This is the new craze, it's just like all the patents that were handed out like candy 5-10 years ago for doing the same old thing "on the internet" If the trend follows, we can now expect a whole new batch of laws making all the same old things illegal "on 3g" that were illegal anyway beforehand.
Why do people think that doing exactly the same thing using a different technology makes for something different?
I work in the telecom field and we call them Enterphones. 90% or more of apartment buildings use them, of those, over three quarters of them are able to call any number you program in to them, the remaining ones are much older systems (more than 20 years old) that actually are inserted in to the phone line going to the particular suite, most of these are slowly being replaced by the newer version.
Interesting mention on the police stations, I had forgotten about those, at all the rural police stations around here there is no doorbell, instead there is a telephone handset beside the front door, when you pick it up you are automatically connected to the police dispatch centre, who then radio the local police to see if they are in the station to let you in.
I don't know what country you live in, but I have never heard of a carrier that would allow 2 SIM-cards on the same subscription without your monthly cost doubling. I know there certainly doesn't seem to be such a thing in Canada (Though I would absolutely love it if you could prove me wrong!)
"nobody uses"? At least three quarters of the apartment buildings in my city use this. making it call out on 3G instead of a land line doesn't make it a "new invention"
As for "anyone could have done this"... they DID.. these devices are made by many different companies and sold all over the world. Used mainly on apartment buildings, however I have seen many houses with similar (although more basic) systems.
There are 2 ways of doing this, one is as you point out, an outside server "coordinating" the connection (and by coordinating, I mean the initial setup of the connection only, after which the peer 2 peer part can take over, (on many peer 2 peer networks other peers that aren't behind NAT can act as the coordinating server) The other method is "programing your NAT router to pass such incoming connections to that particular machine", this has been handled automatically with UPnP for years now. And better yet, it doesn't even have to be specific to one machine on your internal network, because each one can use a different port in the same port range to accomplish the same thing.
Again, this is a problem that was solved a long time ago.
If the ISP's router forbade all incoming traffic you'd never receive web pages that your browser requested, or files you wanted to download, or anything else.
NAT is designed with the express purpose of sending the packets to the appropriate computers. The router doesn't know if you are talking to a "server" or a "peer" only that it is sending a packet or receiving a packet.
I have at least 6 different devices on my router, and they all share the same public IP address. Which one gets the incoming connection?
This is a problem that was solved when NAT was first invented, it's the same way your router knows which one to send the incoming web page to after you request it. This is what NAT is designed to do, A computer requests information, and the router sends the appropriate packets to the appropriate computers, There is no way for a device in your house to know the difference between a "server" and a "peer", if it can talk to one, it can talk to the other just fine.
North America is more than just the USA... In fact there is approximately 15 million square kilometres of North America which is not part of the USA, (and less than 10 million square kilometres that are part of the USA) and considering Google Voice is not available at all outside of the USA, I think "inside North America the service is free" might be a rather misleading statement...
They don't. Sure their internal IP address is 192.168.1.1, but they have an internet facing IP address as well, and it is most certainly NOT 192.168.1.1 Their router does the "magic" of shuffling packets to the right computer on the internal network once the right IP on the external side is chosen. This may require some configuration on the firewall, but more likely both computers will make an outgoing request to a third party that will setup the connection, and then everything would be direct peer to peer after that. even that isn't essential though with modern routers.
This is a problem that has been solved a very long time ago.
You (usually) need a third party to help find the other computer initially, but once you've found them, a direct connection is no problem.
I have found many bug reports that match what I would file, they have been in there for years, but are never deemed important enough to action. Unfortunately I'm not enough of a programmer to help though.
My comment about changing channels was in regard to the router, not the camera. even the cheap 25-30 dollar cameras don't pollute the entire spectrum evenly, you can usually find a wifi channel that still works.
Electrical wiring is supposed to be properly shielded (especially the wire that runs from your socket to your appliance), but I've found it to be the worst from experience.
In residential wiring in Canada, I have NEVER seen shielded electrical wiring used inside walls or on appliance power cords, even the wire running from the power utility to the house, and the stuff running down the back lanes isn't shielded. The only shielded electrical wiring I have seen is only really shielded to protect from physical damage, the RF shielding is just a byproduct of the metal sheath used to protect it. Appliances are often (though not always) shielded, but never the wiring.
Consumers can't afford "good" UPS units, so they're stuck with consumer grade garbage, which was my whole point to start with, consumer grade equipment, whether it be a hand mixer, a treadmill, a computer, or a UPS is garbage.
