Yep - this works...unless your Enron, MCI or a related partner.
Just like the faulty CRA system (which can report misinformation), SEC filings can be just as misleading (unfortunately - they're usually purposeful whereas CRA failings are stupidity built into the system).
Okay - I see a lot of discussion about going to metered usage (not really sure if it's offtopic or not -but I want to comment on all the tangent disucssion on this topic I do see).
It seems to me the trend for most telecom services is away from metered service to flat rate service (or practically flat rate - i.e. where the metered rate is so ridiculously low that maximum monthly metered usage is reasonable for those who truly use it). Interesting thing about internet connections - they are starting off as flat rate - and everyone predicts they'll go to metered service. The additional benefit of flat rate pricing is it's very easy and less costly to implement for the service provider and provides simplicity to the end user.
One may use the argument that voice connections monopolize the connection and thus it's not easily sharable - but I just argue that voice connections use longer and larger packets...the behavior is the same of any other data network - only one person can talk at any time....computers just do this faster to appear like there is simultaneous use.
So Why would there be any difference in the pricing models or their future trends? Even cell phones are rapidly approaching the point where "flat rate" usage is becoming the norm (how many people actually exceed the 1200 minutes (not including promotionall off peak) in most of the big companies $80 plans? and that price point is dropping monthly). As a matter of fact, most of the companies make money banking on the fact that the avg user uses far less than the allotted amount and thus their actual meter charge is very high. At critical masses, they gain the benefits of flat pricing (reduced cost in terms of monitoring and billing complexity) as well as taking advantage of user's tendancies to use less than they actualy _think_ they need (thus inflating the price and margin per minute). Ensure you baseline costs are covered, and everything else is gravy. Find a way to squeeze down idle capacity and voila - profitable business (hmmm....sounds like that's what supply chain mgmt is about, no?)
Anyways, I'll go against the grain and posit the following:
1) Flat rate pricing will continue to be the norm. 2) ISPs will eventually be talked out of the restrictions on the number of "computers" (esp as smart appliances come online - since consumers won't be likely to use those portions of the service if there's a charge per device). 3) They will find another way to make money - value added services for instance (the equivalents of caller id - but in the internet, security monitoring, unwanted spam blocking, etc).
Anyways - just some rambling thoughts from someone who can't figure out why isp's aren't making money hand over fist right now;)
Wait - my ISP doesn't support my computer - just my connection - does this mean I can't use any software? Microsoft won't like that.
Seriously - I can understand an ISP not supporting software - but that doesn't invalidate it's existence (nor the original poster's assertion that it's still one computer with multiple virtual machines).
Btw, I have a blade server for a workstation - is this one computer or 8? I bet if I told an ISP I have one box and show it to them, they might not be smart enough to know the difference;)
I remember reading that the station has several options that should keep it safe:
1) Supplies are often shipped via unmanned craft. 2) A Soyez (sp?) reentry capsule is attached to the space station that's available for evacuation and recovery of all personnel aboard the station.
The US currently has 3 people there. They were scheduled for replacement in March (along with the first female shuttle commander...another event that may be delayed)....I saw something on CNN saying they'd probably be okay until late spring before any drastic decisions even needed to be considered.
As many have pointed out, there are pros and cons to the logistics of "Internet" voting. I tend to agree with those who say you can't wait for it perfect the first time (if we could, computers wouldn't crash, taxes would be easy to file (or even better non-existant:) and the BMW 745i would run an open-source OS with the funding of Microsoft).
What I don't understand is why such drastic steps? As many point out, our current voting system (in the US at least) is fraught with problems and the use of technology as a tool to solve these problems is almost non-existant. I enjoy the priviledge of voting, but would find it better if I didn't have to wait hours in line and deal with a bunch of people who can't shuffle paper enough. Change the voting hall into a room of computers with a few monitors and help assistants and let the computers do the work of identifying you, registering your vote and submitting it...buy bank technology and rent the bank network (which is pretty good at this kind of transaction) to deal with security issues. Perhaps then, polling places can include your local grocery store, DMV, bowling alley or skating rink (all of which are pretty busy and public places).
Seems to me these baby steps might eventually lead us to private internet voting (though I doubt it because of the whole forced vote issue -which seems rather insurmountable).
