Tis a foolish man who assumes that dishonesty goes hand in hand with stupidity (and vice versa for that matter)
Intelligent criminals seem to be the rare exception. Last Friday a couple of guys broke into my girlfriend's '99 S-10 compact pickup truck while she was work--in the middle of the day, in the middle of a busy shopping center parking lot. They unsucessfully attempted to pop the door lock for 10 minutes, so they smashed in the backseat window. What did they take for all their effort? A checkbook, vehicle owner's manual (wtf?), and a $100 K-Mart dome tent.
All of this was witnessed by a guy waiting in his car for his wife to get done shopping. He promptly called the police on his cell phone. The geniuses must have been surprised that someone actually witnessed what must have been extremely obvious since they were arrested 20 minutes later, in the shopping center across the street, casing more cars. Having the highly identifiable checkbook marked into evidence certainly isn't going to help their case. I wonder what they spend the weekend in jail thinking about? Pic of the bang-up job on popping the door Pic of the smashed window Pic of the truck
Sorry... I just had to vent since this article was very timely. Guess the suburbs aren't far enough away from Detroit...
While women might compose a little more than 50% of the population, that ratio is no where near represesentative when you look at executive-level management at large corporations. It don't think it's a stretch to presuppose that of the women who do climb that high, they have to be exceptionally aggressive. Joan of Arc certainly wasn't an average soldier. I've also heard several woman claim that they feel that they have to act like a bitch to get any respect ("'tis better to be feared than loved" kinda thing).
Sure, asshole bosses come in all race, creeds, and sexes, but that trusism does little to disprove the GP's assertion. His ancedotes don't really prove anything and they may or may not relate to Ms. Fiona. However, your substituion game with race is even more stupid. If you disagree with his post, the only way to refute it is to address what he said, not perform some lame Madlib or by spouting off truisms.
Handicapping spelling probably won't affect creativity much, but it will affect logic. As much as it may seem to non-native speakers, English isn't a random mush of letters. Understanding the roots, prefixes, and suffixes allows a reader to understand newly encountered words. It's not unlike an algebra equation. Switching to a random mash of letters, based soley on how words sound, will only worsen the problem.
FYI, this effect is even more preveleant with Arabic (and Hebrew, I've been told). "Writer", "book", "writing desk", "library", "he wrote" all have the same root. Once you learn the very non-Western style of alphabet and grammer, it's not hard to quickly build your vocabulary because you understand how the words are formed. It would be a nightmare to learn Arabic, and many other foreign languages, if they were written phonetically.
This is exactly what America needs: something that allows the populace to think even less in their everyday lives. The aversion to expending a little extra effort seems to be a uniquely American thing. We invent all of these machines to save us from having to perform manual labor. Then we all get fat and develop health problems from lack of physical activity. So now we pack it into gyms where we run in place, climb fake staircases, and lift heavy pieces of iron up and down for no useful purpose. Mindboggling. Taking mental shortcuts will be just as beneficial.
This month's Computer Gaming World has a letter to the editor giving us kudos for not putting CD copy protection on Galactic Civilizations II. In it, he says that not having copy protection helped make his decision to get the game.
As a gamer, I have a similar point of view. I lose my CDs. I scratch my CDs. My desk is a mess. Nowadays, with games requring 3 or 4 CDs (I wish retailers would universally accept DVDs but that's a different issue), keeping CDs around to play is annoying.
I don't have exact worldwide sales numbers for Galactic Civilizations II, but we do know they're well over 100,000 units sold worldwide in the first 90 or so days. That number is about as high as a game of our distribution level can sell in that time frame (units sold is a function of popularity X outlets available in the same way that a movie's first weekend take is a function of how well received it is X how many theaters it's showing in).
The question about copy protection is straight forward in our view: Does CD copy protection generate more sales due to less piracy than it costs in sales due to people on the fence deciding not to purchase.
CD copy protection to me is a lot like the issue I have with shareware. I don't mind registing shareware. But I know that I'm going to lose that serial # at some point. IF the site has a very very simple way of looking me up and sending me my info that is very apparent, then I'm inclined to buy it. Similarly, not having CD copy protection helps protect my investment -- knowing I'll be able to play the game even if I lose those CDs.
