Ok, so I went and look at my bluetooth devices again (a Motorola cell phone and a Logitech keyboard/mouse) - in both cases, I don't see how this crack would actually work:
- With the Logitech keyboard, you actually have to type in the PIN from the keyboard in order for it to pair.
- The motorola must be told to pair specifically - so if it loses connection with a device, it won't automatically re-pair because I haven't made my phone pairable. To make the phone pairable requires a specific menu sequence and then it's only valid for about 30 seconds (and shuts off again).
In both these cases, I don't see a hacker getting in even with spoofing, because both of those events require user intervention (so perhaps the dumb user won't understand...)
I tried one more thing to confirm this - I got another laptop and named it identically to the first one...so it acted as the first one but without a pairing. Again, the phone ignored the request until I said it could pair (a manual interaction) and the keyboard required me to type in the pin from the keyboard. Btw, my laptop also doesn't allow pairing without explicit user intervention.
So great, they found a theoretical vulnerability, but one with an easy work around and one vendors have already seemed to predict. Besides, how useful can this be? As someone said, if you see someone stalking you, you have bigger problems. And if your keyboard stops working because it's paired to another device, it's unlikely you're going to be typing anything on it.
Um, the federal government coercing states into doing things upon the threat of withheld funds is not without precedent. Or did we forget the primary motivation for states to move to a 21 year old minimum drinking age...fact is many states were refused federal highway funds for many years until they got their minimum drinking age up to 21 (I think it was called the federal highway act of 1984).
I haven't scrutinized the proposed law yet - in principle, I have nothing wrong with enhanced ID standards across the US...however, I do have a problem with required IDs in general...while it's been argued anonymous travel is not a constitutional right, removing that capability (through required IDs, or at the very least, through the support of arbitrary ability for any law enforcement official to demand that id regardless of when, where or why) brings us one step closer to a police state where a right to liberty is replaced with corruption and persecution by those in power.
Sure, domain spoofing is an issue - but there are legitimate reasons for spoofing email (mail2web is an example - you want people to think the mail is from you @yourdomain.com even if you're using mail2web as your temporary client)...and the key management seems like it would be a headache for large mail systems (with thousands of domains).
Like the idea, but needs some work....some of this is obvious and I'm sure there are fine minds out there tackling the issue.
Let's not forget that there's a sound reasonsing in the interest of the public and public policy why Amateur Radio exists (at least in the US, and I suspect in the rest of the world) (quotes from Part 97):
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
I suspect many Amateur (especially newers ones) forget this point...one of the primary reasons the Amateur Radio Service was created was to provide a secondary emergency communication network for the country in times of disaster. Many of us still train on a regular basis for emergency communications and work closely with various groups (including the aforementioned Red Cross, Military, etc) to ensure we can provide vital, orderly emergency communication. Our work at public events is typically in support of this mission. And if you think that we're useless, some recent instances of the usefulness of Amateur Radio:
During 9/11, a large volunteer Amateur network was used to facilitate communications between the Red Cross and other emergency agencies. There were several stories of where an operator's expertise with antennas or such allowed them to get signals where others couldn't.
During the recent Hurricanes - especially in smaller islands with unsophisticated power and communication systems used various worldwide amateur capabilities to coordinate aid, welfare and other traffic
Someone already mentioned use of amateur radio during the recent blackout in the NE US.
Esp in the midwest (but throughout), groups like SKYWARN (amateur radio weather warning nets) are a vital part of the NWS's ability to track tornadoes/storms and other weather data.
In all these cases, Amateur Radio was useful because it's what we exist for - emergency communications. Heck, once a year, we have essentially a contest where we make as many contacts as possible without the use of an established power infrastructure. We pride ourselves on making contact (even via CW) in extremely difficult radio conditions. Commericial systems rarely cover those situations that occur.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
This is true even today...many modern radio designs and systems are the result of earlier work in the amateur field. And while we may think the pool is small...a large number of those who make these systems (even those who build systems like SIRIUS and XM Satelitte radio) are Amateur Radio operators who's expertise and interest in radio and related theory is what fueled their abilities and interests in commercial systems.
My point is - for all those who are thinking the "death" of the service is not important - there are many things that wouldn't exist today if it weren't for amateur radio - and many situations which we would still be recovering from if we didn't have the ability of amateur's emergecy communications. In today's instant gratification, commercial oriented society, we have seen the canabilization of our service and endured decreased recognition of our usefulness....but that really is just ignorance than anything else. BPL may be important, but not at the expense of a still useful thing such as the ARS. I hope the FCC continues to strive to strike a balance in the needs of all parties.
Here's another possible competitor - logo is very google looking too (picked it up in another article here on slashdot): Simpy. I'm sure there are plenty of other useful similar tools, but thought I'd just keep adding to the case.
Clearly, a9.com isn't a new search engine - there's absolutely no improvement to the actual search algorithm - or so it seems (especially since it leeches off the search results of other engines). Perhaps the search of a new source of data (your history of searches) is novel - but even then, probably only marginally.
Where I do see the possible value in the site is the "new features" (and I'll use the term "new" very loosely) for managing information - the information in this case being search results/bookmarks - and recording/managing trains of thought. Sorta like a lab book for a research scientist, here's a tool that allows you to perform the searches you search every day through say Google, but also record the sites you've visted during your searches, perhaps write a small entry about why you visited there and the relative value to the item you were searching for, and then to retrieve those thoughts later when you perform a related search (and perhaps find you had a related search you had forgotten about).
As many have pointed out, this concept isn't necessarily new and I'm not sure that A9's method is the right approach (too early to really tell...). Examples of more likely competitors would be: Onfolio (albeit, not directly in search - but similar enough in terms of "managing internet research"); Endeca - they call their concept "guided search" - part of which is the ability to search in the context of past searches; or even iKeepBookmarks.com (never used it, just googled for something similar;) which allows you to manage your bookmarks centrally online. Amazon's "unique" approach here is to do the management with search results, but all the same, it's just an info management tool.