First - thanks for the correction - you're right (knew it but had a brain fart)...however, results the same - no indication that the phrase "peripheral connect interface" is tm'd either (not that these are exhaustive - but always a decent indicator).
[Note: not a lawyer - but an educated laymen's opinion]
First the obvious (already stated) - don't use the logo of PCI (XXX works for me - unless the porn industry has TM'd that too..no wait, he'd end up on block lists...hmmm;). The letter said nothing about your content (though it implied it heavily -they probably know they don't have a case there though).
Second, a quick search of the uspto database shows over 50 companies with the name PCI something in the computing industry....is PCI-SIG going after them (I can't believe they're all licensees)? If not, then the TM becomes less enforceable (one of the things about TM's is you have to actively pursue violators of the TM).
Also, the term "peripheral connect interface" didn't seem to come up in the TM searches I did...so you could use that...then reference it by abbreviation. This may be a stretch - but fun to see their reaction.
Try putting "For educational and informational purposes only" at the beginning. Show it's for fair use, not commercial gain.
In any case - way way too easy a give up...Jim - I support you being pissed off - but you're cutting the noses off the people who support you to piss on the idiots at XXX-YYY (the peripheral component interface special interest group - is that a violation of TM?) Show the page while complying with the letter of the C&D - i.e., don't use the logo or the trademark...shouldn't be too hard. Make them work for their money (which will be hard to do considering they're trademark lawyers).
So, if this succeeds, all those GMs and other cars out there with homelink will have illegal devices in them?
Gee, remotes (which everyone has pointed out), homelink....hmmm, I supose scanners that follow digital trunks are illegal under DCMA....how about modems? Gee, anything that interoperates could be in trouble....
"The only difference it's a lot harder to mess up scanning an RFID than a bar code..."
Try telling that to my EZ-PASS. Multiple time I've gone through where it's had problems scanning my "RFID" tag....the old bar codes in the rear driver's window worked better IMHO;) And what happens if you happen to walk left of the scanning sweet spot (cause the scanner's moved to the vibration of your typical retail shop).
I get what you mean, but with RFID, there will be plenty of ways to still mess it up. Just raise the base rf noise level with a leaky cell phone (or bluetooth or whatever other cool wireless technologies we run into).
Yanno - it's scary to me this was moderated as funny...this guy is serious...and it's a sad commentary to think we might be afraid of what we say in open forums like this because some moronic idiot who doesn't think when he does his job might actually take something like the patriot act to it's insane and irrational extremes (or worse yet, that idiot Bush might claim me an "enemy combatant" essentially stripping me of my citizenship (earned by birth) and rights for something I just say). You say this isn't possible? Think how many times you've been the victim of stupidity in a beauracracy out of control.
Regard what Pollux said as the very frightening core of how every one of us - and our freedom is affected by the changes in our government of 9/11.
Yes - they are your friend - but only if they're legal. Just because 802.11 and other 2ghz devices are unlicensed doesn't mean you can be lax on the technical and legal requirements.
In the US, FCC regs require that Part 15 devices (most of the wireless devices out there) be certified as systems. This means you can only add an amp if it's certified to work with the system (both the wireless bridge AND antenna) you're amping. Many of the common vendors don't have such certified amps, so you're stuck. (I've most commonly found certified amps for Orinoco and higher end products like alvarion - but rarely seen certified ones for SMC, Cisco or the likes).
Don't forget your power calculations as well - depending on your band, your AMP can only boost power _to_ a specific level (30 db or 1 watt total on part 15 2ghz devices). If you have a bigger antenna, then you may have to reduce your amp power (e.g in many cases, it's against the law/regs to amp an 802.11 device with those grid dish antennas).
Also - amping things to drown out interference is akin to shouting louder on a bus to talk "over" a conversation between you and the receiver. Sure, it works, but then you become the interference. You might even convince someone else to shout louder than you. While it's true Part 15 devices must accept any interference, amping up your connection to drown out others could be against the regs (as general rules state no purposeful interference is permitted...there are cases to support this position). If you amp to "drown out interference", it could be construed as purposeful inteference itself (especially if your amping result's in drowning out licensed devices in the same band - remember THEY have the priority (part 18)).