In GalCiv II's case, our upgrade system even has electronic registration. When someone upgrades to one of the new versions, they enter in their serial # that came with the game and it automatically registers them. So even if they lose the CDs AND their hard drive dies, they can re-download the entire game from us (not just updates the ENTIRE GAME) even yeras from now.
For these reasons, we are convinced that game developers/publishers can increase their sales by focusing on SERVING their customers rather than focusing on thwarting pirates. If someone is paying $40 for a game, they should be treated with respect, not with suspicion.
How about this for a unique concept: Value your customers as much as you value their money. Stardock is a tiny software company based out of Plymouth, MI (a small city a bit north of Ann Arbor, not really known for anything). They were recently lauded in Computer Gaming World for not adding a copy protection scheme to their latest game Galactic Civilizations 2. One of their developers took the time to explain their reasoning for doing so. They are also highly involved with their user community and are constantly asking for feedback.
On a related note, if a) you think of independent games are limited to puzzle games and side scrollers or b) dig games like Sid Meier's Civ series, you owe it to yourself to checkout the demo for Galatic Civilizations 2. To be honest, the main reason I downloaded it is because Plymouth is about 20 minutes away from where I live and wanted to check out what the local talent has to offer. I was blown away with the quality of the game. Everything from the game balance, to the graphics and even the musical score. It really makes me wonder why it takes millions of dollars to get most games on the shelves nowadays.
Over and over again the anti-net neutrallity rant is based on the presumption that web site operators don't already pay for bandwidth. I don't understand why this continues? While most people don't know the nuiances of negotiating a high-dollar agreement with a carrier, there are a great many people out there who pay $10-50/mo for simple web hosting. Surely these people know that both ends of a HTTP connection are already paying. I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
I agree with your point, but one nitpick... A "monopoly" is a single company dominating an industry. An "oligopoly" is when a small number of companies have the share that same level of control. With the deregulation that occured in 1996 and resulting mass consolidation, things are rapidly becoming an oligopoly.
C-SPAN has an interactive map that shows you how your reps voted on this issue. The first vote was to send the bill back to committee to reconsider the net neutrality issues. A vote of "yes" means that your rep was concerned about net neutrality. It failed horribly, mainly along party lines (surprised?)
The second vote was whether to pass the bill as-is, which passed by a 3 to 1 margin. A vote of "yes" means that your rep didn't think net neutrality was all that important. However, it's not quite as damning as the first vote since the passage of the bill does make certain markets (cable TV) more competitive.
God I'd love to see the GOPs stranglehold on both houses broken this November. I'm not a Democrat, but it's amazing how dangerously one-sided the federal goverment has become over the past six years.
Every business pays myriad taxes (which may or may not get passed to the customer, depending on how price sensitive the customer is and how competitive the market is.) VoIP providers are not regulated, hence a "regulatory recovery fee" is a non-sequitur. Adding an extra line-item fee, buried in the fine print along with obsure sounding taxes, is being deliberately disingenuous.
I don't doubt that telcoms started the whole dishonest trend and are the biggest perpetuators. It's just unfortunate that some VoIP companies are choosing to ride their coat tails.
The Federal Excise Tax is typically the only tax that US-based VoIP carriers charge their subscribers (if they charge any). Having help start a VoIP company myself, I never understood why other providers charged this tax. We were advised by council that VoIP is not classfied as a "telecommunications service" but rather an "information service" by the FCC, hence was not subject to the tax. Therefore we've never collected a dime in taxes (other than sales tax on equipment sales, of course). I wouldn't expect Vonage to be pocketing that extra 3%, but I wouldn't put it past some of the other companies out there.
FYI: The "Regulatory Recovery Fee" isn't a tax, it's a surcharge that carriers levy to offset the cost of having to comply with federal regulations. However, IMHO, it's a bit disingenuous for VoIP companies to charge this fee since they aren't actually regulated.
