there's only a couple of sheets of TP left on the role. RSS feed prints an article that you simply *must* save. Do you wipe or put it in your pocket?;)
ditto on fedora. just as an example, my son is 12 and a year or so ago I moved him off of windows 98 to fedora. He loved KDE. All the buttons were in places he fairly expected from his Windows experience. He loved being able to configure the desktop his own way (only he really knows what that means).
Something interesting happened. He moved to Gnome a few months back. Stayed with it. Says it's just "easier". I never tried to influence that except to say I used Gnome. I felt it was the choice that was the point of it. I suppose sometimes when he had a problem my answer of 'I've never used that one I use Gnome's....' might have played a part. But, he manages his own machine mostly - updates and installs all his own stuff .
So it's a "real" decision. I'm biased and never found a reason to use KDE, except way, way back when I first had a machine capable of X (486DX). Sun's choice of Gnome influenced me. But the Choice it the point.
We really need to get out of the "market share' business-speak FUD that that Redmond co. pushes. It's not about 'nobody will use xxx if they don't have critical mass'. With the GNU/Linux platform, there is enough reason to us y instead of x, or z instead of y, or whathaveyou from enough people to keep a LOT of things alive.
...With Windows, you can download an installation file and know it'll install on any Windows box without any problem. With Linux, you get all sorts of package dependency crap that is simply unacceptable to real users...
oh yeah, it's sure to install on any windows. Well, any that's not thunked like win95/98/ME. Oh wait....
oh yeah, it's sure to install to the right kind of Windows, and it will certainly run. And no other program that shares its DLLs will have any problem at all.... oh wait...
Click on desktop icon that was created even though 'No' was answered for that question
Use $PROGRAM
Dismiss runtime exception dialog
GP, guess Windows installation isn't so clean and simple either, hmmmmm????
Also it's far more likely that the 'computer' will change at a rate far surpassing Jan and Joe Homebody to ever conceptually see beyond the screen right in front of them. Cell, laptop and PDA's are allowing them to become more and more mobile with respect to the Internet infrastructure. They'll continually return to what they know, and if that's AOL as proxy for the internet, they'll stick with it no matter what access device they use (we are, afterall, talking in terms of a decade here).
As much as I wish it weren't true, I can't keep my 3 most close relationships at all knowledgable with current tech. As geeks we all try to help close friends and family do things better and safer. That changes drastically as the access device changes. They just won't spend the time/effort.
LOL. Kudos dude, it was your idea. I liked it so much I just had to try it out. They should put your name in the dictionary entry that, I'm certain, will one day be created for this new verb!
That being said, I don't understand how it is that a simple form could not have been quickly created using generic technology just to capture the information required. A day or two? I call strawman to their excuse that it was an internal application that fails them; clearly it was a choice that fails them. A choice made under duress, admittedly. But duress due -again- to being *unprepared*.
I would think that the scenario is obvious since 9/11, so having had several years to prepare, this situation is most egregious. Unfathomable. Unconscionable.
Not wanting to/. the site further I did not try to find out how much complexity the form has... but even a simple form that posts to a servlet to store in a temporary database table. Something....
I have no experience with Vonage nor association with any related entity. There are, of course, others.... |}
Back to your seat. Thanks for helping out.
I do not countenance, I simply believe the FCC Mandate is contary to the will of the people. if this conversation helps to clarify American will or not, I simply state my opinion.
You seem to want to separate the only FCC order into these parts. It's not about Vonage, but about the ability for VoIP to survive. It is truly that simple. Loaded with the same framework as POTS, VoIP will be similarily expensive and non-responsive. Do you suppose Vonage (or others) could offer a bunch of backend features (group calling, subscriber alerting, web config) if they had instead -you wanted them to do this two years ago?!?!- spent resources on emulating the common carriers? that is stupid. sorry for my saying so.
And by the way, you stated that you never responded to their request for more information, so your expectation of them not working was nothing more than a self-fulfilling-prophesy.
You seem to have wanted them to respond like 911 was guaranteed long before it was expected to be so. Or, you have knowledge that it was to be so before it was known to be so. Hey, I'm just running with this... my opinion.
A Hearing last year would have predated the FCC mandate***. Why would you expect any VoIP company to enforce rules that were not in effect?
Lesee if I got this right; you received an email 'offering' to solve your problem, at which point you detached your self from the process. And you fault THEM ?! And this was LAST year...
Last month you got a barrage... think it was because the FCC changed the rules about that time, hmmmm?