Amps are best used to support "weak" connections - not to handle interference. Believe it or not, most 2ghz devices (even the phones) can be made to play nice. With a little careful planning and design, proper knowledge, and coordination, most, if not all interference problems can be handled _without_ amping.
This simply is false. Numerous projects I've seen have some politician come down and say we want to use steel from this guy instead of concrete from this guy. The problem is once you pour the concrete, there's physical barriers (and cost) to digging it up and putting in steel. But I have seen it done...
My experience indicates that a lot of problems in software engineering have to do with the fact that we've not educated (nor convinced) folks outside (including marketing) that depsite the fact there's no concrete to dig up, the costs and difficulties are about as painful as the steel vs concrete in construction. These outsiders don't understand nor appreciate what they ask. And for some reason, many of my collegues have a problem saying "no" or "fine, but here's the cost".
You may feel this way - but it's not the way it is, nor is it the service you purchased. You'd better go back and read your fine print.
Ever hear of the IP badlands (you know all of those unroutable Class C addresses that are about)....or remember the whole stink about CIX NAP points? Paying for Internet Access does not pay for access to ALL the Internet. Read the fine print and you'll note that most standard ISP agreements specifically indicate that routing is not guaranteed beyond their NAP access routers and that even then, they may not route traffic they deem inappropriate on or off their networks (most AUPs state the right to cut off traffic from offending sites external or internal to their network).
And seeing as they aren't common carrier - they have a right to run their business as they see fit...there's no regulations to tell them otherwise or that they MUST provide EVERYONE with ubiquitous unhampered access to everyone....so keep dreaming;)
anyways - i have nothing more of value to add - just really hate it when people assume things about what they bought rather than know about what they bought...
As has already been said, AT&T came out with the Phone2000 service back in the mid nineties (I think I saw my first one in Baltimore in 96). I remember that particular version had a keyboard with the CRT and I could use the 2400 baud builtin modem to dialin to my company's timeshare modem pool.
What I remember most though was a few weeks later when I tried to use the same terminal (at the same hotel) and found the service had been disabled. Apparently, AT&T had not gotten the service (any of the data services - including the plug in modem jack) properly tariffed so the FCC ordered them shut down....after that, models of the phone appeared without the keyboard. And I gave up after a couple times of trying the rj-11 jack for my modem (with the feature disabled).
The point is of course - that througout the country they had these fancy cool looking phones that were non-functional....I know the TCom Act of 9x should have cleared the way - but what's the likelyhood that AT&T has learned from it's mistakes?
Btw, in a somewhat related note - I've started noticing lots of these "internet" terminals around - ranging in price from 10 to 99 cents per minute....in places from airports and turnpike rest areas to (yes, unbelievable) my local 7-11. What scares me is not one of these disclose their privacy policy or tracking policy...I mean - if I check my private email server I wonder if they'll somehow use the URL to track me down and innundate me with spam;)
People cheat, code doesn't. People break into systems that aren't theirs, code doesn't. People use bad judgement, code doesn't.
Granted, ASUS has some really dumb marketing folk who aimed at the "gaming" market with this feature (where cheating is seen as one of the primary benefits). But that doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist. I can see some useful applications development as well as higher end 3d modeling applications (wireframe could enable engineers to model complex joint fits internally).
Think of all the tools and technologies that wouldn't exist if we let their "misuse" keep them from existing. Think of all the technologies (esp in the area of security) that can just as easily be misused but are incredibly good things to have around (albeit - in some cases, to fight the misuse *smirk*).
It's sad people think cheating is right...but let's bash on the cheaters and the users with no integrity. Keep the technology out of it and let the vendors create the tools...there are more appropriate ways to deal with those who misuse the technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - this works...unless your Enron, MCI or a related partner.
Just like the faulty CRA system (which can report misinformation), SEC filings can be just as misleading (unfortunately - they're usually purposeful whereas CRA failings are stupidity built into the system).
Okay - I see a lot of discussion about going to metered usage (not really sure if it's offtopic or not -but I want to comment on all the tangent disucssion on this topic I do see).
