out there? If its reasonably flat you might consider options for fixed wireless, if there are any providers out there.
"riddled with defects" != "has defects"
And in MS' case, its more like "riddled with defects that create security holes a semi truck could drive through" which most certainly does not describe "pretty much all" software, MS software doesn't have much company in that category.
http://openbsd.org/
Any person that has anything to do with information technology (computers) anywhere in the world, that can read and understand the language commonly used in their part of the world, that doesn't already know that most software produced by MS is riddled with "defects", is either not paying attention or is seriously brainwashed.
I wasn't trying to debate the issue, I was just trying to get specifics because I find that a very unusual situation, that I've never heard of happening anywhere else. And sorry, I missed it the first time you mentioned the company's name.
And I've since managed to find both windstream.com and windstreamcable.com - and thats scary. Do you happen to know what the name of the cable co was prior to being bought by Windstream?
Ok, I think at one point I mixed up your reply with someone else's.
In any case, assuming you are certain that they do in fact have a standalone coax network for TV in addition to a copper pair network for phone, that is quite unusual.
What is the name of the company? And what areacode is it in? Broadbandreports lists a variety of phone and cable providers in that zipcode, but as you noted, each probably offers service only in some areas.
Are you *certain* that they have both networks running on the poles (or buried), as opposed to one or the other, which 'breaks out' either within your house or in a curbside box to provide multiple services over different connections?
Note that phone companies that offer tv service dont necesarily call it 'TV over DSL', and it may not run over the same 'DSL' that your Internet uses, it could be a completely seperate box that isnt even identified as 'DSL'.
back when Windows 3.1 first came out. At the time, the upgrade was called 'Slackware Linux'.
Er, Ok.. I think we just had a miscommunication of semantics ;) Technically, they don't offer 'cable', they offer TV service via mini sat dish or over DSL. I use 'cable' to refer to a type of physical plant (coaxial, as distinguished from copper pairs used by 'phone' network physical plant)
A cable company can't offer you a phone 'line' either, although they can offer phone service via VoIP