Given the above, I suspect I'm taking a leap of faith, but
ok, assuming you were involved such as para #1 states. Do you suppose that the FCC Mandate http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/voip911order.pdf might be a concrete example of WHY they didn't want to be ruled a PHONE company?
You're aware of course that a big component to the 911 VoIP puzzle is how to fix up mobile people that don't care and who don't match. If you know shit about this then you know what I'm talking about. It would have been immensely more useful for the FCC to mandate the users to be Exempt_From_Recourse if they did not dial From_A_Valid_Address (aka registered).
But the FCC has no authority over the user of a channel, only the "transmitter".
Maybe they could have just left the door open to signing up as voice_response_only (required to identify the current address)?
Given the above...
I'm concerned for NYC if you do because of your dismissive tone. You do understand that nobody was *counting* then? It was surely easy to think that most customers were ok. Because -and here's the important part- the rules were different then.
Nice story. Thanks for the trip. We'll do this again realsoon.
The truth of it is that the user only needs to understand -in a legal sense- that..."the address you supply is the address we give to your local authorities when you use VoIP 911. We make../.. attempt. We reserve../.. which authorities to contact and provide all legal information../.. demanded by"... is the agreement and their commitment.
Was the agreement. Until recently when the FCC said (IMO) that VoIP was Phone.
Not like there was any Consumer input to it. And damned little competitive input. The results speak to that....
It worries me that the nascent VoIP channel is growing up too fast for its own good. And moreso that it's being asked to grow in predicatble ways. Established ways. Not New ways....
But it's not Phone.
-I speak only for myself as an American citizen.-
*** - Adopted: May 19, 2005 Released: June 3, 2005
--- ps-/. Admins (ATTN: Slashdot administators)
pls add cookie to keep the post format (txt,html,extrans,code) of the last post/reply (that's two;) and chose it for the session.
I reject the assertion that we are talking about people's lives. Our local constabulary recently published in the local newspaper a reminder for folks to NOT use 911 to find out why the emergency sirens were tooting. Look; you'll see that a LOT of 911 traffic is not of a real emergency nature.
Sometimes it is necessary to just let people do what they will do. If VoIP -not a PHONE service- ever becomes a major particulate of the basic communications service that people use, THEN we might have a rationale for the FCC to mandate E911 for Internet Phone.
While it remains VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL its no more substantive than walkie talkies or ARRL Radio or FAX (just another of many communications channels) or even eMail or Instant Messaging for that matter....
The Hard Deadline is just a way for the FCC to be successful in its mandate with little time for VoIP providers to coalesce into a significant opposition.
--- I speak only for myself as an American citizen.
911 is a fairly recent addition to the "telephony solution" mix. I reject the notion that the mature (legal sense) American cannot differentiate between communications devices, a list which includes such as the Cobra MicroTalk. With its 8 mi. range, ALL of my town and most (in theory;) of the surrounding municipalities are reachable. Yes, they do not look like a "phone" but they look -enough that one might grab it in a real emergency- a whole LOT like a cell phone.
So, what is a phone? Should ALL communications mediums support 911? I doubt you'd assert that they should.
And if you would not, then why would you assert (by inclusion; the scope of the recent FCC mandate - FCC 05-116) that this particular one should supply always on, no matter where you are, no matter how long you've been there, 911?!
Where, in fact, do you see P H O N E in the term Voice-over-Internet-Protocol?
Perhaps MY solution mix does not need to include E911, but rather it's more important to me to have call waiting, simultaneous ring, 3-way calling, voice mail that can email, call rejection, web configuration of my options, great rates, and local number portability.
The point is not to mimick the old-school telephony, but to provide a communications solution.
You may now return to your seat, but thanks for playing....
---
<disclaimer statement='I speak only for myself as an American citizen'/>
>>The Java Hello World program definitely has some black magic.
As a longtime java programmer I'm sick up to my ears with this strawman. HelloWorld is NOT an educational tool, it's an installation validation tool. Use it to verify things are working. Just like you do with "print 'Hello World.'" in python.
P r o g r a m m i n g needs to be learned by concept.
class A { private int count = 0; public boolean doWork(){ int++; } }
...along with a tool to exercise A.doWork() (IDE, Main class, etc.) goes a lot further in introducing the event-drive, component nature of the entire computing landscape. ML programs, for example, don't even load the next address until a clock event to the CPU; when the user clicks on Submit or changes the size of a window, they're emitting events and messages.
Python provides no contract. Classes can be dynamically modified. Return types and arguments' type are indeterminate. Yeah it's easy. So what. Should the real complexity of Computer Science be hidden until 3rd year? 4th? On the job?! Thanks, but we have enough graduates who can barely decompose a problem and generalize already.