A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and wrote my first and only letter to a federal rep. Here in Oakland county, Michigan that happens to be Thaddeus McCotter. I decided on a fax because I've read that letters are given greater consideration compared to phone calls and emails, and a fax is better (faster) than the postal service due to postal security concerns. While the letter addresses my concerns from the viewpoint of a VoIP company founder, net neturallity is of major concern to anyone who is starting (or thinking of starting) any Internet-based company.
Congressman McCotter:
I am not politically active and have never contacted a federal representative in my life. However, I am taking the time today to write you because I am very deeply concerned about pending legislation intended to counter recent actions by large telecommunication companies that will hugely detrimental effect on the American citizenry, your constituents, and myself personally.
As things currently stand, big phone companies and cable conglomerates have what is called "common carrier" status. Meaning that they are required to treat all phone calls, Internet traffic, etc. identically. In exchange for keeping their hands off, carriers are given special tax breaks and are normally exempt from being liable for the content they carry (Comcast can't be held criminally liable if someone downloads child porn using a Comcast cable modem, for example). This is how things have been since 1934. However, Congress is moving in the direction to give the big phone and cable companies the power to regulate the 'net as they see fit. They will be able to pick favorites and decide who's traffic they carry--or don't carry at all.
December of last year, I founded Bright Idea VoIP here in Novi, Michigan. We're an Internet-based telephone company that provides voice communication services to small-businesses. I frequently explain it as "Vonage for companies with 5 to 100 employees." This technology is known as "Voice-over-IP" (VoIP) is currently one of the fastest growing segments of the Internet. There are hundreds of companies like mine popping up all over the map. I am not rich by any sense of the word; I am simply a computer geek with a great idea who is trying to earn my piece of the American dream. And it's paying off... The company is growing very quickly. I (and my small, but also growing, group of coworkers) are working hard, but enjoying almost every minute of it. But for us to continue to thrive, or just to survive, we need a level playing field.
If AT&T, Verizon, or another large competitor of ours gains the ability to turn off or slow down areas of the Internet, our service will grind to a halt and I won't be able to do a thing about it. If they start to charge me a special "priority access fee", I'll have to pass that cost onto my subscribers. Suddenly the largest appeal of VoIP is reduced, making it less of a threat to the big telecom companies. The net effect is that I will be out of business within a year. And it's not just me... it's the thousands of other Internet innovators. We'll never know the next Google, eBay, or Amazon.com if the established 800 lb. gorillas get the power to decide who stays and who fails. That's not capitalism and that's not the American way.
With the lifeblood of manufacturing jobs in the metro Detroit area rapidly disappearing, your district desperately needs your help in promoting innovation and job growth in the technology sector. I ask that you please support Massachusetts congressman Ed Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006", and that you see through the well-funded smoke screen of large telecom lobbyists.
I didn't even get a form letter back in return. Since he's up for relelection this
On an episode of Bullshit! Penn & Teller filled up water bottles with NYC tap water from a garden hose. Many people actually prefered the tap water to the store-bought stuff. It's a Season 1 episode; put it in your Netflix queue.
Dropping packets once they've already gotten to you is rather pointless. They've already traversed the distance from your ISP to you, consuming bandwidth you're trying to conserve. Dropping TCP datagrams will just cause the sender to immediately retransmit those same packets. The end result is that you're actually consuming more bandwidth.
No, it's because you can't shape ingress traffic. If you're downloading a file, that data is saturating the downstream channel between your ISP's router and your cable/DSL modem. Which, of course, happens before it even reaches your router/firewall/gateway. Not much you can do about it, except to stop downloading or get a fatter pipe.
QoS comes into play when you're uploading. So it's only going to make your voice sound less choppy to the person you're talking to, not the other way around. This is because your QoS device can queue your outgoing packets, examine them, and then release the priority ones first.
- How is bandwidth issues Vonage's fault, or even your ISPs? There are many, many gateway devices that are specifically designed to provide QoS for VoIP calls. Dlink makes a consumer-grade, idiot proof box that works pretty good. It simply plugs in between your modem and gateway.
- Lack of e911 features also can't be pinned on Vonage. Despite FCC mandates, many LECs *still* don't allow other companies access to PSAPs. VoIP companies have been fighting an uphill battle when it comes to this. Complain to your state representatives or public utilities commission, not Vonage.
