How the heck do you sue an operating system? This just shows just how far out in left field Ballmer really is. It wouldnt surprise me if he really truly didnt understand that 'Linux' isnt a company or a person.
Except for the fact that there IS no way to reliable know the location of an IP address a Voip device is connected with. There is no way to create a way. Physical location correlation of IP addresses (except for some very rough guessing of countries or regions you can do based on the RIR that assigned the IP, that is certainly not nearly fine enough to be useful for emergency calls) is NOT possible.
Here is the real solution:
1. Make it bleedingly clear that while it might be possible to make emergency calls over voip (and certainly the voipco's should be encouraged to do so, as well as allowed access to the trunks [which are the only way to route a call to the emergency call center] that the monopoly telcos have a strangehold on, as well as encouraging the call centers to peer over voip themselves, eliminating that stranglehold), that they are absolutely not reliable for this purpose, and should never be relied on. This would include never blaming a voip company if such a call didnt work.
2. Require the monopoly telco (the one that owns the copper in the ground) to offer an 'emergency only' dialtone service on every line that has ever had service, either for free or at least $DAMNCHEAP (speaking US-centrically, $5/mo would sound about right - without any additional fees).
Debris on the freeway that is likely to cause an accident is very much an emergency. Consider someone either driving over one and losing control of their vehicle, or swerving to avoid it and rolling over into another vehicle, or causing someone else to lam on the brakes and get rear-ended by a semi. All very likely.
Vonage wasn't forced into making 911 available. The FCC had to force the monoply telco's to permit Vonage (and other VOIP providers) access to the 911 trunks so they could provide it at all. Vonage (as do most voip providers) make it fairly clear that 911 over a voip line IS NOT RELIABLE. If your power is out, or your broadband is out, you get no phone at all, let alone 911. Relying on a voip line for 911 service is absolutely and completely stupid and moronic.
This isnt news. "Major security hole found in MSIE" should probably just be a permanent notice at the top of pretty much any site - along with a link to the Firefox dl site.
I dont want my software as a 'service' (unless I'M providing the service).
I dont want to store my data on someone else's server.
I'd like a copy of the Gmail interface, that I could run on my own server, and access my privately stored email.
There was a recent article on Writely, which is apparently similar to this. I went to the site, hoping to download it, and put it on my server, but it too is a 'we store your files on our server' scenario. This might cut it for meaninless drivel teens want to exchange, but not for anything important.
I googled for 'definition of iminent', and it was one of the links.
However, if you go to 'advanced search', then 'advanced search tips', there will be some information. Then if you click 'search features' from there, it gives even more, including the definitions.
Your house analogy is flawed. Copying program code is not even remotely close to stealing the physical materials of a house. Stealing your house, or real property, deprives you of that property. Copying program code does not.
It may be ILLEGAL, but wether it should be illegal, or wether it is ethical or otherwise, is debatable.
If you'll RTFM, you note that it mentions 'getting a local number', as well as 'The calls have to be initiated from a PC, but can be made to traditional landline phones and cellphones. Yahoo customers can receive calls from those phones, as well.'
What they are saying is that you as a customer of Yahoo, to use their service, have to use their PC softphone to make and receive calls - eg they dont provide (or support) ATAs to connect to a real phone, like most VoiP providers do.
I was about to point out the same error, and include the google definitions as well. I suspect its just the/. editors that cant spell. (And apparently dont bother to read the followup comments and notice people pointing out their errors, either)
No special 'blockers' are needed. Your computer doesnt download porn unless the person using it TELL it to. If you want to prevent your children from doing so, you either need to monitor their use, or instill the 'blocker' directly in your children (eg, teach them whatever version of morals you feel is appropriate). Oh, its also good to avoid software that actually does do things you dont tell it to (MSIE being the most renowned, anything from MS in general as well). Also, there is NO way to programmatically or automatically identify 'porn' - only an actual human can do that.
Only if you are an idiot. Now while most carriers do charge you airtime for any calls, regardless of wether the call is inbound or outbound, I'm not personally aware of any that charge you long distance for incoming calls. I *am* aware of several carriers that actually offer *free* incoming calls (no airtime charges), and in fact I have service with one of them. I'm not sure what carrier the person who was being charged ld on inbound was, but either the person is confused or they just didnt shop around and got a shit provider.