It seems to me the trend for most telecom services is away from metered service to flat rate service (or practically flat rate - i.e. where the metered rate is so ridiculously low that maximum monthly metered usage is reasonable for those who truly use it). Interesting thing about internet connections - they are starting off as flat rate - and everyone predicts they'll go to metered service. The additional benefit of flat rate pricing is it's very easy and less costly to implement for the service provider and provides simplicity to the end user.
One may use the argument that voice connections monopolize the connection and thus it's not easily sharable - but I just argue that voice connections use longer and larger packets...the behavior is the same of any other data network - only one person can talk at any time....computers just do this faster to appear like there is simultaneous use.
So Why would there be any difference in the pricing models or their future trends? Even cell phones are rapidly approaching the point where "flat rate" usage is becoming the norm (how many people actually exceed the 1200 minutes (not including promotionall off peak) in most of the big companies $80 plans? and that price point is dropping monthly). As a matter of fact, most of the companies make money banking on the fact that the avg user uses far less than the allotted amount and thus their actual meter charge is very high. At critical masses, they gain the benefits of flat pricing (reduced cost in terms of monitoring and billing complexity) as well as taking advantage of user's tendancies to use less than they actualy _think_ they need (thus inflating the price and margin per minute). Ensure you baseline costs are covered, and everything else is gravy. Find a way to squeeze down idle capacity and voila - profitable business (hmmm....sounds like that's what supply chain mgmt is about, no?)
Anyways, I'll go against the grain and posit the following:
1) Flat rate pricing will continue to be the norm.
2) ISPs will eventually be talked out of the restrictions on the number of "computers" (esp as smart appliances come online - since consumers won't be likely to use those portions of the service if there's a charge per device).
3) They will find another way to make money - value added services for instance (the equivalents of caller id - but in the internet, security monitoring, unwanted spam blocking, etc).
Anyways - just some rambling thoughts from someone who can't figure out why isp's aren't making money hand over fist right now;)
Wait - my ISP doesn't support my computer - just my connection - does this mean I can't use any software? Microsoft won't like that.
Seriously - I can understand an ISP not supporting software - but that doesn't invalidate it's existence (nor the original poster's assertion that it's still one computer with multiple virtual machines).
Btw, I have a blade server for a workstation - is this one computer or 8? I bet if I told an ISP I have one box and show it to them, they might not be smart enough to know the difference;)
I can see it now (taking a previous post accurately pointing out that Web browsers are not the sole users of DNS):
[on a *nix type machine]
% telnet iwanttohackdns.com
Welcome to the Verisign unsecured "no one ever uses telnet" root server configuration system.
Command? Delete DNS
Are you sure (Y/N)? Y
DNS Purged.
Command? Quit
Goodbye.
% telnet myserver.mydomain.com
Welcome to the Verisign unsecured "no one ever uses telnet" root server configuration system.
Command? Quit
Goodbye.
I remember reading that the station has several options that should keep it safe:
1) Supplies are often shipped via unmanned craft.
2) A Soyez (sp?) reentry capsule is attached to the space station that's available for evacuation and recovery of all personnel aboard the station.
The US currently has 3 people there. They were scheduled for replacement in March (along with the first female shuttle commander...another event that may be delayed)....I saw something on CNN saying they'd probably be okay until late spring before any drastic decisions even needed to be considered.
As many have pointed out, there are pros and cons to the logistics of "Internet" voting. I tend to agree with those who say you can't wait for it perfect the first time (if we could, computers wouldn't crash, taxes would be easy to file (or even better non-existant:) and the BMW 745i would run an open-source OS with the funding of Microsoft).
What I don't understand is why such drastic steps? As many point out, our current voting system (in the US at least) is fraught with problems and the use of technology as a tool to solve these problems is almost non-existant. I enjoy the priviledge of voting, but would find it better if I didn't have to wait hours in line and deal with a bunch of people who can't shuffle paper enough. Change the voting hall into a room of computers with a few monitors and help assistants and let the computers do the work of identifying you, registering your vote and submitting it...buy bank technology and rent the bank network (which is pretty good at this kind of transaction) to deal with security issues. Perhaps then, polling places can include your local grocery store, DMV, bowling alley or skating rink (all of which are pretty busy and public places).
