I already have the SPA. And I've played with FWD already. Afaik, it doesnt offer any way to obtain a normal number for PSTN phoke to call you on.
At the moment, I have a commercial VOIP service that lets me call anywhere in my state for ten bucks a month. They also have a $20/mo plan that gives you unlimited calling to the entire US, Canada, and a dozen or so other countries.
I can do 100Mb/s over ordinary CAT5, and it costs $60 for a 1000' box. Why the hell would I want to use the electric wiring in a home for networking?
Heres a message for them - "Go back and figure out how an ISP can use the outside wiring to deliver last-mile broadband, bypassing both the cable and telephone companies. Then you might have something newsworthy"
The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.
Personally I find 'mail in rebates' just a way to advertise a lower price than they are really selling an item for and get away with it - They put *29.95* up there in large font but then in small print below it include (after $50 mail in rebate).
If they put 29.95 as the price in large print, I should be able to walk in the store with 29.95 (plus tax, etc), and be able to walk out with the item. Its just a scam that I have to *loan* them an additional $50 interest free that I then have to jump though hoops to *maybe* get back - and yes I'm sure they count on lots of people to not even bother.
For that I would never consider rebates (except in-store ones) when comparison shopping. I go by the amount they expect me to pay at the register.
'tax deductible' doesnt mean you get to deduct that amount from the amount of taxes you owe. It means you get to deduce that amount from the money that is taxed. So if you have a $175 expense that is 'tax deductible', it means you save paying taxes on the $175. Assuming you pay even a whopping 25% in taxes, it means you save only $43.
1. I had a way to pay that *I* considered safe and secure, and didnt end up with the seller 'taking' money from me, as the current credit card and 'electronic check' payment methods do. I think selling pre-paid cards in retail stores (the way prepaid phone cards are) in various denominations would work great. (Buy with cash, redeem for music, no bank or ID needed)
2. No proprietary software required. Id only be able to use it if it was entirely web-based, with standards compliant HTML, that worked in any modern browser on any OS platform.
3. No proprietary music file format, no DRM. MP3 or OGG or some other format that the mere playing of (or conversion to other format) doesnt require software that has to pay royalties on a patent. I'd expect to be able to copy the music to any format or device I wanted to use it on - portable player, CD for car, etc.
I predict that nothing like that will ever exist, however, and I'd be surprised if it met *any* of those conditions. I'm sure anything that is released will expect payment by credit card only; will require proprietary software, available for 'proprietary' OS platforms only; and will only provide music in a proprietary format with extensive 'DRM' involved that restricts playing to only the computer it was originally downloaded on.
So they are manipulating *THEIR OWN* spider? Oh my god call the NSA! The CIA! The FBI!.
You want to make a case, try it with the UA that Yahoo/MSN/others, and if it gives the extra keywords there, then maybe I'd care. Even then not really, since they are a total of 4 (*FOUR*) keystrings in there, and all seem likely variations of the same concept, which is accurate for the page they appear on.
I've seen less seemly pages with hundreds of them in there, with repeats of the same word over and over, and with words that werent even remotely related to the content on the page.
Google isnt stuffing its pages with keywords, its *showing* you, in its cache, what search words were used to find that page.
And as noted elsewhere, this appears *only* in its cache, not on the pages themselves. I would suspect that the entire cache has a robots.txt suggesting to other search engines to stay out of there anyway.
SEO's are whinging manipulators who are upset that Google has teams of very smart people preventing them from interfering with what users of search engines really want, and they will do anything they can do hurt Google's credibility. We dont want sites that try to force themselves on you, we want real-world results based on unbiased information. I for one hit Google first anytime I am looking for anything, and it is the extremely rare occasion when I use anything else.
Google has earned my trust, which is more than I can say for a group of people scheming to manipulate their clients webpages position in search engine results.
But just perhaps, once the DOJ and the MS-using parts of the govt realize how much of a PIA it is to interchange stuff between the two, they will realize why MS is able to maintain their illegal monopoly, and perhaps get it in their head to finally break it.