It's more likely that the person who wrote the worm simply wanted to destory valuable files. To some people Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations are very important. To another subset of people, MP3s and videos are important. Worms and viruses have targeted the former for many years. The altrustic spin on this piece of "news" is nothing but a PR mindtrick. A special thanks goes to you for injecting unfounded religious speculation into this mess.
If the source found its way onto the Internet, that would be a leak. If early prototypes were released months ago, in time for Real Networks, Apple, and others to dissect what MS was cooking up in the lab, then I would consider that a leak. But "leaking" a yawn-inducing product two days before the official release? It sounds to me more like a marketing tactic intended to drum up press at just the right time, akin to the same BS that beta testing has evolved into.
That's not an entirely accurate analogy; you're making things more complex than they are. A better one is that you get a few car parts in the mail every week. Included in each package is an admonishment that you need to get it installed, lest your car stops running tomorrow.
Does this sound a bit absurd because car manufacturers don't actually mail parts directly customers during a recall? Agreed. And my bank doesn't email me when there's a problem with my account. "Do not click any links in emails that solicit personal information. Either make a phone call or type in the URL manually." It's that easy. You don't have to sift through a bin of good/part car parts (or emails).
Which is exactly the unfortunate part. If the telcos end up having to fork over the settlement, they'll just raise the prices on their services to compensate. We'll end up having to pay twice for the privledge of having our privacy invaded. Most businesses would have to eat the legal costs, unable to raise prices due to pricing pressure from their competitors. However, how many of AT&T and Verizon's customers have the option of choosing a different phone company?
It's a zero sum game--except for the lawyers; whom are probably drooling over it like the tobacco suits a few years back.
They aren't interested in Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. This massive lobbying is the result of only one thing: VoIP. VoIP has freed people and businesses from being tied to the circuit-switched network that is the core source of revenue for many telcoms. AT&T, Verizon, and the other players desperately want to tilt the playing field back into their favor. VoIP startups have been popping out of the woodwork over the past two years. At the very least, Ma Bell wants to slow down the growth of these nimble companies by charging tarrifs, which get passed onto customers and lessen the biggest incentive to switch to VoIP: cost savings.
Cable companies now are simply jumping on the bandwagon. Which, if you notice, seems to coincide with the rollout of their own VoIP services.
Last December I founded a small-business VoIP company myself. So I've been following this issue very closely; it's the only time I've ever contacted a federal representative in my life. However, this is bigger than simply a slower Google or putting me out of business. It's about real jobs and real innovation being extinguished.
Then they would lose their "common carrier" status, a fate VERY few of the big boys would willingly risk.
From my understanding, common carrier status has become much more of a burden than anything since the deregulation introduced by Telecommunications Act of 1996. Most VoIP providers have fought tooth and nail not be classified as such. Other than not being held legally responsible for the content that traverses their networks, what else is appealing about the classification?
True, but some broadband providers intentionally hand the client a different IP when their lease expires in order to:
a. Prevent subscribers from running servers without paying for a static IP. While dynamic DNS services can be a workaround much of the time, it doesn't work very well with SMTP or other cases where DNS caching can cause issues.
(or, if you ask the provider)
b. To decrease the likihood of crackers breaking in your computer.
Slashdot Mirror
All of this was witnessed by a guy waiting in his car for his wife to get done shopping. He promptly called the police on his cell phone. The geniuses must have been surprised that someone actually witnessed what must have been extremely obvious since they were arrested 20 minutes later, in the shopping center across the street, casing more cars. Having the highly identifiable checkbook marked into evidence certainly isn't going to help their case. I wonder what they spend the weekend in jail thinking about?
Pic of the bang-up job on popping the door
Pic of the smashed window
Pic of the truck
Sorry... I just had to vent since this article was very timely. Guess the suburbs aren't far enough away from Detroit...
Even better, reread this classic gem that ought to be bookmarked by everyone: The Art of Turboing
While women might compose a little more than 50% of the population, that ratio is no where near represesentative when you look at executive-level management at large corporations. It don't think it's a stretch to presuppose that of the women who do climb that high, they have to be exceptionally aggressive. Joan of Arc certainly wasn't an average soldier. I've also heard several woman claim that they feel that they have to act like a bitch to get any respect ("'tis better to be feared than loved" kinda thing).