That said, I like Python. I intend to use it more in my own work. As part of an IT Systems Administration curriculum it makes sense to me. But preparation for folks who will quickly need to grok client/server, event-driven, threaded applications?
May as well teach using javascript. At least that would force an acknowledgement of DOM and prepare a foundation to XML.
I have made patent application with claims to my invention of using acronyms to refer to Soft-Ware Patents both to clarify and to highlight the inclusion of the term. Additional claims go to performance across the biological/mechanical boundary due to the compression effect of using the acronym to refer to the term.
fyi- your usage of "swpats" appears to clearly be infringing:-/
As one of the other replies said, "you can begin by publicizing all of your personal, medical, and financial records, including your mother's maiden name, your card and PIN numbers, email addresses, account passwords, treatments for any STD's, and so forth".
I would postulate that over time this is exactly what we'll see happen. The actions of the number of random biological and electromechanical entities in our space will combine to spread all kinds of data like this.
...much like energy dissipating or organized systems crumbling.
So much of this debate centers around the semantic nuances of the meaning of the concept of Information. All that hacker credo refers to is D A T A. And you don't have to have a human container to the data for it to be considered information. A human container defines the concept of K N O W L E D G E.
The fact of the matter is that highly organized and controlled containment of data will naturally devolve to random distributions of that data - in most cases. Not all. Data uncontained can be lost and can devolve into non-existance. Some can be reconstructed from second-tier related datum.
After all, there's a reason this phrase is oft-repeated; it resonates with our understanding of how the world works. All denials aside, Information does have a tendancy to propogate.
yeah, I saw that pop-up too! It said something about my hard drive being shared to some organization called "NFS". I thought that was totally spooky. Then it goes on to say I'm using the "slow" internet. Like, how do I get on the fast internet then?! Dangit! And now, along comes the IOS with some kind of a beef with the ISS and some FBI thingy that needs to look into TCP... gawd my head is swimming.
Slashdot Mirror
I was gonna mod, but I bet others do. Instead I wanted to say this is so DRMed funny I nearly pee'd myself!
there's only a couple of sheets of TP left on the role. RSS feed prints an article that you simply *must* save. Do you wipe or put it in your pocket? ;)
...cave paintings...
I mean, those were a type of menu also! Please select from the following possible successful hunts: Bear, Buffalo, Deer.
Ok, not real 'portable'. But the *drums* they took along on the hunt where they drew the same icons were most certainly portable and music devices.
Stretching? Maybe. Sublime/ridiculous - take your pick.
patnet... now THERE's a concept.... ;)
ditto on fedora. just as an example, my son is 12 and a year or so ago I moved him off of windows 98 to fedora. He loved KDE. All the buttons were in places he fairly expected from his Windows experience. He loved being able to configure the desktop his own way (only he really knows what that means).
Something interesting happened. He moved to Gnome a few months back. Stayed with it. Says it's just "easier". I never tried to influence that except to say I used Gnome. I felt it was the choice that was the point of it. I suppose sometimes when he had a problem my answer of 'I've never used that one I use Gnome's....' might have played a part. But, he manages his own machine mostly - updates and installs all his own stuff .
So it's a "real" decision. I'm biased and never found a reason to use KDE, except way, way back when I first had a machine capable of X (486DX). Sun's choice of Gnome influenced me. But the Choice it the point.
We really need to get out of the "market share' business-speak FUD that that Redmond co. pushes. It's not about 'nobody will use xxx if they don't have critical mass'. With the GNU/Linux platform, there is enough reason to us y instead of x, or z instead of y, or whathaveyou from enough people to keep a LOT of things alive.
>>I've NEVER encountered a windows installer that didn't work
Microsoft Visio comes to mind as an installer that sucks. Many manipulations required to get that one to install...
oh yeah, it's sure to install on any windows. Well, any that's not thunked like win95/98/ME. Oh wait....
oh yeah, it's sure to install to the right kind of Windows, and it will certainly run. And no other program that shares its DLLs will have any problem at all.... oh wait...
GP, guess Windows installation isn't so clean and simple either, hmmmmm????
Firefox isn't obscure to security researchers with a bent for publicity or an axe to grind.
Also it's far more likely that the 'computer' will change at a rate far surpassing Jan and Joe Homebody to ever conceptually see beyond the screen right in front of them. Cell, laptop and PDA's are allowing them to become more and more mobile with respect to the Internet infrastructure. They'll continually return to what they know, and if that's AOL as proxy for the internet, they'll stick with it no matter what access device they use (we are, afterall, talking in terms of a decade here).