No, Dr. Villanueva was specifically supporting that the source code be inspectable not only by the government, but by the citizens as well. That doesnt necesarrily mean it has to be on SourceForge, but it does mean that *any* citizen of (Peru, in this case) must be able to obtain a full copy of it. Now perhaps I can see it not being redistributable, but to support the 'free access to information by citizens', there must be no restrictions preventing someone else from writing software which can read (and/or, esp. in cases where citizens would be submitting data *to* the government, write) the data formats that the program uses, even even, if they are so motivated, from writing a competitive program which performs the same task.
Note that none of the entities discussed in the article is a major network operator - while they certainly may have their own organizational network just like any other company or organization, they dont directly operate the backbone networks. Their roles are advisory and (sort of) regulatory. To avoid any sort of appearance of favoritisim, I doubt they even get any special deals from whatever ISP they use to host their sites or connect their offices.
There is no 'center' or 'trunk' of the Internet. Every bandwidth flow is between two endpoints. Large backbone network operators generally have peering agreements (eg I'll send traffic to you that wants to go to your addresses if you agree to do the same for me, and we'll do it over the same set of wires) and either in most cases any two organizations that consider themselves to be 'peers' figure that average traffic in both directions will be the same, so they do it on a basis of each network paying for its own costs to interconnect to the other. Sometimes if the traffic is expected to be unbalanced, there will be a cost recovery clause in the peering agreement.
There are facilities known as 'peering points' that manage and operate various sorts of switched networks (FDDI, ATM, etc) that an organization can colocate routing equipment, and then have a shared 'connection' that they are able to use to peer with any other network operators that are located there. These are known as 'NAPs' - some were established back in the days of the NSF, some came later. These are about as close to the 'center' of the Internet as you can get, but they are not the center (nor is there a free ride to anywhere else from them)
Note you have to have your *own* IP addresses to peer, you announce your networks via BGP and accept announcements from your peers - you are specifically NOT allowed to use any other peer's router as your 'default route' - you can only send traffic to them that has a destination of one of the networks they announce to you as theirs, and you generally can only become party to a peering agreement if the other parties think you really are their 'peer' eg that it is desirable for them to connect to you as it is to you to connect to them. This would generally be met by being a large backbone yourself, with your own connectivity it multiple (more than 3) peering points, and your own customers (such as ISP's, webhosts, businesses, etc)
It is also possible to connect and a peering point and obtain what you think of as 'Internet service' - its called 'transit' - and its another type of agreement you can enter, that specifically *does* allow you to 'default' to the router of the org that you pay for transit. You can expect to pay market rates for transit bandwidth, although its a pretty competitive market. You would still be responsible for locating your own router onsite, interconnections with the shared fabric, and then the backhaul to your location.
For an interesting read, see http://worldofends.com/
I'll put it this way - if your site cannot be mostly viewed and navigated *without* requiring flash, you are using too much flash. If a browser must have flash in order to contact you, get basic information about your company/organization/etc, get your email address or phone number, send a message via webform, then you are using too much flash. I would proffer an exception for portions of sites which are entirely entertainment (Eg, animations, etc) - but there still should be a non-flash main page, as well as basic info contact/etc.
The transition from analog to digital tv transmission has NOTHING to do with the transition from standard to HiDef. The only possible connection is that the media moguls dont want to transmit in either hi def, or digital, if they dont have a way to control copying.
Please read that twice if it is at all confusing.
Wether a tv signal is broadcast digitally has absolutely nothing to do with wether its hi def or not. You can broadast a hidef signal over current analog transmitters, and you can broadcast a low-def signal over a digital system.
In the automotive industry, 'standardization' means that automakers publish the specs for their parts, and in many cases the parts/suplies are the same for cars made by different automakers.
If auto's were like the OS market, there would be one major automaker, the parts specifications would be secret, and you'd only be able to buy them at an authorized dealer. Meanwhile, there would be kit cars, that many different vendors made, that anyone willing to spend some time learning could put together, that all the kit cars used similar or the same parts, and once you built it, you were able to fix it yourself, or ask others that also had kit cars for their advice.