Sure, asshole bosses come in all race, creeds, and sexes, but that trusism does little to disprove the GP's assertion. His ancedotes don't really prove anything and they may or may not relate to Ms. Fiona. However, your substituion game with race is even more stupid. If you disagree with his post, the only way to refute it is to address what he said, not perform some lame Madlib or by spouting off truisms.
Handicapping spelling probably won't affect creativity much, but it will affect logic. As much as it may seem to non-native speakers, English isn't a random mush of letters. Understanding the roots, prefixes, and suffixes allows a reader to understand newly encountered words. It's not unlike an algebra equation. Switching to a random mash of letters, based soley on how words sound, will only worsen the problem.
FYI, this effect is even more preveleant with Arabic (and Hebrew, I've been told). "Writer", "book", "writing desk", "library", "he wrote" all have the same root. Once you learn the very non-Western style of alphabet and grammer, it's not hard to quickly build your vocabulary because you understand how the words are formed. It would be a nightmare to learn Arabic, and many other foreign languages, if they were written phonetically.
This is exactly what America needs: something that allows the populace to think even less in their everyday lives. The aversion to expending a little extra effort seems to be a uniquely American thing. We invent all of these machines to save us from having to perform manual labor. Then we all get fat and develop health problems from lack of physical activity. So now we pack it into gyms where we run in place, climb fake staircases, and lift heavy pieces of iron up and down for no useful purpose. Mindboggling. Taking mental shortcuts will be just as beneficial.
How about this for a unique concept: Value your customers as much as you value their money. Stardock is a tiny software company based out of Plymouth, MI (a small city a bit north of Ann Arbor, not really known for anything). They were recently lauded in Computer Gaming World for not adding a copy protection scheme to their latest game Galactic Civilizations 2. One of their developers took the time to explain their reasoning for doing so. They are also highly involved with their user community and are constantly asking for feedback.
On a related note, if a) you think of independent games are limited to puzzle games and side scrollers or b) dig games like Sid Meier's Civ series, you owe it to yourself to checkout the demo for Galatic Civilizations 2. To be honest, the main reason I downloaded it is because Plymouth is about 20 minutes away from where I live and wanted to check out what the local talent has to offer. I was blown away with the quality of the game. Everything from the game balance, to the graphics and even the musical score. It really makes me wonder why it takes millions of dollars to get most games on the shelves nowadays.
Over and over again the anti-net neutrallity rant is based on the presumption that web site operators don't already pay for bandwidth. I don't understand why this continues? While most people don't know the nuiances of negotiating a high-dollar agreement with a carrier, there are a great many people out there who pay $10-50/mo for simple web hosting. Surely these people know that both ends of a HTTP connection are already paying. I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
I agree with your point, but one nitpick... A "monopoly" is a single company dominating an industry. An "oligopoly" is when a small number of companies have the share that same level of control. With the deregulation that occured in 1996 and resulting mass consolidation, things are rapidly becoming an oligopoly.
C-SPAN has an interactive map that shows you how your reps voted on this issue. The first vote was to send the bill back to committee to reconsider the net neutrality issues. A vote of "yes" means that your rep was concerned about net neutrality. It failed horribly, mainly along party lines (surprised?)
The second vote was whether to pass the bill as-is, which passed by a 3 to 1 margin. A vote of "yes" means that your rep didn't think net neutrality was all that important. However, it's not quite as damning as the first vote since the passage of the bill does make certain markets (cable TV) more competitive.
God I'd love to see the GOPs stranglehold on both houses broken this November. I'm not a Democrat, but it's amazing how dangerously one-sided the federal goverment has become over the past six years.
Every business pays myriad taxes (which may or may not get passed to the customer, depending on how price sensitive the customer is and how competitive the market is.) VoIP providers are not regulated, hence a "regulatory recovery fee" is a non-sequitur. Adding an extra line-item fee, buried in the fine print along with obsure sounding taxes, is being deliberately disingenuous.