As much as I wish it weren't true, I can't keep my 3 most close relationships at all knowledgable with current tech. As geeks we all try to help close friends and family do things better and safer. That changes drastically as the access device changes. They just won't spend the time/effort.
LOL. Kudos dude, it was your idea. I liked it so much I just had to try it out. They should put your name in the dictionary entry that, I'm certain, will one day be created for this new verb!
"My boss FEMA'd me right there in front of everyone. How was *I* supposed to know where that document was; last I saw it was on *their* desk!"
;)
awesome
... to slashdot the FEMA website.
/. the site further I did not try to find out how much complexity the form has... but even a simple form that posts to a servlet to store in a temporary database table. Something....
That being said, I don't understand how it is that a simple form could not have been quickly created using generic technology just to capture the information required. A day or two? I call strawman to their excuse that it was an internal application that fails them; clearly it was a choice that fails them. A choice made under duress, admittedly. But duress due -again- to being *unprepared*.
I would think that the scenario is obvious since 9/11, so having had several years to prepare, this situation is most egregious. Unfathomable. Unconscionable.
Not wanting to
>>I believe they should operate like the USPS.
The USPS is a service oriented niche while the USPTO is a regulatory one. Their respective effectiveness aside, how is one like the other?
I have no experience with Vonage nor association with any related entity. There are, of course, others.... |}
Back to your seat. Thanks for helping out.
I do not countenance, I simply believe the FCC Mandate is contary to the will of the people. if this conversation helps to clarify American will or not, I simply state my opinion.
You seem to want to separate the only FCC order into these parts. It's not about Vonage, but about the ability for VoIP to survive. It is truly that simple. Loaded with the same framework as POTS, VoIP will be similarily expensive and non-responsive. Do you suppose Vonage (or others) could offer a bunch of backend features (group calling, subscriber alerting, web config) if they had instead -you wanted them to do this two years ago?!?!- spent resources on emulating the common carriers? that is stupid. sorry for my saying so.
And by the way, you stated that you never responded to their request for more information, so your expectation of them not working was nothing more than a self-fulfilling-prophesy.
You seem to have wanted them to respond like 911 was guaranteed long before it was expected to be so. Or, you have knowledge that it was to be so before it was known to be so. Hey, I'm just running with this... my opinion.
Perhaps you be interested in cross licencing
fax not found. error in retreiveNewLicense.
:}
re: short sighted.
I can't imagine that VoIP neighbor-over-neighbor is a significant component yet. So, we deduce that the FCC acted outside of "immenent need", yes?
... mental note
be
more
careful
of
the
word
PROTOTYPE
A Hearing last year would have predated the FCC mandate***. Why would you expect any VoIP company to enforce rules that were not in effect?
..."the address you supply is the address we give to your local authorities when you use VoIP 911. We make ../.. attempt. We reserve ../.. which authorities to contact and provide all legal information ../.. demanded by"... is the agreement and their commitment.
/. Admins (ATTN: Slashdot administators) ;) and chose it for the session.
Lesee if I got this right; you received an email 'offering' to solve your problem, at which point you detached your self from the process. And you fault THEM ?! And this was LAST year...
Last month you got a barrage... think it was because the FCC changed the rules about that time, hmmmm?
Given the above, I suspect I'm taking a leap of faith, but
ok, assuming you were involved such as para #1 states. Do you suppose that the FCC Mandate http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/voip911order.pdf might be a concrete example of WHY they didn't want to be ruled a PHONE company?
You're aware of course that a big component to the 911 VoIP puzzle is how to fix up mobile people that don't care and who don't match. If you know shit about this then you know what I'm talking about. It would have been immensely more useful for the FCC to mandate the users to be Exempt_From_Recourse if they did not dial From_A_Valid_Address (aka registered).
But the FCC has no authority over the user of a channel, only the "transmitter".
Maybe they could have just left the door open to signing up as voice_response_only (required to identify the current address)?
Given the above...
I'm concerned for NYC if you do because of your dismissive tone. You do understand that nobody was *counting* then? It was surely easy to think that most customers were ok. Because -and here's the important part- the rules were different then.
Nice story. Thanks for the trip. We'll do this again realsoon.
The truth of it is that the user only needs to understand -in a legal sense- that
Was the agreement. Until recently when the FCC said (IMO) that VoIP was Phone.