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN HIV/AIDS TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A BODY/FLATULENCE FREQUENCY AND/OR POTENCY TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN IQ TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL, NOR HAVE WE CONFIRMED BRAIN ACTIVITY WITH AN EKG"
"WE HAVE NOT MET THIS PERSON IN THE FLESH TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARENT UGLY, OR THAT THEY ARENT A VERY MESSY PERSON"
I would think that only the most naive and foolish person would assume that any website or company hosting ads or providing dating match services, *had conducted* a criminal check on anyone posting, unless there was a specific notice stating that they HAD done so. And even that, what assurances do they have that the person gave their real name to the site? Do they expect newspapers that run personal ads to post this notice too?
link to a login page. It sure would be nice if when/, posted a story that purports to link to a news article, the link actually did lead to a news article.
No, we dont need legislation. We need to redesign the technology so that the *user* always has the option to exercise full control over what is displayed on their screen - yes, there will always be users that don't care or bother, but that doesnt mean the rest of us have to put up with it.
Many of these technologies originally had some legitimate motive, but most of the implementations of them (javascript, java, et al) were/are horrific.
To answer my own post, after reading thru their site, it apepars that no, they are an unknown root. Chicken-and-egg. Until they get their CA auth in the major browsers, no one will be able to use certs from them for anything the public will be accessing. And until lots of people are using them, they wont be able to get in the browsers.
Also, they don't seem to permit you to provide your own CSR, which as someone else noted somewhat vaguley, is a MAJOR security problem. A cert signer should *never* have access to your private key - you make the key on your system, use it to make a CSR, then they sign the CSR. The resulting signed cert is only then usable if you have both it and the private key.
Slashdot Mirror
I already have the SPA. And I've played with FWD already. Afaik, it doesnt offer any way to obtain a normal number for PSTN phoke to call you on.
At the moment, I have a commercial VOIP service that lets me call anywhere in my state for ten bucks a month. They also have a $20/mo plan that gives you unlimited calling to the entire US, Canada, and a dozen or so other countries.
I dont want a 'Skype compatible phone'. I also dont want anything that 'plugs into a USB port', or relies on a PC in order to work.
I dont want to have to buy any hardware. I already have a SPA-2000, and I want to use a *normal* telephone.
This has nothing to do with BB internet service - it is 'within the home' only.
Many HAM's have portable stations installed in automobiles - not dependent on anything that a disaster might put OOC (eg, electric utility).
I can do 100Mb/s over ordinary CAT5, and it costs $60 for a 1000' box. Why the hell would I want to use the electric wiring in a home for networking?
Heres a message for them - "Go back and figure out how an ISP can use the outside wiring to deliver last-mile broadband, bypassing both the cable and telephone companies. Then you might have something newsworthy"
The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.
Personally I find 'mail in rebates' just a way to advertise a lower price than they are really selling an item for and get away with it - They put *29.95* up there in large font but then in small print below it include (after $50 mail in rebate).
If they put 29.95 as the price in large print, I should be able to walk in the store with 29.95 (plus tax, etc), and be able to walk out with the item. Its just a scam that I have to *loan* them an additional $50 interest free that I then have to jump though hoops to *maybe* get back - and yes I'm sure they count on lots of people to not even bother.
For that I would never consider rebates (except in-store ones) when comparison shopping. I go by the amount they expect me to pay at the register.
'tax deductible' doesnt mean you get to deduct that amount from the amount of taxes you owe. It means you get to deduce that amount from the money that is taxed. So if you have a $175 expense that is 'tax deductible', it means you save paying taxes on the $175. Assuming you pay even a whopping 25% in taxes, it means you save only $43.
1. I had a way to pay that *I* considered safe and secure, and didnt end up with the seller 'taking' money from me, as the current credit card and 'electronic check' payment methods do. I think selling pre-paid cards in retail stores (the way prepaid phone cards are) in various denominations would work great. (Buy with cash, redeem for music, no bank or ID needed)
2. No proprietary software required. Id only be able to use it if it was entirely web-based, with standards compliant HTML, that worked in any modern browser on any OS platform.