When dealing with consumer devices all you can do most of the time is work around the issues. In the case of the treadmill we put the computer on a UPS and that wasn't enough, moving the treadmill's power cord to an outlet wired to the other side of the circuit breaker panel wasn't enough either, but the combination of the two solved it. In the case of the hand mixer it was decided that they would simply not try to use it while watching streaming video (moving to an outlet on the other side of the panel wasn't enough, and the customer wasn't willing to pay for a UPS (especially being that there was no guarantee it would solve the problem)). In the case of most microwave ovens we often move routers or again, try not to use it while making dinner.
Should people have to compromise like this? No, but it's the price we pay for affordable devices with noisy motors and poor shielding and filtering.
I work as a service tech for a local telco, I frequently go out to fix people's wireless when they can't figure out what's wrong, baby monitors and other people's wifi do kill the signal, but usually not badly enough to be a major problem, simply changing the channel on the AP or moving the equipment a few feet usually solves it. Microwave ovens are a big deal, but usually only in close proximity to them, or if it is directly between the computer and the AP.
What has always amazed me more is how badly various other household appliances can affect networks, and I'm not just talking wireless either, I've had cases where a hand mixer in the next room was able to make streaming video unwatchable on an ethernet cabled computer. And a customer who watched streaming video while on the treadmill required a lot of creative work to get a signal through even on ethernet. (turns out the problem was actually interference on the power line side of things, a UPS on the computer and moving the treadmill to a circuit on the other half of the electrical panel eventually solved it)
Basically, consumer gear is garbage, everything from hand mixers and treadmills to computers and routers. sometimes you can work around it, sometimes you just can't.
I find that wireless works fine out of the box on kubuntu. as long as you aren't trying to connect to a hidden network with a space in it's name... I have yet to find any way to do that under kubuntu except manually on the command line, and even that's hit and miss. This goes for the past 3 major releases.
Unfortunately with LG, Samsung, and HTC all on the list, we've eliminated over half the available android phones for anyone who refuses to give microsoft a dime.
Copyright is about copying, not use. They can tell me I can't redistribute, or I can't get a copy in the first place, but they have NO authority to tell me how to use it once I have it. A EULA is not a valid contract and can't change that.
My device, not yours, I own it, whatever garbage you display on the screen can't change that.
Show me the pre-download agreement that says I may not use a program on a device without an internet connection, or a GPS, or whatever else.
The most you MIGHT be able to show is a EULA, which are not even valid contracts.
Copyright stops me from giving a copy to someone else without authorization. it does not stop me from using my legally acquired program for my own purposes.
My device, my rules. You want to change that, then you have the problem, not me. You don't own my device, and you never will.
Why on earth would I want advertisers or app makers to have ANY unique identifier on me other than one I make up and give to them for reasons of high scores or online features?
Because entering a password every time you want to play is more tedious on a cell phone keyboard than on a laptop keyboard.
Then remember it the first time I type it. If you use the device id, then I can't get a new phone and still log in to the account. wrong solution. There is NO legitimate reason to use the unique device ID. If I want you to identify me, I'll give you a way to do so, if I don't then tough luck.
Advertisers WANT the world, that doesn't mean we're willing to give it to them.
You can refrain from giving it to them. You can refrain from using ad-supported applications. You can refrain from using applications at all in countries that don't support payment.
Or, I can realize that I own the device, and they don't. and I can then go and do whatever I want with the device that I bought and paid for and using the software that I have legally obtained. If that includes something they didn't plan for, or don't like, that's not my problem. As soon as they gave me the phone or application it ceased to be in their control and they no longer have any say whatsoever in what I do with it.
I can't think of a single person or organization on the entire planet that I want to give full and free access to that information without my explicit choosing.
You explicitly choose to choose ad-supported software instead of paid software.
No, I chose free over paid, the programmer chose ad supported. I also chose to have full control over my device and the software that runs on it. I never sign that control over to anyone. I never agreed to anything that stated I couldn't block their ads, I never agreed to anything that said I would give them my personal information. I never even agreed to use their software in exactly the manner they envisioned. If they don't like it, they should try a different line of work.
If I buy a sandwich from a cafeteria, I don't have to promise to eat it, I can eat it, throw it out, give it to someone else, or open it up and take the onions off. I can legally do this with any product I own. Just because YOUR business model doesn't like it doesn't make it MY problem.
I own my device, I control what it does, and how it does it. NO exceptions.
And for those applications without a name and password, what unique user identifier do you recommend other than the device's serial number
Why on earth would I want advertisers or app makers to have ANY unique identifier on me other than one I make up and give to them for reasons of high scores or online features? Any possible legitimate use of a unique identifier would fail if you used the device serial number because it would prevent you from changing devices. The only remaining reasons for a unique identifier are underhanded tricks used to get far more information about me than I want you to have, or than you have any reason to have.