So, given that Amazon has one of the largest databases of consumer information (both individual and aggregate trends, habits, etc) and they've never really ruled out being a company who will use that info to their advantage, I'm a bit concerned about A9's storage of my trains of thought and searches...and since they plainly say in their privacy agreement that "customer information will of course be one of the transferred assets" in the unlikley (their words) event that they sell the company. Ok, so Amazon sells the company to a marketing company who then uses the info to innudate you with advertisements in multiple forms (there doesn't seem to be anything limiting them from sending you email or contacting you via other means if you provide them with the info).
Taking away any problems with a big company warehousing your data (and personal trains of thought), the idea is intriguing - but I don't need yet another tool for managing my information in a narrow niche way (I already have too many of those). If it integrated with a tool I already use for managing info I gather (say, like my private database of links - or my file system even) - then it might be cool. Otherwise, I save my links (and my lab books) pretty effectively already - and without the targeted advertising.
The real price will be found very soon, but it will very likely be a lot lower then $20 most seem to be asking for. BTW, $20 is an astronomical price for all but the most complicated software packages geared for ahome user. I would bet that market set prices would be somwhere between 5 cents and 2$.
Hmmm...so the software that balances your checkbook for you is worth less than the 20 games for which you paid $49.99 each. Don't know about that...I suppose each to their own.
Not a horrid idea - but I can see several obstacles to overcome before anything like this could be practical (and let's exclude local broadcast channels for whom the rules don't apply):
- Most important is the fact that consumers demand content (loosely) and so the power is in the hands of the content providers, not the distributors. Thus in the current model, the distributors (DirecTV, Comcast, Dish, etc - DirectTV being a player but hardly a majority holder) pay the content providers. Now, for smaller content providers, this isn't a lot of power, but for the larger content providers - ESPN for example - this represents a huge amount of power to maximize revenue (and thus you see situations where the owners of said power content channels use them to leverage better deals for other channels in their portfolio)...you don't see many distributors says "I'm sorry ESPN, you have to pay us for us to carry you on our station" or "tough then, we just won't carry you". Further, if you do manage to switch the model (see my next point), you still have to figure out how the revenue model works (see point 3).
- As far as I can surmise (based on information available to me), no one distributor still has a lock on viewing households. Even Comcast has what amounts to a small fraction of the available audience. Only when a distributor holds a majority of households (I don't know if it's really a majority, but certainly close) will they have the power to turn the table on the big content players - even that will be a delicate balance since content will still be king -just less so(incidently, this is why there was a lot of concern around a Dish-DirectTV merger cause it would give the combined provider an edge over cable providers - subsequently, the combined content/distribution issue is what held up NEWS Corp's purchase of DirectTV because competitors feared with the combined distribution/content force would give Murdoch and uncanny advantage (can you say leverage) against rival distribution/content companies).
- And how would such a revenue model work? If companies are paying for bandwidth and customer's for shows - can either survive? Take HBO for example...currently they cost (roughlyl) $20 a month for a subscription to all their shows. Now assume the consumer only wants to watch the Sopranos - what's the value of that - $1 per showing?(no way - that might dig into DVD sales) - $15 per showing? (yeah, right...it's not that good)...even at pay-per-view costs ($3-4 per showing) that becomes expensive even for the casual consumer...yeah, there might be some demand for it, but the model wouldn't necessarily keep costs down for consumers. Ok, so you get a subscription for all of HBO's shows right now - ummm, then why not just take a channel...since essentially that's what a season of sopranos or a season of x or 10 movies might take up anyways. And I can't imagine how this would affect advertised supported models with incremental revenue of cable subscription fees. I'm sure we could come up with any number of variations, but I'm not sure I see one that really benefits the content providers switching - the fact is, TV works because it's relatively cheap (or at least not too expensive)....that will end if you have to choose your content piecemeal and the costs go up - even for in-demand content like the Sopranos or such (that's why they have DVDs).
- Not to get into the "signal to noise" debate about content quality, but if the funding model did change somehow (and I can't imagine how the content providers would benefit in any case), it could only worsen content. Fact of the matter is, for us to get any chance at "quality content", there needs to be large amounts of funding for even the crap - because unlike bits and bytes - content is highly subjective and one man's quality is another man's crap. Reduce the amount of funding and you don't improve the signal-to-noise ratio, you just reduce the amount of content....and in the long run, that will probably kill off lots of quality content that we
IANAL...but having dealt with trademark issues regularly, it seems to me we forget some of the basic tenets of trademark law (this is unlikley exahuastive):
Do the two companies sell similar goods/services and are the names used for those similar goods/services?
Are the names similar?
Are the goods/services marketed in the same or similar channels of trade?
Was there an intentional infringement of the trademark (i.e. to benefit from the credibility or visibility of the established trademark)?
In addition, some other criteria might include:
Is there proof of customers being confused by the names?
How widely known the names are (federal trademark protection is typically extended to those who engage in interstate commerce).
Would a reasonable person confuse the two companies?
Where things become dicey for Mike Rowe is if the following is true (from the article):
"He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills."
This intention would likely violate the tenet of trying to benefit from the established name's reputation, economic value, marketing, etc (and regardless of your feelings about Microsoft, there's no disputing that the name Microsoft is well recognized with considerable economic value and economic goodwill). If Mike Rowe just had a software company called "Mike Rowe Software", he'd likely be ok (since usually, it's very hard for a company to strip one of their legal name) since most people know how Microsoft is spelled (a consequence of the widely known name)...and new customers would likely be quickly debunked of any confusion...not to mention I think there are any number of spellings tha people would try before getting to MikeRowe. Maybe MikeRow, MikeRoe, MicRow, etc...but Rowe is not really a common spelling of a common word...but more often a last name.
The counter offer is not unreasonable (names are sold all the time if there's no infringing trademark but similar sounding names - yes, that's very possible and happens all the time).
His minor status might give him some leverage PR wise - but it might also invalidate his registration depending on Candian contract laws (since the registration of a domain name is a contract and typically, contracts entered into with minors without a parental/guardian signature are usually unenforceable). On a PR basis, Microsoft can probably absorb this (especially since he's a 17 year old with a business...typically shows sophistication that most people will use to overlook the PR issue).