Seems to me these baby steps might eventually lead us to private internet voting (though I doubt it because of the whole forced vote issue -which seems rather insurmountable).
My 2 cents.
First - thanks for the correction - you're right (knew it but had a brain fart)...however, results the same - no indication that the phrase "peripheral connect interface" is tm'd either (not that these are exhaustive - but always a decent indicator).
LOL at your sig.
[Note: not a lawyer - but an educated laymen's opinion]
First the obvious (already stated) - don't use the logo of PCI (XXX works for me - unless the porn industry has TM'd that too..no wait, he'd end up on block lists...hmmm;). The letter said nothing about your content (though it implied it heavily -they probably know they don't have a case there though).
Second, a quick search of the uspto database shows over 50 companies with the name PCI something in the computing industry....is PCI-SIG going after them (I can't believe they're all licensees)? If not, then the TM becomes less enforceable (one of the things about TM's is you have to actively pursue violators of the TM).
Also, the term "peripheral connect interface" didn't seem to come up in the TM searches I did...so you could use that...then reference it by abbreviation. This may be a stretch - but fun to see their reaction.
Try putting "For educational and informational purposes only" at the beginning. Show it's for fair use, not commercial gain.
In any case - way way too easy a give up...Jim - I support you being pissed off - but you're cutting the noses off the people who support you to piss on the idiots at XXX-YYY (the peripheral component interface special interest group - is that a violation of TM?) Show the page while complying with the letter of the C&D - i.e., don't use the logo or the trademark...shouldn't be too hard. Make them work for their money (which will be hard to do considering they're trademark lawyers).
So, if this succeeds, all those GMs and other cars out there with homelink will have illegal devices in them?
Gee, remotes (which everyone has pointed out), homelink....hmmm, I supose scanners that follow digital trunks are illegal under DCMA....how about modems? Gee, anything that interoperates could be in trouble....
"The only difference it's a lot harder to mess up scanning an RFID than a bar code..."
Try telling that to my EZ-PASS. Multiple time I've gone through where it's had problems scanning my "RFID" tag....the old bar codes in the rear driver's window worked better IMHO;) And what happens if you happen to walk left of the scanning sweet spot (cause the scanner's moved to the vibration of your typical retail shop).
I get what you mean, but with RFID, there will be plenty of ways to still mess it up. Just raise the base rf noise level with a leaky cell phone (or bluetooth or whatever other cool wireless technologies we run into).
Yanno - it's scary to me this was moderated as funny...this guy is serious...and it's a sad commentary to think we might be afraid of what we say in open forums like this because some moronic idiot who doesn't think when he does his job might actually take something like the patriot act to it's insane and irrational extremes (or worse yet, that idiot Bush might claim me an "enemy combatant" essentially stripping me of my citizenship (earned by birth) and rights for something I just say). You say this isn't possible? Think how many times you've been the victim of stupidity in a beauracracy out of control.
Regard what Pollux said as the very frightening core of how every one of us - and our freedom is affected by the changes in our government of 9/11.
2. Amps are your friend
Yes - they are your friend - but only if they're legal. Just because 802.11 and other 2ghz devices are unlicensed doesn't mean you can be lax on the technical and legal requirements.
In the US, FCC regs require that Part 15 devices (most of the wireless devices out there) be certified as systems. This means you can only add an amp if it's certified to work with the system (both the wireless bridge AND antenna) you're amping. Many of the common vendors don't have such certified amps, so you're stuck. (I've most commonly found certified amps for Orinoco and higher end products like alvarion - but rarely seen certified ones for SMC, Cisco or the likes).
Don't forget your power calculations as well - depending on your band, your AMP can only boost power _to_ a specific level (30 db or 1 watt total on part 15 2ghz devices). If you have a bigger antenna, then you may have to reduce your amp power (e.g in many cases, it's against the law/regs to amp an 802.11 device with those grid dish antennas).
Also - amping things to drown out interference is akin to shouting louder on a bus to talk "over" a conversation between you and the receiver. Sure, it works, but then you become the interference. You might even convince someone else to shout louder than you. While it's true Part 15 devices must accept any interference, amping up your connection to drown out others could be against the regs (as general rules state no purposeful interference is permitted...there are cases to support this position). If you amp to "drown out interference", it could be construed as purposeful inteference itself (especially if your amping result's in drowning out licensed devices in the same band - remember THEY have the priority (part 18)).