Say a barber operates in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Haircuts can't be given over mail, phone, or Internet, so the barber only wants to show his message to possible customers in the Fort Wayne area. That's why sponsors want coarse location. And an advertiser wants to know how many unique viewers saw the message and how many impressions per viewer, hence "phone state and identity".
So explain why so many applications ask for fine (GPS) location to display ads? But beyond that, it's a 2 way street, just because they want to know where I am, doesn't mean I want to tell them. Advertisers WANT the world, that doesn't mean we're willing to give it to them. even "coarse" location is usually accurate enough to find my location within about 2 houses. I can't think of a single person or organization on the entire planet that I want to give full and free access to that information without my explicit choosing.
Adding more restrictions to the vehicles has never made driving any safer, and never will. If you want to improve road safety you need to start making sure the people driving know how to. This isn't accomplished by more monitoring, this is accomplished by actually testing people before issuing licenses (the current tests are a joke) and re-testing people on a periodic basis (just because you passed a joke of a test 55 years ago doesn't mean you're a safe driver now) Further, we need to stop treating driving as a right, and stop those who have proven over and over again that they can't safely operate a vehicle from endangering more lives (take licenses away after a certain number and type of infractions, or collisions) and even more importantly, have real and sever consequences for driving without a license.
Problem is, politicians know that making sure people know how to drive is very unpopular, but regulating new "safety features" is popular.... you win votes by mandating expensive things that don't save any lives, but you'll never win another election if you improve safety but take away a few driver's licenses to do it.
I disabled the seatbelt sensor in my work truck, now it thinks you're wearing your seatbelt, even if you aren't.
I did it not because I don't wear a seatbelt (the vehicle NEVER moves without me being buckled in!) but because I was sick and tired of the "bing-bing-bing-bing" sound while I sat in the vehicle doing paperwork before putting it in gear. Now I could simply not have the key in the ignition at that time... but I live in Canada, and at -30c doing paperwork in an unheated truck isn't a very good option.
Now vehicle designers could solve problems like that by telling it not to start annoying you unless you put it in gear...
Slashdot Mirror
No, they invented the intercom on 3G!
This is the new craze, it's just like all the patents that were handed out like candy 5-10 years ago for doing the same old thing "on the internet" If the trend follows, we can now expect a whole new batch of laws making all the same old things illegal "on 3g" that were illegal anyway beforehand.
Why do people think that doing exactly the same thing using a different technology makes for something different?
I work in the telecom field and we call them Enterphones. 90% or more of apartment buildings use them, of those, over three quarters of them are able to call any number you program in to them, the remaining ones are much older systems (more than 20 years old) that actually are inserted in to the phone line going to the particular suite, most of these are slowly being replaced by the newer version.
Interesting mention on the police stations, I had forgotten about those, at all the rural police stations around here there is no doorbell, instead there is a telephone handset beside the front door, when you pick it up you are automatically connected to the police dispatch centre, who then radio the local police to see if they are in the station to let you in.
I don't know what country you live in, but I have never heard of a carrier that would allow 2 SIM-cards on the same subscription without your monthly cost doubling. I know there certainly doesn't seem to be such a thing in Canada (Though I would absolutely love it if you could prove me wrong!)
"nobody uses"? At least three quarters of the apartment buildings in my city use this. making it call out on 3G instead of a land line doesn't make it a "new invention"
As for "anyone could have done this"... they DID.. these devices are made by many different companies and sold all over the world. Used mainly on apartment buildings, however I have seen many houses with similar (although more basic) systems.
There are 2 ways of doing this, one is as you point out, an outside server "coordinating" the connection (and by coordinating, I mean the initial setup of the connection only, after which the peer 2 peer part can take over, (on many peer 2 peer networks other peers that aren't behind NAT can act as the coordinating server)
The other method is "programing your NAT router to pass such incoming connections to that particular machine", this has been handled automatically with UPnP for years now. And better yet, it doesn't even have to be specific to one machine on your internal network, because each one can use a different port in the same port range to accomplish the same thing.
Again, this is a problem that was solved a long time ago.
If the ISP's router forbade all incoming traffic you'd never receive web pages that your browser requested, or files you wanted to download, or anything else.
NAT is designed with the express purpose of sending the packets to the appropriate computers. The router doesn't know if you are talking to a "server" or a "peer" only that it is sending a packet or receiving a packet.
I have at least 6 different devices on my router, and they all share the same public IP address. Which one gets the incoming connection?