Anyways, some thoughts...I hope he get's to keep it if he wants it - and if not, at least get reimbursed for the cost of registering a new domain name and alerting all his customers (and perhaps fixing all his marketing). Contrary to popular opinion, reimbursement for the hosting, time to create the website, etc are not likely reimbursable (the only infringement is the name - and there's not evidence the site's design is tied into the name).
IANAL - however, I'm pretty sure that in cases like this (license enforcement, trademark enforcement, ip enforcement, etc), it helps your case to show you are actively trying to enforce your rights (in the case of tradmark enforcement, it's a requirement)...this letter is probably a long list of things SCO's lawyers list as required for a successful case (and have suckered SCO into paying them to creat).
So perhaps SCO is fishing for suckers (takes one to know one), but likely, they're don't care and will send out lots of letters like this to show that they've made efforts and have been blantantly ignored. Of course, the only one's getting rich here will be SCO's lawyers.
Again, IANAL - but who cares if anyone responds...the key is SCO is going through the motions of being a proper litigant...
As it turns out, the exemptions don't allow for a video screen that shows your car's radio. So while my navigation system is up, it's exempt, the second I go to select a preset on the radio screen, I'm driving illegally? Yeah, ok, I probably shouldn't fiddle with the radio while driving - but because it's in a video screen, I'm going to be criminally accountable while the doob in the 70 dart next to me with a traditional push button radio bends over to fiddle with his stuck preset flies on freely to whack any poor schmuck he likes.
Normally, I'm against over legislation because it's really hard to develop vague words to describe any hundreds of specific situations accurately....and to me, one of the many definitions of freedom is that I take some risk that some other moron will end me in exchange for being able to live my own life without having to carry a playbook around that typically can't cover all the reasonable situations anyways.
That being said, I think it's important that we create legistlation that protects us from our own inability to understand our limitations (which a collective can understand but we as individuals continually think we're beyond). My only problem is that such legislation usually goes overboard because it's not specific enough in scope or the law only provides exemption for classes of authority (like they are excluded from the moron clause because they've been given that authority) or worse, it tries to tell us what we can and can't do. Laws should not tell us what we can and can't do - just what the penalities are for making bad decisions or doing things that are not advisable (the law doesn't say we can't murder - it says we'll be punished if we do - and only after we actually try to accomplish the end...the law shouldn't say we can't use a laptop in the front seat - it should say if we use a laptop in the and attempt an accident (or god forbid cause one), then we should be punished harshly for our stupidity).
This law needs improvement - here are my ideas:
- This law doesn't need to punish a passenger for using a laptop. It needs to specifically punish the driver if he lets himself be distracted by such a device...or if there's no passanger and he's using the device (for example, any accident which the driver is at fault in in which a laptop occupies the front seat [with or without a passenger] will carry triple the normal penalties) - if you're a driver and allow the laptop in the front with your passenger, you'll be extra careful to not get into an accident that's your fault.
- It should also allow exemptions based on specialized training - thus allowing any moron to become "authorized" (for example, members of the public who take a certified class teaching the proper use of video screens in the front seat while at rest are exempt from this prohibition). Yeah - ok, if we the normal public moron can't get access to the class, then it's the same as just giving it to any moron with a badge (and please, don't flame me as I have great respect for our officials who aren't morons)..but that's a different debate isn't it?
- Further, it should grandfather certain built-in devices (like my car radio..the dealer is unlikely to take it back) and it should certainly exempt anything "pre-installed" by the manufacturer - with the assumption that manufacturers have to certify their devices with California (I can see it now, California certified video screens versus non-california certified screens;)
Yeah - this isn't the end all be all answer to this - but it's really going to piss me off that my wife can't translate an IM conversation for me while we're hurtling down the highway at 65 mph.
Which brings me to my next silly and yet scary thought - does this law hold me criminally accountable if I get in an accident while looking at the screen in my head as a result of talking a client through a procedure to fix their broken server via a legal hands-free cell phone? *smirk*
I guess that depends on your definition of "Installed" (as pointed out in the original post). Is a laptop on the seat next to you sliding willy nilly installed? Unlikely.
Saddam being caught is a good thing - if only because now that we've committed to the war in Iraq, it's one more objective fulfilled [and I assume our Military knows what its doing when it comes to setting objectives to complete the job its charged with]. Whether you agree with the war or not is immaterial at this point - any intelligent person can see we are unable to undo what has been done - right or wrong, the right direction forward is full commitment...leave the past for the historians.
However, the sheer # of posts here on slashdot (and the many other forums across the internet) show what a sad and divided state the US and the world are in right now...and that frankly is what scares me. If one of the goals of tyranny and terrorism is to disrupt normal society, then it seems they are succeeding. Peace, Love and Good require the unity and cohesion of the people of the world...
Before you flame me, I'm not saying we can't disagree - at least from my perspective (as an American), unity, freedom and liberty cannot exist without open, passionate and honest debate. The problem is that many of us have stepped way over the line (for whatever reason) and the debate is now devisive and malicious - whatever valid message or point either side has is lost in the sheer blind fury and emotion.
So, during the time of the year when the message of peace and love are strong for those of many faiths, let's try to find a way back to the unity that will help us create a world free of tyranny and terror....a goal I think we all would like to see...
So, how long before some ingenious person will run a DDOS attack that does random packet flooding of random.com addresses (ie, asfdadsfsdf.com) thus double whammying the versign servers.
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?
Wait a minute, isn't this the definition of entry level jobs at a consulting company? Or is that outsourcing?
Folks - this seems to me a temporary move until the powers that be at UPS find a way to do the following:
a) comply with the law b) cover the costs of complying with that law c) make a profit on the ironic side effects of that law
So just think - soon, the UPS will be offering a special "hazmat" transport service that transports items like these. The downside - it'll cost more...and thus the items transported will cost more. The question is, are there enough people doing model rocketry (and other similarly affected cargo) to make a profit?
Lawmakers think they have good intentions at heart - and while I think the laws they are recently proposing/passing are extreme reactions to an extreme event, some of them do make sense to respond to the demands of increased security. It's a tough balance - and sometimes, rather than making the laws more specific, it's better for ingenious Americans to find a way to make a profit...and provide a valuable service - while allowing the Government to do their job - protect us.