I don't doubt that telcoms started the whole dishonest trend and are the biggest perpetuators. It's just unfortunate that some VoIP companies are choosing to ride their coat tails.
The Federal Excise Tax is typically the only tax that US-based VoIP carriers charge their subscribers (if they charge any). Having help start a VoIP company myself, I never understood why other providers charged this tax. We were advised by council that VoIP is not classfied as a "telecommunications service" but rather an "information service" by the FCC, hence was not subject to the tax. Therefore we've never collected a dime in taxes (other than sales tax on equipment sales, of course). I wouldn't expect Vonage to be pocketing that extra 3%, but I wouldn't put it past some of the other companies out there.
FYI: The "Regulatory Recovery Fee" isn't a tax, it's a surcharge that carriers levy to offset the cost of having to comply with federal regulations. However, IMHO, it's a bit disingenuous for VoIP companies to charge this fee since they aren't actually regulated.
Valid point.
A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and wrote my first and only letter to a federal rep. Here in Oakland county, Michigan that happens to be Thaddeus McCotter. I decided on a fax because I've read that letters are given greater consideration compared to phone calls and emails, and a fax is better (faster) than the postal service due to postal security concerns. While the letter addresses my concerns from the viewpoint of a VoIP company founder, net neturallity is of major concern to anyone who is starting (or thinking of starting) any Internet-based company.
Congressman McCotter:
I am not politically active and have never contacted a federal representative in my life. However, I am taking the time today to write you because I am very deeply concerned about pending legislation intended to counter recent actions by large telecommunication companies that will hugely detrimental effect on the American citizenry, your constituents, and myself personally.
As things currently stand, big phone companies and cable conglomerates have what is called "common carrier" status. Meaning that they are required to treat all phone calls, Internet traffic, etc. identically. In exchange for keeping their hands off, carriers are given special tax breaks and are normally exempt from being liable for the content they carry (Comcast can't be held criminally liable if someone downloads child porn using a Comcast cable modem, for example). This is how things have been since 1934. However, Congress is moving in the direction to give the big phone and cable companies the power to regulate the 'net as they see fit. They will be able to pick favorites and decide who's traffic they carry--or don't carry at all.
December of last year, I founded Bright Idea VoIP here in Novi, Michigan. We're an Internet-based telephone company that provides voice communication services to small-businesses. I frequently explain it as "Vonage for companies with 5 to 100 employees." This technology is known as "Voice-over-IP" (VoIP) is currently one of the fastest growing segments of the Internet. There are hundreds of companies like mine popping up all over the map. I am not rich by any sense of the word; I am simply a computer geek with a great idea who is trying to earn my piece of the American dream. And it's paying off... The company is growing very quickly. I (and my small, but also growing, group of coworkers) are working hard, but enjoying almost every minute of it. But for us to continue to thrive, or just to survive, we need a level playing field.
If AT&T, Verizon, or another large competitor of ours gains the ability to turn off or slow down areas of the Internet, our service will grind to a halt and I won't be able to do a thing about it. If they start to charge me a special "priority access fee", I'll have to pass that cost onto my subscribers. Suddenly the largest appeal of VoIP is reduced, making it less of a threat to the big telecom companies. The net effect is that I will be out of business within a year. And it's not just me... it's the thousands of other Internet innovators. We'll never know the next Google, eBay, or Amazon.com if the established 800 lb. gorillas get the power to decide who stays and who fails. That's not capitalism and that's not the American way.
With the lifeblood of manufacturing jobs in the metro Detroit area rapidly disappearing, your district desperately needs your help in promoting innovation and job growth in the technology sector. I ask that you please support Massachusetts congressman Ed Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006", and that you see through the well-funded smoke screen of large telecom lobbyists.
I didn't even get a form letter back in return. Since he's up for relelection this
On an episode of Bullshit! Penn & Teller filled up water bottles with NYC tap water from a garden hose. Many people actually prefered the tap water to the store-bought stuff. It's a Season 1 episode; put it in your Netflix queue.