This is a problem that was solved when NAT was first invented, it's the same way your router knows which one to send the incoming web page to after you request it. This is what NAT is designed to do, A computer requests information, and the router sends the appropriate packets to the appropriate computers, There is no way for a device in your house to know the difference between a "server" and a "peer", if it can talk to one, it can talk to the other just fine.
This is simply not a problem.
that still leaves 87.8% of the internet users outside the US...
North America is more than just the USA... In fact there is approximately 15 million square kilometres of North America which is not part of the USA, (and less than 10 million square kilometres that are part of the USA) and considering Google Voice is not available at all outside of the USA, I think "inside North America the service is free" might be a rather misleading statement...
They don't. Sure their internal IP address is 192.168.1.1, but they have an internet facing IP address as well, and it is most certainly NOT 192.168.1.1 Their router does the "magic" of shuffling packets to the right computer on the internal network once the right IP on the external side is chosen. This may require some configuration on the firewall, but more likely both computers will make an outgoing request to a third party that will setup the connection, and then everything would be direct peer to peer after that. even that isn't essential though with modern routers.
This is a problem that has been solved a very long time ago.
You (usually) need a third party to help find the other computer initially, but once you've found them, a direct connection is no problem.
I have found many bug reports that match what I would file, they have been in there for years, but are never deemed important enough to action. Unfortunately I'm not enough of a programmer to help though.
My comment about changing channels was in regard to the router, not the camera. even the cheap 25-30 dollar cameras don't pollute the entire spectrum evenly, you can usually find a wifi channel that still works.
Electrical wiring is supposed to be properly shielded (especially the wire that runs from your socket to your appliance), but I've found it to be the worst from experience.
In residential wiring in Canada, I have NEVER seen shielded electrical wiring used inside walls or on appliance power cords, even the wire running from the power utility to the house, and the stuff running down the back lanes isn't shielded.
The only shielded electrical wiring I have seen is only really shielded to protect from physical damage, the RF shielding is just a byproduct of the metal sheath used to protect it.
Appliances are often (though not always) shielded, but never the wiring.
Consumers can't afford "good" UPS units, so they're stuck with consumer grade garbage, which was my whole point to start with, consumer grade equipment, whether it be a hand mixer, a treadmill, a computer, or a UPS is garbage.
When dealing with consumer devices all you can do most of the time is work around the issues. In the case of the treadmill we put the computer on a UPS and that wasn't enough, moving the treadmill's power cord to an outlet wired to the other side of the circuit breaker panel wasn't enough either, but the combination of the two solved it. In the case of the hand mixer it was decided that they would simply not try to use it while watching streaming video (moving to an outlet on the other side of the panel wasn't enough, and the customer wasn't willing to pay for a UPS (especially being that there was no guarantee it would solve the problem)). In the case of most microwave ovens we often move routers or again, try not to use it while making dinner.
Should people have to compromise like this? No, but it's the price we pay for affordable devices with noisy motors and poor shielding and filtering.
I work as a service tech for a local telco, I frequently go out to fix people's wireless when they can't figure out what's wrong, baby monitors and other people's wifi do kill the signal, but usually not badly enough to be a major problem, simply changing the channel on the AP or moving the equipment a few feet usually solves it.
Microwave ovens are a big deal, but usually only in close proximity to them, or if it is directly between the computer and the AP.
What has always amazed me more is how badly various other household appliances can affect networks, and I'm not just talking wireless either, I've had cases where a hand mixer in the next room was able to make streaming video unwatchable on an ethernet cabled computer. And a customer who watched streaming video while on the treadmill required a lot of creative work to get a signal through even on ethernet. (turns out the problem was actually interference on the power line side of things, a UPS on the computer and moving the treadmill to a circuit on the other half of the electrical panel eventually solved it)
Basically, consumer gear is garbage, everything from hand mixers and treadmills to computers and routers. sometimes you can work around it, sometimes you just can't.
I find that wireless works fine out of the box on kubuntu. as long as you aren't trying to connect to a hidden network with a space in it's name... I have yet to find any way to do that under kubuntu except manually on the command line, and even that's hit and miss. This goes for the past 3 major releases.
somehow that doesn't feel like much of a victory...
Unfortunately with LG, Samsung, and HTC all on the list, we've eliminated over half the available android phones for anyone who refuses to give microsoft a dime.
Which is miles ahead of the current "if you want an OS upgrade, tough luck, buy another phone" which most manufacturers practice now.
Copyright is about copying, not use. They can tell me I can't redistribute, or I can't get a copy in the first place, but they have NO authority to tell me how to use it once I have it. A EULA is not a valid contract and can't change that.
My device, not yours, I own it, whatever garbage you display on the screen can't change that.