3. No proprietary music file format, no DRM. MP3 or OGG or some other format that the mere playing of (or conversion to other format) doesnt require software that has to pay royalties on a patent. I'd expect to be able to copy the music to any format or device I wanted to use it on - portable player, CD for car, etc.
I predict that nothing like that will ever exist, however, and I'd be surprised if it met *any* of those conditions. I'm sure anything that is released will expect payment by credit card only; will require proprietary software, available for 'proprietary' OS platforms only; and will only provide music in a proprietary format with extensive 'DRM' involved that restricts playing to only the computer it was originally downloaded on.
So they are manipulating *THEIR OWN* spider? Oh my god call the NSA! The CIA! The FBI!.
You want to make a case, try it with the UA that Yahoo/MSN/others, and if it gives the extra keywords there, then maybe I'd care. Even then not really, since they are a total of 4 (*FOUR*) keystrings in there, and all seem likely variations of the same concept, which is accurate for the page they appear on.
I've seen less seemly pages with hundreds of them in there, with repeats of the same word over and over, and with words that werent even remotely related to the content on the page.
Exactly what I wanted to post.
Google isnt stuffing its pages with keywords, its *showing* you, in its cache, what search words were used to find that page.
And as noted elsewhere, this appears *only* in its cache, not on the pages themselves. I would suspect that the entire cache has a robots.txt suggesting to other search engines to stay out of there anyway.
SEO's are whinging manipulators who are upset that Google has teams of very smart people preventing them from interfering with what users of search engines really want, and they will do anything they can do hurt Google's credibility. We dont want sites that try to force themselves on you, we want real-world results based on unbiased information. I for one hit Google first anytime I am looking for anything, and it is the extremely rare occasion when I use anything else.
Google has earned my trust, which is more than I can say for a group of people scheming to manipulate their clients webpages position in search engine results.
Im using Moz, and just tried this at google.com and google.co.nz, and I get direct links in both cases.
But just perhaps, once the DOJ and the MS-using parts of the govt realize how much of a PIA it is to interchange stuff between the two, they will realize why MS is able to maintain their illegal monopoly, and perhaps get it in their head to finally break it.
Not necesarrily. Perhaps this will help leverage an open format for 'editable document' exchange.
Er.. what pocket do you keep *your* phone in?
Use a headset. Leave the phone in your pocket or on your desk. You also get the benefit of having your hands free (for typing, or other activities)
No, Dr. Villanueva was specifically supporting that the source code be inspectable not only by the government, but by the citizens as well. That doesnt necesarrily mean it has to be on SourceForge, but it does mean that *any* citizen of (Peru, in this case) must be able to obtain a full copy of it. Now perhaps I can see it not being redistributable, but to support the 'free access to information by citizens', there must be no restrictions preventing someone else from writing software which can read (and/or, esp. in cases where citizens would be submitting data *to* the government, write) the data formats that the program uses, even even, if they are so motivated, from writing a competitive program which performs the same task.
Note that none of the entities discussed in the article is a major network operator - while they certainly may have their own organizational network just like any other company or organization, they dont directly operate the backbone networks. Their roles are advisory and (sort of) regulatory. To avoid any sort of appearance of favoritisim, I doubt they even get any special deals from whatever ISP they use to host their sites or connect their offices.
There is no 'center' or 'trunk' of the Internet. Every bandwidth flow is between two endpoints. Large backbone network operators generally have peering agreements (eg I'll send traffic to you that wants to go to your addresses if you agree to do the same for me, and we'll do it over the same set of wires) and either in most cases any two organizations that consider themselves to be 'peers' figure that average traffic in both directions will be the same, so they do it on a basis of each network paying for its own costs to interconnect to the other. Sometimes if the traffic is expected to be unbalanced, there will be a cost recovery clause in the peering agreement.