That being said - I oppose many parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts - simply because there's no way to bypass an individual's privacy and liberties...something both of these acts threaten to do....
I mean really - here are some newsflashes for you:
1) Backtick (your so called backwards apostrophe) is still used frequently in *nix programming - especially script programming. Also (as someone else pointed out) apple-` is a useful key.
2) Most of us are used to that "double-key" format you are looking for....even if they did expend real estate on those functions in a single keystroke, I imagine most would use what they already know. This is why dvorak and other new layouts have not gained widespread acceptance - people tend not to learn a new layout since they've already learned qwerty and it works for them. This is the same argument used for switching words processors or anything else with a command structuure (even car alarms - albeit, it's an extreme case - but is there any uniformity to keyfobs?) - we tend to like to stick with what we've invested in learning - and not to have to relearn things.
3) While I agree many keys have probably out lived their usefulness - how do you prioritze which keys we replace them with? Why isn't num lock outdated on laptops (I mean, how many people really use that brained dead slanted numberic keypad)? Before you know it, we'll have keyboards with apple keys and windows keys (oh wait, we do have those).
3) X-land folk can remap any key to anything they wish...so it really doesn't matter what the keyboard looks like as long as there are a bunch of keys. And guess what? You can do this in Windows (esp if you are a programmer) - albeit, it's a bit tougher.
Personally, I'd like to see keyboards easier to reprogram - kinda like programmable buttons on phones. Perhaps that what we need. We also need more intuitive mice that don't require a lot of movement away from the keyboard (and I don't mean those stupid stress sticks from IBM that keep breaking on you).
802.11b - 5.5 Mbps - if you're lucky (turn on a microwave within 150 feet of the receiver and that drops to about 3.2 Mbps) (remember 802.11b is 11mbps half duplex....)
802.11a - 54 Mbps (is it full duplex? I have to check) 802.11g - 22 Mbps (not sure - recalling from memory)
Most you could support is about 10 channels on a 802.11a perhaps....this is assuming no interference, priority on the channel (meaning no interference plus no one else transmitting), no retransmits, 0 error rate, etc.
Do your math as well - sure, you could probably get the 20fps, 320x200 stream down to 56-100kbps range - but that's raw. Add the overhead and latency of tcp/ip and then that of wifi...let's say you're lucky and that with 192 kbps of bandwidth you get a solid channel. That's at best 20-30 streams of data (802.11b - the most popular right now)....ah - but wait....wifi has a colision space - so you'll probably top out at 15-20 (unless you've manage to synchronize your transmissions so they never collide - qos might help here)...
Come on folks...I'm not questioning our ability to stream video over wireless in a perfect world - but _WIFI_ at best is a one or two channel option for now - even with massive compression (at which point, I'm not sure it works for mainstream viewing).
Also note that technically - wifi applies to 802.11b...I'm allowing for the other less mature technologies - but they still face a lot of the same hurdles for any wireless broadcast system that's unregulated with more than a few channels.
Okay - wait...we're talking WiFi here....not Ku Band or anything else. I limited my discussion to the scope of the article - IN WIFI. Thus, by your example, 1080i would be too much for your typical 802.11b wifi setup. And at best, you'd get a few hdtv channels on 802.11a (course, you'd be limited to a few city blocks).
With the newer technologies (we're talking general wifi here - 802.11(put your favorite variant here)), you'd still be lucky to get a dozen streams or so - even with multicast.
2. Since when does multicast have priority on a network? Fact of the matter is only one person can transmit at a time...this includes interference. So if the band is clogged, multicast won't improve anything here. QoS is required even for the mulitcasters to get the right priority. Course, this matters not for point 3 (interference).
3. Typical wifi today is 802.11b...802.11a still has to pan out and 802.11g seems like a better alternative for most. While I agree neither gets knocked out by your average Microwave - both get reduced bandwidth due to the wideband interference. And you point out other points of interference to bandwidth - which really is the whole point here.
So buddy- if you had a modicum of reading comprehension, you'd note that my point is the bandwidth/reliability isn't there for something more than a channel.
And I simply pointed out the area I'd rather people invest first....I'd gladly (and have in the past) contribute to such fine efforts simliar to NYC wireless.
Btw - talking is what we do here at slashdot (well writing and reading). And don't go calling the kettle black if you don't have the courage to post with a registered account.
Perhaps someday soon this will be practical - but for now, WiFi has too many disdvantages:
1) Bandwidth - even on the newer 54Mbps feed will quickly become saturated 2) QoS is still a pipe dream 3) Microwave ovens - still a predominant feature of many people's homes.
And with HDTV coming out - will we really want to be stuck with 320x200 doubled at 15fps for our TV? Might be a novelty or convenient when you want to watch something important when you're away from home - but seems to me that until WiFi becomes more hardwire-ish, this is a project best left for the novelty that it is. Continue to wokr on giving free ubiquitous wifi on a grand scale (i.e. bigger than just NYC)....
Boudreau, who faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted on all charges, was not immediately available for comment.
Boston College said it suspended Boudreau, 21, last year once it learned of his scheme.
Suspended? Do they think he'll continue his education in 20 years?
How is it he's been suspended for a year and only now their just indicting him....gotta love the speed of justice.
I spose they can't expell him until he's convicted (innocent till proven guilty and all)...
So, do you think he had all the keystroke logs sent to his main email acct?
I know it's tough to do now a days, but I do know a friend who has absolutely no credit history (he's never used credit)....of course, he still lives with his parents...
Anyways, there's too much room for misinterpretation of a credit report - esp since the rules around keeping them accurate and up to date are not perfect...plenty of mistakes are made and getting them fixed is not always easy (I seem to remember a national new report recently on one woman who couldn't get a mortgage cause her credit report said she was dead. Took 2 years and media attention to get fixed).
Unless you're going to be in a fiduciary position (and even then, proceed cautiously with an opportunity to discuss any discrepancies), I'd refuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so I went and look at my bluetooth devices again (a Motorola cell phone and a Logitech keyboard/mouse) - in both cases, I don't see how this crack would actually work:
- With the Logitech keyboard, you actually have to type in the PIN from the keyboard in order for it to pair.