Re:Not just Linux and Mac with problems...
on
In2TV Goes Public
·
· Score: 1
There should be no concept of having to 'support' specific platforms. When Amoco produces gasoline, do they have to 'support' each brand of car specifically? When broadcasters produce programs, do they have to 'support' each brand of television set? No. The having to 'develop, deploy, and support platform specific software' *IS* the high cost of DRM, and could be entirely avoided by simply using a standard documented media format, that didnt require special software. And the sad thing is that the DRM on the expensive platform specific software will be broken anyway, making all that investment tossing money down the drain.
And yes, current technology will be making the business model of 'pay per view' obsolete, and no I cant think of any viable new 'business models' that allow the robber-baron record and movie labels to suck their customers dry.
Re:Not just Linux and Mac with problems...
on
In2TV Goes Public
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The complicated Windows-only DRM'ed scheme surely costs more than just producing a stock mpeg, avi, or christ even a flash file. And the latter is inherently cross-platform.
When they offer a video *SERVICE* without forced bundling of software (eg when the video is delivered in a standard, documented format over standard, documented network protocols, in such a manner that *ANYONE* can develop software to read and play it), that might be newsworthy. This isnt.
You are confusing the long distance market (where you actually can get cheap, fast, and correct), with the local wireline market (where you get expensive, slow, and only correct the second or third time). Guess which market has a thriving competitive market, and which one is a monopoly?
Amen - Someone else who understands it. There is a possible solution - its called structural seperation - return ownership of the outside wire plant to the people that paid for it, the long-time captive customers of monopoly telecoms. The telecoms will fight it tooth and nail of course.
Local wireline telecom has never *NOT* been a monopoly. Note that 'the new AT&T' is entirely unrelated to 'Bell Labs', which was renamed Lucent a long time ago. (And I think since merged with Ascend)
Also, it takes months to get a DSL line activated specifically *becuase* the ILEC now you dont have any choice but to wait for them. If there were true competition, then they might just have some motiviation to get on the ball.
Its about CHOICE, and service providers recognizing that customers have it, and motivation them to provide better service to keep them. When customers have no choice, the monopoly provider have no motiviation to provide good service.
When they broke up AT&T, they only market that was de-monopolized was the long distance market (which brought great benefits to the market, LD is now damn cheap or often free).
Unfortunately, all they did in regards to the local wireline was create a number of smaller geographic monopolies. The 'ILEC' baby-bell companies still had (and still HAVE) a complete stranglehold over wired last-mile. That a hard-to-enforce law said they had to 'share' access to it, they did so as grudgingly as possible, stalling and stumbling anywhere they could. The claimed the new startups should have to 'build their own network', despite that doing so would cost billions and take decades to do (which as it happened, is how the ILEC's built the existing one, with not a little govt-guaranteed captive customer base, exclusve access to right of way, etc). Now they have brushed even that away in most markets, and I find it fitting that the new monopoly bears the 'mark of the beast' of the old one. I only hope that they meet with the same fate, only done correctly this time (see: http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/2002/structural _separation.html )
BGP is just a way for two adjacent routers to exchange their routing prefixes. It isnt 'part' of IP itself. The two routers must have static/fixed IP connectivity between them already which is itself not dependent on the BGP routes. As far as the actual protocol iself, it runs over TCP. BGP is something that can take a while to wrap your head around, but once you've figured it out it makes perfect (well ok almost perfect) sense.
The 'multihoming' they are referring to is an entirely different beast than the 'BGP multihoming' you are thinking of. They are just talking about when a box has two interfaces, each with a different IP address. TCP forces a connection to be bound to a specific interface, this SCTP doesnt. There are no changes to the network IP routing functions. (The remote end sends to the other IP, the network doesnt route the first IP to the second network)
The Edison/Tesla one was about long distance transmission of power, and AC is still the winner there.
TTL logic has to run on DC, so you have to convert the supplied AC to DC. This is just recognizing that instead of converting it individually in each of dozens or hundreds (or more) machines, that it is more efficient and reliable to have one (and perhaps a redundant standby) converter providing DC to the same machines.
I think he is saying that he listens to music produced by independent artists that dont suck the RIAA's teat, and who release their music for free (legal) distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell kind of moron would want to run Winshit on an expensive piece of Apple hardware?
It would be many orders of magnitude more useful to run OS/X on commodity x86 hardware.