Amps are best used to support "weak" connections - not to handle interference. Believe it or not, most 2ghz devices (even the phones) can be made to play nice. With a little careful planning and design, proper knowledge, and coordination, most, if not all interference problems can be handled _without_ amping.
Well, if there are only 20 - this site lists 19
of them. These are only US - there seem to be more worldwide.
http://www.dlp.com/dlp/cinema/where.asp?rid=1
(If that doesn't work - goto www.dlp.com)
Myrashka
This simply is false. Numerous projects I've seen have some politician come down and say we want to use steel from this guy instead of concrete from this guy. The problem is once you pour the concrete, there's physical barriers (and cost) to digging it up and putting in steel. But I have seen it done...
My experience indicates that a lot of problems in software engineering have to do with the fact that we've not educated (nor convinced) folks outside (including marketing) that depsite the fact there's no concrete to dig up, the costs and difficulties are about as painful as the steel vs concrete in construction. These outsiders don't understand nor appreciate what they ask. And for some reason, many of my collegues have a problem saying "no" or "fine, but here's the cost".
You may feel this way - but it's not the way it is, nor is it the service you purchased. You'd better go back and read your fine print.
Ever hear of the IP badlands (you know all of those unroutable Class C addresses that are about)....or remember the whole stink about CIX NAP points? Paying for Internet Access does not pay for access to ALL the Internet. Read the fine print and you'll note that most standard ISP agreements specifically indicate that routing is not guaranteed beyond their NAP access routers and that even then, they may not route traffic they deem inappropriate on or off their networks (most AUPs state the right to cut off traffic from offending sites external or internal to their network).
And seeing as they aren't common carrier - they have a right to run their business as they see fit...there's no regulations to tell them otherwise or that they MUST provide EVERYONE with ubiquitous unhampered access to everyone....so keep dreaming;)
anyways - i have nothing more of value to add - just really hate it when people assume things about what they bought rather than know about what they bought...
As has already been said, AT&T came out with the Phone2000 service back in the mid nineties (I think I saw my first one in Baltimore in 96). I remember that particular version had a keyboard with the CRT and I could use the 2400 baud builtin modem to dialin to my company's timeshare modem pool.
What I remember most though was a few weeks later when I tried to use the same terminal (at the same hotel) and found the service had been disabled. Apparently, AT&T had not gotten the service (any of the data services - including the plug in modem jack) properly tariffed so the FCC ordered them shut down....after that, models of the phone appeared without the keyboard. And I gave up after a couple times of trying the rj-11 jack for my modem (with the feature disabled).
The point is of course - that througout the country they had these fancy cool looking phones that were non-functional....I know the TCom Act of 9x should have cleared the way - but what's the likelyhood that AT&T has learned from it's mistakes?
Btw, in a somewhat related note - I've started noticing lots of these "internet" terminals around - ranging in price from 10 to 99 cents per minute....in places from airports and turnpike rest areas to (yes, unbelievable) my local 7-11. What scares me is not one of these disclose their privacy policy or tracking policy...I mean - if I check my private email server I wonder if they'll somehow use the URL to track me down and innundate me with spam;)
Ah, the wonders of public use internet boxes....
People cheat, code doesn't. People break into systems that aren't theirs, code doesn't. People use bad judgement, code doesn't.
Granted, ASUS has some really dumb marketing folk who aimed at the "gaming" market with this feature (where cheating is seen as one of the primary benefits). But that doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist. I can see some useful applications development as well as higher end 3d modeling applications (wireframe could enable engineers to model complex joint fits internally).
Think of all the tools and technologies that wouldn't exist if we let their "misuse" keep them from existing. Think of all the technologies (esp in the area of security) that can just as easily be misused but are incredibly good things to have around (albeit - in some cases, to fight the misuse *smirk*).
It's sad people think cheating is right...but let's bash on the cheaters and the users with no integrity. Keep the technology out of it and let the vendors create the tools...there are more appropriate ways to deal with those who misuse the technology.