- The motorola must be told to pair specifically - so if it loses connection with a device, it won't automatically re-pair because I haven't made my phone pairable. To make the phone pairable requires a specific menu sequence and then it's only valid for about 30 seconds (and shuts off again).
In both these cases, I don't see a hacker getting in even with spoofing, because both of those events require user intervention (so perhaps the dumb user won't understand...)
I tried one more thing to confirm this - I got another laptop and named it identically to the first one...so it acted as the first one but without a pairing. Again, the phone ignored the request until I said it could pair (a manual interaction) and the keyboard required me to type in the pin from the keyboard. Btw, my laptop also doesn't allow pairing without explicit user intervention.
So great, they found a theoretical vulnerability, but one with an easy work around and one vendors have already seemed to predict. Besides, how useful can this be? As someone said, if you see someone stalking you, you have bigger problems. And if your keyboard stops working because it's paired to another device, it's unlikely you're going to be typing anything on it.
Find something else to worry about...
Um, the federal government coercing states into doing things upon the threat of withheld funds is not without precedent. Or did we forget the primary motivation for states to move to a 21 year old minimum drinking age...fact is many states were refused federal highway funds for many years until they got their minimum drinking age up to 21 (I think it was called the federal highway act of 1984).
I haven't scrutinized the proposed law yet - in principle, I have nothing wrong with enhanced ID standards across the US...however, I do have a problem with required IDs in general...while it's been argued anonymous travel is not a constitutional right, removing that capability (through required IDs, or at the very least, through the support of arbitrary ability for any law enforcement official to demand that id regardless of when, where or why) brings us one step closer to a police state where a right to liberty is replaced with corruption and persecution by those in power.
Sure, domain spoofing is an issue - but there are legitimate reasons for spoofing email (mail2web is an example - you want people to think the mail is from you @yourdomain.com even if you're using mail2web as your temporary client)...and the key management seems like it would be a headache for large mail systems (with thousands of domains).
Like the idea, but needs some work....some of this is obvious and I'm sure there are fine minds out there tackling the issue.
...for the rest of us.
Let's not forget that there's a sound reasonsing in the interest of the public and public policy why Amateur Radio exists (at least in the US, and I suspect in the rest of the world) (quotes from Part 97):
I suspect many Amateur (especially newers ones) forget this point...one of the primary reasons the Amateur Radio Service was created was to provide a secondary emergency communication network for the country in times of disaster. Many of us still train on a regular basis for emergency communications and work closely with various groups (including the aforementioned Red Cross, Military, etc) to ensure we can provide vital, orderly emergency communication. Our work at public events is typically in support of this mission. And if you think that we're useless, some recent instances of the usefulness of Amateur Radio:
- During 9/11, a large volunteer Amateur network was used to facilitate communications between the Red Cross and other emergency agencies. There were several stories of where an operator's expertise with antennas or such allowed them to get signals where others couldn't.
- During the recent Hurricanes - especially in smaller islands with unsophisticated power and communication systems used various worldwide amateur capabilities to coordinate aid, welfare and other traffic
- Someone already mentioned use of amateur radio during the recent blackout in the NE US.
- Esp in the midwest (but throughout), groups like SKYWARN (amateur radio weather warning nets) are a vital part of the NWS's ability to track tornadoes/storms and other weather data.
In all these cases, Amateur Radio was useful because it's what we exist for - emergency communications. Heck, once a year, we have essentially a contest where we make as many contacts as possible without the use of an established power infrastructure. We pride ourselves on making contact (even via CW) in extremely difficult radio conditions. Commericial systems rarely cover those situations that occur.This is true even today...many modern radio designs and systems are the result of earlier work in the amateur field. And while we may think the pool is small...a large number of those who make these systems (even those who build systems like SIRIUS and XM Satelitte radio) are Amateur Radio operators who's expertise and interest in radio and related theory is what fueled their abilities and interests in commercial systems.
My point is - for all those who are thinking the "death" of the service is not important - there are many things that wouldn't exist today if it weren't for amateur radio - and many situations which we would still be recovering from if we didn't have the ability of amateur's emergecy communications. In today's instant gratification, commercial oriented society, we have seen the canabilization of our service and endured decreased recognition of our usefulness....but that really is just ignorance than anything else. BPL may be important, but not at the expense of a still useful thing such as the ARS. I hope the FCC continues to strive to strike a balance in the needs of all parties.
This way, I can record CD quality music (from SIRIUS none the less) off my dish network receiver.
Here's another possible competitor - logo is very google looking too (picked it up in another article here on slashdot): Simpy.
I'm sure there are plenty of other useful similar tools, but thought I'd just keep adding to the case.
Clearly, a9.com isn't a new search engine - there's absolutely no improvement to the actual search algorithm - or so it seems (especially since it leeches off the search results of other engines). Perhaps the search of a new source of data (your history of searches) is novel - but even then, probably only marginally.
Where I do see the possible value in the site is the "new features" (and I'll use the term "new" very loosely) for managing information - the information in this case being search results/bookmarks - and recording/managing trains of thought. Sorta like a lab book for a research scientist, here's a tool that allows you to perform the searches you search every day through say Google, but also record the sites you've visted during your searches, perhaps write a small entry about why you visited there and the relative value to the item you were searching for, and then to retrieve those thoughts later when you perform a related search (and perhaps find you had a related search you had forgotten about).
As many have pointed out, this concept isn't necessarily new and I'm not sure that A9's method is the right approach (too early to really tell...). Examples of more likely competitors would be: Onfolio (albeit, not directly in search - but similar enough in terms of "managing internet research"); Endeca - they call their concept "guided search" - part of which is the ability to search in the context of past searches; or even iKeepBookmarks.com (never used it, just googled for something similar;) which allows you to manage your bookmarks centrally online. Amazon's "unique" approach here is to do the management with search results, but all the same, it's just an info management tool.