How the heck do you sue an operating system? This just shows just how far out in left field Ballmer really is. It wouldnt surprise me if he really truly didnt understand that 'Linux' isnt a company or a person.
Actually, it depends on your area. In some areas they tell you to ALWAYS use 911 to reach police/fire/etc. Even a vehicle accident with no injuries.
Except for the fact that there IS no way to reliable know the location of an IP address a Voip device is connected with. There is no way to create a way. Physical location correlation of IP addresses (except for some very rough guessing of countries or regions you can do based on the RIR that assigned the IP, that is certainly not nearly fine enough to be useful for emergency calls) is NOT possible.
Here is the real solution:
1. Make it bleedingly clear that while it might be possible to make emergency calls over voip (and certainly the voipco's should be encouraged to do so, as well as allowed access to the trunks [which are the only way to route a call to the emergency call center] that the monopoly telcos have a strangehold on, as well as encouraging the call centers to peer over voip themselves, eliminating that stranglehold), that they are absolutely not reliable for this purpose, and should never be relied on. This would include never blaming a voip company if such a call didnt work.
2. Require the monopoly telco (the one that owns the copper in the ground) to offer an 'emergency only' dialtone service on every line that has ever had service, either for free or at least $DAMNCHEAP (speaking US-centrically, $5/mo would sound about right - without any additional fees).
Debris on the freeway that is likely to cause an accident is very much an emergency. Consider someone either driving over one and losing control of their vehicle, or swerving to avoid it and rolling over into another vehicle, or causing someone else to lam on the brakes and get rear-ended by a semi. All very likely.
Vonage wasn't forced into making 911 available. The FCC had to force the monoply telco's to permit Vonage (and other VOIP providers) access to the 911 trunks so they could provide it at all. Vonage (as do most voip providers) make it fairly clear that 911 over a voip line IS NOT RELIABLE. If your power is out, or your broadband is out, you get no phone at all, let alone 911. Relying on a voip line for 911 service is absolutely and completely stupid and moronic.
This isnt news. "Major security hole found in MSIE" should probably just be a permanent notice at the top of pretty much any site - along with a link to the Firefox dl site.
I dont want my software as a 'service' (unless I'M providing the service).
I dont want to store my data on someone else's server.
I'd like a copy of the Gmail interface, that I could run on my own server, and access my privately stored email.
There was a recent article on Writely, which is apparently similar to this. I went to the site, hoping to download it, and put it on my server, but it too is a 'we store your files on our server' scenario. This might cut it for meaninless drivel teens want to exchange, but not for anything important.
I googled for 'definition of iminent', and it was one of the links.
However, if you go to 'advanced search', then 'advanced search tips', there will be some information. Then if you click 'search features' from there, it gives even more, including the definitions.
Your house analogy is flawed. Copying program code is not even remotely close to stealing the physical materials of a house. Stealing your house, or real property, deprives you of that property. Copying program code does not.
It may be ILLEGAL, but wether it should be illegal, or wether it is ethical or otherwise, is debatable.
If you'll RTFM, you note that it mentions 'getting a local number', as well as 'The calls have to be initiated from a PC, but can be made to traditional landline phones and cellphones. Yahoo customers can receive calls from those phones, as well.'
What they are saying is that you as a customer of Yahoo, to use their service, have to use their PC softphone to make and receive calls - eg they dont provide (or support) ATAs to connect to a real phone, like most VoiP providers do.
I was about to point out the same error, and include the google definitions as well. I suspect its just the /. editors that cant spell. (And apparently dont bother to read the followup comments and notice people pointing out their errors, either)
i nent&btnG=Google+Search
n ent&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aimm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aemi
No special 'blockers' are needed. Your computer doesnt download porn unless the person using it TELL it to. If you want to prevent your children from doing so, you either need to monitor their use, or instill the 'blocker' directly in your children (eg, teach them whatever version of morals you feel is appropriate). Oh, its also good to avoid software that actually does do things you dont tell it to (MSIE being the most renowned, anything from MS in general as well). Also, there is NO way to programmatically or automatically identify 'porn' - only an actual human can do that.
Only if you are an idiot. Now while most carriers do charge you airtime for any calls, regardless of wether the call is inbound or outbound, I'm not personally aware of any that charge you long distance for incoming calls. I *am* aware of several carriers that actually offer *free* incoming calls (no airtime charges), and in fact I have service with one of them. I'm not sure what carrier the person who was being charged ld on inbound was, but either the person is confused or they just didnt shop around and got a shit provider.