Not like there was any Consumer input to it. And damned little competitive input. The results speak to that....
It worries me that the nascent VoIP channel is growing up too fast for its own good. And moreso that it's being asked to grow in predicatble ways. Established ways. Not New ways....
But it's not Phone.
-I speak only for myself as an American citizen.-
*** - Adopted: May 19, 2005 Released: June 3, 2005
---
ps-
pls add cookie to keep the post format (txt,html,extrans,code) of the last post/reply (that's two
Don't be pedantic.
I reject the assertion that we are talking about people's lives. Our local constabulary recently published in the local newspaper a reminder for folks to NOT use 911 to find out why the emergency sirens were tooting. Look; you'll see that a LOT of 911 traffic is not of a real emergency nature.
Sometimes it is necessary to just let people do what they will do. If VoIP -not a PHONE service- ever becomes a major particulate of the basic communications service that people use, THEN we might have a rationale for the FCC to mandate E911 for Internet Phone.
While it remains VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL its no more substantive than walkie talkies or ARRL Radio or FAX (just another of many communications channels) or even eMail or Instant Messaging for that matter....
The Hard Deadline is just a way for the FCC to be successful in its mandate with little time for VoIP providers to coalesce into a significant opposition.
---
I speak only for myself as an American citizen.
So, what is a phone? Should ALL communications mediums support 911? I doubt you'd assert that they should.
And if you would not, then why would you assert (by inclusion; the scope of the recent FCC mandate - FCC 05-116) that this particular one should supply always on, no matter where you are, no matter how long you've been there, 911?!
Where, in fact, do you see P H O N E in the term Voice-over-Internet-Protocol?
Perhaps MY solution mix does not need to include E911, but rather it's more important to me to have call waiting, simultaneous ring, 3-way calling, voice mail that can email, call rejection, web configuration of my options, great rates, and local number portability.
The point is not to mimick the old-school telephony, but to provide a communications solution.
You may now return to your seat, but thanks for playing....
---go Nuvio - http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/352
see the mandate here - http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/voip911order.pdf
same here. Well, except *MY* boss doesn't care enough to come on in to see if I'm alrigh... oh wells...
>>The Java Hello World program definitely has some black magic.
;)
As a longtime java programmer I'm sick up to my ears with this strawman. HelloWorld is NOT an educational tool, it's an installation validation tool. Use it to verify things are working. Just like you do with "print 'Hello World.'" in python.
P r o g r a m m i n g needs to be learned by concept.
class A {
private int count = 0;
public boolean doWork(){
int++;
}
}
...along with a tool to exercise A.doWork() (IDE, Main class, etc.) goes a lot further in introducing the event-drive, component nature of the entire computing landscape. ML programs, for example, don't even load the next address until a clock event to the CPU; when the user clicks on Submit or changes the size of a window, they're emitting events and messages.
Python provides no contract. Classes can be dynamically modified. Return types and arguments' type are indeterminate. Yeah it's easy. So what. Should the real complexity of Computer Science be hidden until 3rd year? 4th? On the job?! Thanks, but we have enough graduates who can barely decompose a problem and generalize already.
That said, I like Python. I intend to use it more in my own work. As part of an IT Systems Administration curriculum it makes sense to me. But preparation for folks who will quickly need to grok client/server, event-driven, threaded applications?
May as well teach using javascript. At least that would force an acknowledgement of DOM and prepare a foundation to XML.
</rant>
fyi- your usage of "swpats" appears to clearly be infringing
I would postulate that over time this is exactly what we'll see happen. The actions of the number of random biological and electromechanical entities in our space will combine to spread all kinds of data like this.
So much of this debate centers around the semantic nuances of the meaning of the concept of Information. All that hacker credo refers to is D A T A. And you don't have to have a human container to the data for it to be considered information. A human container defines the concept of K N O W L E D G E.
The fact of the matter is that highly organized and controlled containment of data will naturally devolve to random distributions of that data - in most cases. Not all. Data uncontained can be lost and can devolve into non-existance. Some can be reconstructed from second-tier related datum.
After all, there's a reason this phrase is oft-repeated; it resonates with our understanding of how the world works. All denials aside, Information does have a tendancy to propogate.
simple, neh?
yeah, I saw that pop-up too! It said something about my hard drive being shared to some organization called "NFS". I thought that was totally spooky. Then it goes on to say I'm using the "slow" internet. Like, how do I get on the fast internet then?! Dangit! And now, along comes the IOS with some kind of a beef with the ISS and some FBI thingy that needs to look into TCP... gawd my head is swimming.