So, given that Amazon has one of the largest databases of consumer information (both individual and aggregate trends, habits, etc) and they've never really ruled out being a company who will use that info to their advantage, I'm a bit concerned about A9's storage of my trains of thought and searches...and since they plainly say in their privacy agreement that "customer information will of course be one of the transferred assets" in the unlikley (their words) event that they sell the company. Ok, so Amazon sells the company to a marketing company who then uses the info to innudate you with advertisements in multiple forms (there doesn't seem to be anything limiting them from sending you email or contacting you via other means if you provide them with the info).
Taking away any problems with a big company warehousing your data (and personal trains of thought), the idea is intriguing - but I don't need yet another tool for managing my information in a narrow niche way (I already have too many of those). If it integrated with a tool I already use for managing info I gather (say, like my private database of links - or my file system even) - then it might be cool. Otherwise, I save my links (and my lab books) pretty effectively already - and without the targeted advertising.
My 2 cents.
The real price will be found very soon, but it will very likely be a lot lower then $20 most seem to be asking for. BTW, $20 is an astronomical price for all but the most complicated software packages geared for ahome user. I would bet that market set prices would be somwhere between 5 cents and 2$.
Hmmm...so the software that balances your checkbook for you is worth less than the 20 games for which you paid $49.99 each. Don't know about that...I suppose each to their own.Not a horrid idea - but I can see several obstacles to overcome before anything like this could be practical (and let's exclude local broadcast channels for whom the rules don't apply):
- Most important is the fact that consumers demand content (loosely) and so the power is in the hands of the content providers, not the distributors. Thus in the current model, the distributors (DirecTV, Comcast, Dish, etc - DirectTV being a player but hardly a majority holder) pay the content providers. Now, for smaller content providers, this isn't a lot of power, but for the larger content providers - ESPN for example - this represents a huge amount of power to maximize revenue (and thus you see situations where the owners of said power content channels use them to leverage better deals for other channels in their portfolio)...you don't see many distributors says "I'm sorry ESPN, you have to pay us for us to carry you on our station" or "tough then, we just won't carry you". Further, if you do manage to switch the model (see my next point), you still have to figure out how the revenue model works (see point 3).
- As far as I can surmise (based on information available to me), no one distributor still has a lock on viewing households. Even Comcast has what amounts to a small fraction of the available audience. Only when a distributor holds a majority of households (I don't know if it's really a majority, but certainly close) will they have the power to turn the table on the big content players - even that will be a delicate balance since content will still be king -just less so(incidently, this is why there was a lot of concern around a Dish-DirectTV merger cause it would give the combined provider an edge over cable providers - subsequently, the combined content/distribution issue is what held up NEWS Corp's purchase of DirectTV because competitors feared with the combined distribution/content force would give Murdoch and uncanny advantage (can you say leverage) against rival distribution/content companies).
- And how would such a revenue model work? If companies are paying for bandwidth and customer's for shows - can either survive? Take HBO for example...currently they cost (roughlyl) $20 a month for a subscription to all their shows. Now assume the consumer only wants to watch the Sopranos - what's the value of that - $1 per showing?(no way - that might dig into DVD sales) - $15 per showing? (yeah, right...it's not that good)...even at pay-per-view costs ($3-4 per showing) that becomes expensive even for the casual consumer...yeah, there might be some demand for it, but the model wouldn't necessarily keep costs down for consumers. Ok, so you get a subscription for all of HBO's shows right now - ummm, then why not just take a channel...since essentially that's what a season of sopranos or a season of x or 10 movies might take up anyways. And I can't imagine how this would affect advertised supported models with incremental revenue of cable subscription fees. I'm sure we could come up with any number of variations, but I'm not sure I see one that really benefits the content providers switching - the fact is, TV works because it's relatively cheap (or at least not too expensive)....that will end if you have to choose your content piecemeal and the costs go up - even for in-demand content like the Sopranos or such (that's why they have DVDs).
- Not to get into the "signal to noise" debate about content quality, but if the funding model did change somehow (and I can't imagine how the content providers would benefit in any case), it could only worsen content. Fact of the matter is, for us to get any chance at "quality content", there needs to be large amounts of funding for even the crap - because unlike bits and bytes - content is highly subjective and one man's quality is another man's crap. Reduce the amount of funding and you don't improve the signal-to-noise ratio, you just reduce the amount of content....and in the long run, that will probably kill off lots of quality content that we
- Do the two companies sell similar goods/services and are the names used for those similar goods/services?
- Are the names similar?
- Are the goods/services marketed in the same or similar channels of trade?
- Was there an intentional infringement of the trademark (i.e. to benefit from the credibility or visibility of the established trademark)?
In addition, some other criteria might include:- Is there proof of customers being confused by the names?
- How widely known the names are (federal trademark protection is typically extended to those who engage in interstate commerce).
- Would a reasonable person confuse the two companies?
Where things become dicey for Mike Rowe is if the following is true (from the article):"He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills."
This intention would likely violate the tenet of trying to benefit from the established name's reputation, economic value, marketing, etc (and regardless of your feelings about Microsoft, there's no disputing that the name Microsoft is well recognized with considerable economic value and economic goodwill). If Mike Rowe just had a software company called "Mike Rowe Software", he'd likely be ok (since usually, it's very hard for a company to strip one of their legal name) since most people know how Microsoft is spelled (a consequence of the widely known name)...and new customers would likely be quickly debunked of any confusion...not to mention I think there are any number of spellings tha people would try before getting to MikeRowe. Maybe MikeRow, MikeRoe, MicRow, etc...but Rowe is not really a common spelling of a common word...but more often a last name.
The counter offer is not unreasonable (names are sold all the time if there's no infringing trademark but similar sounding names - yes, that's very possible and happens all the time).
His minor status might give him some leverage PR wise - but it might also invalidate his registration depending on Candian contract laws (since the registration of a domain name is a contract and typically, contracts entered into with minors without a parental/guardian signature are usually unenforceable). On a PR basis, Microsoft can probably absorb this (especially since he's a 17 year old with a business...typically shows sophistication that most people will use to overlook the PR issue).
Anyways, some thoughts...I hope he get's to keep it if he wants it - and if not, at least get reimbursed for the cost of registering a new domain name and alerting all his customers (and perhaps fixing all his marketing). Contrary to popular opinion, reimbursement for the hosting, time to create the website, etc are not likely reimbursable (the only infringement is the name - and there's not evidence the site's design is tied into the name).