There should be no concept of having to 'support' specific platforms. When Amoco produces gasoline, do they have to 'support' each brand of car specifically? When broadcasters produce programs, do they have to 'support' each brand of television set? No. The having to 'develop, deploy, and support platform specific software' *IS* the high cost of DRM, and could be entirely avoided by simply using a standard documented media format, that didnt require special software. And the sad thing is that the DRM on the expensive platform specific software will be broken anyway, making all that investment tossing money down the drain.
And yes, current technology will be making the business model of 'pay per view' obsolete, and no I cant think of any viable new 'business models' that allow the robber-baron record and movie labels to suck their customers dry.
The complicated Windows-only DRM'ed scheme surely costs more than just producing a stock mpeg, avi, or christ even a flash file. And the latter is inherently cross-platform.
When they offer a video *SERVICE* without forced bundling of software (eg when the video is delivered in a standard, documented format over standard, documented network protocols, in such a manner that *ANYONE* can develop software to read and play it), that might be newsworthy. This isnt.
You are confusing the long distance market (where you actually can get cheap, fast, and correct), with the local wireline market (where you get expensive, slow, and only correct the second or third time). Guess which market has a thriving competitive market, and which one is a monopoly?
Amen - Someone else who understands it. There is a possible solution - its called structural seperation - return ownership of the outside wire plant to the people that paid for it, the long-time captive customers of monopoly telecoms. The telecoms will fight it tooth and nail of course.
Local wireline telecom has never *NOT* been a monopoly. Note that 'the new AT&T' is entirely unrelated to 'Bell Labs', which was renamed Lucent a long time ago. (And I think since merged with Ascend)
l _separation.html )
Also, it takes months to get a DSL line activated specifically *becuase* the ILEC now you dont have any choice but to wait for them. If there were true competition, then they might just have some motiviation to get on the ball.
Its about CHOICE, and service providers recognizing that customers have it, and motivation them to provide better service to keep them. When customers have no choice, the monopoly provider have no motiviation to provide good service.
When they broke up AT&T, they only market that was de-monopolized was the long distance market (which brought great benefits to the market, LD is now damn cheap or often free).
Unfortunately, all they did in regards to the local wireline was create a number of smaller geographic monopolies. The 'ILEC' baby-bell companies still had (and still HAVE) a complete stranglehold over wired last-mile. That a hard-to-enforce law said they had to 'share' access to it, they did so as grudgingly as possible, stalling and stumbling anywhere they could. The claimed the new startups should have to 'build their own network', despite that doing so would cost billions and take decades to do (which as it happened, is how the ILEC's built the existing one, with not a little govt-guaranteed captive customer base, exclusve access to right of way, etc). Now they have brushed even that away in most markets, and I find it fitting that the new monopoly bears the 'mark of the beast' of the old one. I only hope that they meet with the same fate, only done correctly this time (see: http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/2002/structura
BGP is just a way for two adjacent routers to exchange their routing prefixes. It isnt 'part' of IP itself. The two routers must have static/fixed IP connectivity between them already which is itself not dependent on the BGP routes. As far as the actual protocol iself, it runs over TCP. BGP is something that can take a while to wrap your head around, but once you've figured it out it makes perfect (well ok almost perfect) sense.
FMI see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1771.html
The 'multihoming' they are referring to is an entirely different beast than the 'BGP multihoming' you are thinking of. They are just talking about when a box has two interfaces, each with a different IP address. TCP forces a connection to be bound to a specific interface, this SCTP doesnt. There are no changes to the network IP routing functions. (The remote end sends to the other IP, the network doesnt route the first IP to the second network)
Its an unfortunate re-use of the same term.
The Edison/Tesla one was about long distance transmission of power, and AC is still the winner there.
TTL logic has to run on DC, so you have to convert the supplied AC to DC. This is just recognizing that instead of converting it individually in each of dozens or hundreds (or more) machines, that it is more efficient and reliable to have one (and perhaps a redundant standby) converter providing DC to the same machines.
One would think that the ability to spell would be a requirement to be a /. editor. You would be wrong, apparently.
I think he is saying that he listens to music produced by independent artists that dont suck the RIAA's teat, and who release their music for free (legal) distribution.