Show me the pre-download agreement that says I may not use a program on a device without an internet connection, or a GPS, or whatever else.
The most you MIGHT be able to show is a EULA, which are not even valid contracts.
Copyright stops me from giving a copy to someone else without authorization. it does not stop me from using my legally acquired program for my own purposes.
My device, my rules. You want to change that, then you have the problem, not me. You don't own my device, and you never will.
Why on earth would I want advertisers or app makers to have ANY unique identifier on me other than one I make up and give to them for reasons of high scores or online features?
Because entering a password every time you want to play is more tedious on a cell phone keyboard than on a laptop keyboard.
Then remember it the first time I type it.
If you use the device id, then I can't get a new phone and still log in to the account. wrong solution.
There is NO legitimate reason to use the unique device ID. If I want you to identify me, I'll give you a way to do so, if I don't then tough luck.
Advertisers WANT the world, that doesn't mean we're willing to give it to them.
You can refrain from giving it to them. You can refrain from using ad-supported applications. You can refrain from using applications at all in countries that don't support payment.
Or, I can realize that I own the device, and they don't. and I can then go and do whatever I want with the device that I bought and paid for and using the software that I have legally obtained. If that includes something they didn't plan for, or don't like, that's not my problem. As soon as they gave me the phone or application it ceased to be in their control and they no longer have any say whatsoever in what I do with it.
I can't think of a single person or organization on the entire planet that I want to give full and free access to that information without my explicit choosing.
You explicitly choose to choose ad-supported software instead of paid software.
No, I chose free over paid, the programmer chose ad supported. I also chose to have full control over my device and the software that runs on it. I never sign that control over to anyone. I never agreed to anything that stated I couldn't block their ads, I never agreed to anything that said I would give them my personal information. I never even agreed to use their software in exactly the manner they envisioned. If they don't like it, they should try a different line of work.
If I buy a sandwich from a cafeteria, I don't have to promise to eat it, I can eat it, throw it out, give it to someone else, or open it up and take the onions off. I can legally do this with any product I own. Just because YOUR business model doesn't like it doesn't make it MY problem.
I own my device, I control what it does, and how it does it. NO exceptions.
And for those applications without a name and password, what unique user identifier do you recommend other than the device's serial number
Why on earth would I want advertisers or app makers to have ANY unique identifier on me other than one I make up and give to them for reasons of high scores or online features? Any possible legitimate use of a unique identifier would fail if you used the device serial number because it would prevent you from changing devices. The only remaining reasons for a unique identifier are underhanded tricks used to get far more information about me than I want you to have, or than you have any reason to have.
Say a barber operates in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Haircuts can't be given over mail, phone, or Internet, so the barber only wants to show his message to possible customers in the Fort Wayne area. That's why sponsors want coarse location. And an advertiser wants to know how many unique viewers saw the message and how many impressions per viewer, hence "phone state and identity".
So explain why so many applications ask for fine (GPS) location to display ads? But beyond that, it's a 2 way street, just because they want to know where I am, doesn't mean I want to tell them. Advertisers WANT the world, that doesn't mean we're willing to give it to them. even "coarse" location is usually accurate enough to find my location within about 2 houses. I can't think of a single person or organization on the entire planet that I want to give full and free access to that information without my explicit choosing.
Adding more restrictions to the vehicles has never made driving any safer, and never will. If you want to improve road safety you need to start making sure the people driving know how to. This isn't accomplished by more monitoring, this is accomplished by actually testing people before issuing licenses (the current tests are a joke) and re-testing people on a periodic basis (just because you passed a joke of a test 55 years ago doesn't mean you're a safe driver now)
Further, we need to stop treating driving as a right, and stop those who have proven over and over again that they can't safely operate a vehicle from endangering more lives (take licenses away after a certain number and type of infractions, or collisions) and even more importantly, have real and sever consequences for driving without a license.
Problem is, politicians know that making sure people know how to drive is very unpopular, but regulating new "safety features" is popular.... you win votes by mandating expensive things that don't save any lives, but you'll never win another election if you improve safety but take away a few driver's licenses to do it.
I disabled the seatbelt sensor in my work truck, now it thinks you're wearing your seatbelt, even if you aren't.
I did it not because I don't wear a seatbelt (the vehicle NEVER moves without me being buckled in!) but because I was sick and tired of the "bing-bing-bing-bing" sound while I sat in the vehicle doing paperwork before putting it in gear. Now I could simply not have the key in the ignition at that time... but I live in Canada, and at -30c doing paperwork in an unheated truck isn't a very good option.
Now vehicle designers could solve problems like that by telling it not to start annoying you unless you put it in gear...