IANAL - however, I'm pretty sure that in cases like this (license enforcement, trademark enforcement, ip enforcement, etc), it helps your case to show you are actively trying to enforce your rights (in the case of tradmark enforcement, it's a requirement)...this letter is probably a long list of things SCO's lawyers list as required for a successful case (and have suckered SCO into paying them to creat).
So perhaps SCO is fishing for suckers (takes one to know one), but likely, they're don't care and will send out lots of letters like this to show that they've made efforts and have been blantantly ignored. Of course, the only one's getting rich here will be SCO's lawyers.
Again, IANAL - but who cares if anyone responds...the key is SCO is going through the motions of being a proper litigant...
As it turns out, the exemptions don't allow for a video screen that shows your car's radio. So while my navigation system is up, it's exempt, the second I go to select a preset on the radio screen, I'm driving illegally? Yeah, ok, I probably shouldn't fiddle with the radio while driving - but because it's in a video screen, I'm going to be criminally accountable while the doob in the 70 dart next to me with a traditional push button radio bends over to fiddle with his stuck preset flies on freely to whack any poor schmuck he likes.
Normally, I'm against over legislation because it's really hard to develop vague words to describe any hundreds of specific situations accurately....and to me, one of the many definitions of freedom is that I take some risk that some other moron will end me in exchange for being able to live my own life without having to carry a playbook around that typically can't cover all the reasonable situations anyways.
That being said, I think it's important that we create legistlation that protects us from our own inability to understand our limitations (which a collective can understand but we as individuals continually think we're beyond). My only problem is that such legislation usually goes overboard because it's not specific enough in scope or the law only provides exemption for classes of authority (like they are excluded from the moron clause because they've been given that authority) or worse, it tries to tell us what we can and can't do. Laws should not tell us what we can and can't do - just what the penalities are for making bad decisions or doing things that are not advisable (the law doesn't say we can't murder - it says we'll be punished if we do - and only after we actually try to accomplish the end...the law shouldn't say we can't use a laptop in the front seat - it should say if we use a laptop in the and attempt an accident (or god forbid cause one), then we should be punished harshly for our stupidity).
This law needs improvement - here are my ideas:
- This law doesn't need to punish a passenger for using a laptop. It needs to specifically punish the driver if he lets himself be distracted by such a device...or if there's no passanger and he's using the device (for example, any accident which the driver is at fault in in which a laptop occupies the front seat [with or without a passenger] will carry triple the normal penalties) - if you're a driver and allow the laptop in the front with your passenger, you'll be extra careful to not get into an accident that's your fault.
- It should also allow exemptions based on specialized training - thus allowing any moron to become "authorized" (for example, members of the public who take a certified class teaching the proper use of video screens in the front seat while at rest are exempt from this prohibition). Yeah - ok, if we the normal public moron can't get access to the class, then it's the same as just giving it to any moron with a badge (and please, don't flame me as I have great respect for our officials who aren't morons)..but that's a different debate isn't it?
- Further, it should grandfather certain built-in devices (like my car radio..the dealer is unlikely to take it back) and it should certainly exempt anything "pre-installed" by the manufacturer - with the assumption that manufacturers have to certify their devices with California (I can see it now, California certified video screens versus non-california certified screens;)
Yeah - this isn't the end all be all answer to this - but it's really going to piss me off that my wife can't translate an IM conversation for me while we're hurtling down the highway at 65 mph.
Which brings me to my next silly and yet scary thought - does this law hold me criminally accountable if I get in an accident while looking at the screen in my head as a result of talking a client through a procedure to fix their broken server via a legal hands-free cell phone? *smirk*
I guess that depends on your definition of "Installed" (as pointed out in the original post). Is a laptop on the seat next to you sliding willy nilly installed? Unlikely.
[Late to the game, but my 2 cents]
Saddam being caught is a good thing - if only because now that we've committed to the war in Iraq, it's one more objective fulfilled [and I assume our Military knows what its doing when it comes to setting objectives to complete the job its charged with]. Whether you agree with the war or not is immaterial at this point - any intelligent person can see we are unable to undo what has been done - right or wrong, the right direction forward is full commitment...leave the past for the historians.
However, the sheer # of posts here on slashdot (and the many other forums across the internet) show what a sad and divided state the US and the world are in right now...and that frankly is what scares me. If one of the goals of tyranny and terrorism is to disrupt normal society, then it seems they are succeeding. Peace, Love and Good require the unity and cohesion of the people of the world...
Before you flame me, I'm not saying we can't disagree - at least from my perspective (as an American), unity, freedom and liberty cannot exist without open, passionate and honest debate. The problem is that many of us have stepped way over the line (for whatever reason) and the debate is now devisive and malicious - whatever valid message or point either side has is lost in the sheer blind fury and emotion.
So, during the time of the year when the message of peace and love are strong for those of many faiths, let's try to find a way back to the unity that will help us create a world free of tyranny and terror....a goal I think we all would like to see...
So, how long before some ingenious person will run a DDOS attack that does random packet flooding of random .com addresses (ie, asfdadsfsdf.com) thus double whammying the versign servers.
How many software engineers are willing to work as "associates" for low wages for years while the senior partners take all the credit and all the money in hopes of eventually being granted the recommendation they must have in order to get a license?
Wait a minute, isn't this the definition of entry level jobs at a consulting company? Or is that outsourcing?
Folks - this seems to me a temporary move until the powers that be at UPS find a way to do the following:
a) comply with the law
b) cover the costs of complying with that law
c) make a profit on the ironic side effects of that law
So just think - soon, the UPS will be offering a special "hazmat" transport service that transports items like these. The downside - it'll cost more...and thus the items transported will cost more. The question is, are there enough people doing model rocketry (and other similarly affected cargo) to make a profit?
Lawmakers think they have good intentions at heart - and while I think the laws they are recently proposing/passing are extreme reactions to an extreme event, some of them do make sense to respond to the demands of increased security. It's a tough balance - and sometimes, rather than making the laws more specific, it's better for ingenious Americans to find a way to make a profit...and provide a valuable service - while allowing the Government to do their job - protect us.