There are facilities known as 'peering points' that manage and operate various sorts of switched networks (FDDI, ATM, etc) that an organization can colocate routing equipment, and then have a shared 'connection' that they are able to use to peer with any other network operators that are located there. These are known as 'NAPs' - some were established back in the days of the NSF, some came later. These are about as close to the 'center' of the Internet as you can get, but they are not the center (nor is there a free ride to anywhere else from them)
Note you have to have your *own* IP addresses to peer, you announce your networks via BGP and accept announcements from your peers - you are specifically NOT allowed to use any other peer's router as your 'default route' - you can only send traffic to them that has a destination of one of the networks they announce to you as theirs, and you generally can only become party to a peering agreement if the other parties think you really are their 'peer' eg that it is desirable for them to connect to you as it is to you to connect to them. This would generally be met by being a large backbone yourself, with your own connectivity it multiple (more than 3) peering points, and your own customers (such as ISP's, webhosts, businesses, etc)
It is also possible to connect and a peering point and obtain what you think of as 'Internet service' - its called 'transit' - and its another type of agreement you can enter, that specifically *does* allow you to 'default' to the router of the org that you pay for transit. You can expect to pay market rates for transit bandwidth, although its a pretty competitive market. You would still be responsible for locating your own router onsite, interconnections with the shared fabric, and then the backhaul to your location.
For an interesting read, see http://worldofends.com/
Its *way* overused.
I'll put it this way - if your site cannot be mostly viewed and navigated *without* requiring flash, you are using too much flash. If a browser must have flash in order to contact you, get basic information about your company/organization/etc, get your email address or phone number, send a message via webform, then you are using too much flash. I would proffer an exception for portions of sites which are entirely entertainment (Eg, animations, etc) - but there still should be a non-flash main page, as well as basic info contact/etc.
The transition from analog to digital tv transmission has NOTHING to do with the transition from standard to HiDef. The only possible connection is that the media moguls dont want to transmit in either hi def, or digital, if they dont have a way to control copying.
Please read that twice if it is at all confusing.
Wether a tv signal is broadcast digitally has absolutely nothing to do with wether its hi def or not. You can broadast a hidef signal over current analog transmitters, and you can broadcast a low-def signal over a digital system.
In the automotive industry, 'standardization' means that automakers publish the specs for their parts, and in many cases the parts/suplies are the same for cars made by different automakers.
If auto's were like the OS market, there would be one major automaker, the parts specifications would be secret, and you'd only be able to buy them at an authorized dealer. Meanwhile, there would be kit cars, that many different vendors made, that anyone willing to spend some time learning could put together, that all the kit cars used similar or the same parts, and once you built it, you were able to fix it yourself, or ask others that also had kit cars for their advice.
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN HIV/AIDS TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A BODY/FLATULENCE FREQUENCY AND/OR POTENCY TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL"
"WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED AN IQ TEST ON THIS INDIVIDUAL, NOR HAVE WE CONFIRMED BRAIN ACTIVITY WITH AN EKG"
"WE HAVE NOT MET THIS PERSON IN THE FLESH TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARENT UGLY, OR THAT THEY ARENT A VERY MESSY PERSON"
I would think that only the most naive and foolish person would assume that any website or company hosting ads or providing dating match services, *had conducted* a criminal check on anyone posting, unless there was a specific notice stating that they HAD done so. And even that, what assurances do they have that the person gave their real name to the site? Do they expect newspapers that run personal ads to post this notice too?
link to a login page. It sure would be nice if when /, posted a story that purports to link to a news article, the link actually did lead to a news article.
No, we dont need legislation. We need to redesign the technology so that the *user* always has the option to exercise full control over what is displayed on their screen - yes, there will always be users that don't care or bother, but that doesnt mean the rest of us have to put up with it.
Many of these technologies originally had some legitimate motive, but most of the implementations of them (javascript, java, et al) were/are horrific.
To answer my own post, after reading thru their site, it apepars that no, they are an unknown root. Chicken-and-egg. Until they get their CA auth in the major browsers, no one will be able to use certs from them for anything the public will be accessing. And until lots of people are using them, they wont be able to get in the browsers.
Also, they don't seem to permit you to provide your own CSR, which as someone else noted somewhat vaguley, is a MAJOR security problem. A cert signer should *never* have access to your private key - you make the key on your system, use it to make a CSR, then they sign the CSR. The resulting signed cert is only then usable if you have both it and the private key.