That being said - I oppose many parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts - simply because there's no way to bypass an individual's privacy and liberties...something both of these acts threaten to do....
I mean really - here are some newsflashes for you:
1) Backtick (your so called backwards apostrophe) is still used frequently in *nix programming - especially script programming. Also (as someone else pointed out) apple-` is a useful key.
2) Most of us are used to that "double-key" format you are looking for....even if they did expend real estate on those functions in a single keystroke, I imagine most would use what they already know. This is why dvorak and other new layouts have not gained widespread acceptance - people tend not to learn a new layout since they've already learned qwerty and it works for them. This is the same argument used for switching words processors or anything else with a command structuure (even car alarms - albeit, it's an extreme case - but is there any uniformity to keyfobs?) - we tend to like to stick with what we've invested in learning - and not to have to relearn things.
3) While I agree many keys have probably out lived their usefulness - how do you prioritze which keys we replace them with? Why isn't num lock outdated on laptops (I mean, how many people really use that brained dead slanted numberic keypad)? Before you know it, we'll have keyboards with apple keys and windows keys (oh wait, we do have those).
3) X-land folk can remap any key to anything they wish...so it really doesn't matter what the keyboard looks like as long as there are a bunch of keys. And guess what? You can do this in Windows (esp if you are a programmer) - albeit, it's a bit tougher.
Personally, I'd like to see keyboards easier to reprogram - kinda like programmable buttons on phones. Perhaps that what we need. We also need more intuitive mice that don't require a lot of movement away from the keyboard (and I don't mean those stupid stress sticks from IBM that keep breaking on you).
Agreed, we can squash a lot...but consider:
802.11b - 5.5 Mbps - if you're lucky (turn on a microwave within 150 feet of the receiver and that drops to about 3.2 Mbps) (remember 802.11b is 11mbps half duplex....)
802.11a - 54 Mbps (is it full duplex? I have to check)
802.11g - 22 Mbps (not sure - recalling from memory)
Most you could support is about 10 channels on a 802.11a perhaps....this is assuming no interference, priority on the channel (meaning no interference plus no one else transmitting), no retransmits, 0 error rate, etc.
Do your math as well - sure, you could probably get the 20fps, 320x200 stream down to 56-100kbps range - but that's raw. Add the overhead and latency of tcp/ip and then that of wifi...let's say you're lucky and that with 192 kbps of bandwidth you get a solid channel. That's at best 20-30 streams of data (802.11b - the most popular right now)....ah - but wait....wifi has a colision space - so you'll probably top out at 15-20 (unless you've manage to synchronize your transmissions so they never collide - qos might help here)...
Come on folks...I'm not questioning our ability to stream video over wireless in a perfect world - but _WIFI_ at best is a one or two channel option for now - even with massive compression (at which point, I'm not sure it works for mainstream viewing).
Also note that technically - wifi applies to 802.11b...I'm allowing for the other less mature technologies - but they still face a lot of the same hurdles for any wireless broadcast system that's unregulated with more than a few channels.
Okay - wait...we're talking WiFi here....not Ku Band or anything else. I limited my discussion to the scope of the article - IN WIFI. Thus, by your example, 1080i would be too much for your typical 802.11b wifi setup. And at best, you'd get a few hdtv channels on 802.11a (course, you'd be limited to a few city blocks).
With the newer technologies (we're talking general wifi here - 802.11(put your favorite variant here)), you'd still be lucky to get a dozen streams or so - even with multicast.
2. Since when does multicast have priority on a network? Fact of the matter is only one person can transmit at a time...this includes interference. So if the band is clogged, multicast won't improve anything here. QoS is required even for the mulitcasters to get the right priority. Course, this matters not for point 3 (interference).
3. Typical wifi today is 802.11b...802.11a still has to pan out and 802.11g seems like a better alternative for most. While I agree neither gets knocked out by your average Microwave - both get reduced bandwidth due to the wideband interference. And you point out other points of interference to bandwidth - which really is the whole point here.
So buddy- if you had a modicum of reading comprehension, you'd note that my point is the bandwidth/reliability isn't there for something more than a channel.
And I simply pointed out the area I'd rather people invest first....I'd gladly (and have in the past) contribute to such fine efforts simliar to NYC wireless.
Btw - talking is what we do here at slashdot (well writing and reading). And don't go calling the kettle black if you don't have the courage to post with a registered account.
Perhaps someday soon this will be practical - but for now, WiFi has too many disdvantages:
1) Bandwidth - even on the newer 54Mbps feed will quickly become saturated
2) QoS is still a pipe dream
3) Microwave ovens - still a predominant feature of many people's homes.
And with HDTV coming out - will we really want to be stuck with 320x200 doubled at 15fps for our TV? Might be a novelty or convenient when you want to watch something important when you're away from home - but seems to me that until WiFi becomes more hardwire-ish, this is a project best left for the novelty that it is. Continue to wokr on giving free ubiquitous wifi on a grand scale (i.e. bigger than just NYC)....
Boudreau, who faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted on all charges, was not immediately available for comment. Boston College said it suspended Boudreau, 21, last year once it learned of his scheme. Suspended? Do they think he'll continue his education in 20 years? How is it he's been suspended for a year and only now their just indicting him....gotta love the speed of justice. I spose they can't expell him until he's convicted (innocent till proven guilty and all)... So, do you think he had all the keystroke logs sent to his main email acct?
Oh come on - MIT is a hacker training ground...so people hack the MIT systems all the time...not getting caught is the final exam!)
I just have everyone upload things to my machine:)
I know it's tough to do now a days, but I do know a friend who has absolutely no credit history (he's never used credit)....of course, he still lives with his parents...
Anyways, there's too much room for misinterpretation of a credit report - esp since the rules around keeping them accurate and up to date are not perfect...plenty of mistakes are made and getting them fixed is not always easy (I seem to remember a national new report recently on one woman who couldn't get a mortgage cause her credit report said she was dead. Took 2 years and media attention to get fixed).
Unless you're going to be in a fiduciary position (and even then, proceed cautiously with an opportunity to discuss any discrepancies), I'd refuse.