Dropping packets once they've already gotten to you is rather pointless. They've already traversed the distance from your ISP to you, consuming bandwidth you're trying to conserve. Dropping TCP datagrams will just cause the sender to immediately retransmit those same packets. The end result is that you're actually consuming more bandwidth.
No, it's because you can't shape ingress traffic. If you're downloading a file, that data is saturating the downstream channel between your ISP's router and your cable/DSL modem. Which, of course, happens before it even reaches your router/firewall/gateway. Not much you can do about it, except to stop downloading or get a fatter pipe.
QoS comes into play when you're uploading. So it's only going to make your voice sound less choppy to the person you're talking to, not the other way around. This is because your QoS device can queue your outgoing packets, examine them, and then release the priority ones first.
- How is bandwidth issues Vonage's fault, or even your ISPs? There are many, many gateway devices that are specifically designed to provide QoS for VoIP calls. Dlink makes a consumer-grade, idiot proof box that works pretty good. It simply plugs in between your modem and gateway.
- Lack of e911 features also can't be pinned on Vonage. Despite FCC mandates, many LECs *still* don't allow other companies access to PSAPs. VoIP companies have been fighting an uphill battle when it comes to this. Complain to your state representatives or public utilities commission, not Vonage.
It's more likely that the person who wrote the worm simply wanted to destory valuable files. To some people Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations are very important. To another subset of people, MP3s and videos are important. Worms and viruses have targeted the former for many years. The altrustic spin on this piece of "news" is nothing but a PR mindtrick. A special thanks goes to you for injecting unfounded religious speculation into this mess.
If the source found its way onto the Internet, that would be a leak. If early prototypes were released months ago, in time for Real Networks, Apple, and others to dissect what MS was cooking up in the lab, then I would consider that a leak. But "leaking" a yawn-inducing product two days before the official release? It sounds to me more like a marketing tactic intended to drum up press at just the right time, akin to the same BS that beta testing has evolved into.
That's not an entirely accurate analogy; you're making things more complex than they are. A better one is that you get a few car parts in the mail every week. Included in each package is an admonishment that you need to get it installed, lest your car stops running tomorrow.
Does this sound a bit absurd because car manufacturers don't actually mail parts directly customers during a recall? Agreed. And my bank doesn't email me when there's a problem with my account. "Do not click any links in emails that solicit personal information. Either make a phone call or type in the URL manually." It's that easy. You don't have to sift through a bin of good/part car parts (or emails).
Which is exactly the unfortunate part. If the telcos end up having to fork over the settlement, they'll just raise the prices on their services to compensate. We'll end up having to pay twice for the privledge of having our privacy invaded. Most businesses would have to eat the legal costs, unable to raise prices due to pricing pressure from their competitors. However, how many of AT&T and Verizon's customers have the option of choosing a different phone company?
It's a zero sum game--except for the lawyers; whom are probably drooling over it like the tobacco suits a few years back.
They aren't interested in Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. This massive lobbying is the result of only one thing: VoIP. VoIP has freed people and businesses from being tied to the circuit-switched network that is the core source of revenue for many telcoms. AT&T, Verizon, and the other players desperately want to tilt the playing field back into their favor. VoIP startups have been popping out of the woodwork over the past two years. At the very least, Ma Bell wants to slow down the growth of these nimble companies by charging tarrifs, which get passed onto customers and lessen the biggest incentive to switch to VoIP: cost savings.
Cable companies now are simply jumping on the bandwagon. Which, if you notice, seems to coincide with the rollout of their own VoIP services.
Last December I founded a small-business VoIP company myself. So I've been following this issue very closely; it's the only time I've ever contacted a federal representative in my life. However, this is bigger than simply a slower Google or putting me out of business. It's about real jobs and real innovation being extinguished.
Please read a recent blog entry of mine to put a face with this imporant issue. Or, even better learn what you can do to help.
True, but some broadband providers intentionally hand the client a different IP when their lease expires in order to:
a. Prevent subscribers from running servers without paying for a static IP. While dynamic DNS services can be a workaround much of the time, it doesn't work very well with SMTP or other cases where DNS caching can cause issues.
(or, if you ask the provider)
b. To decrease the likihood of crackers breaking in your computer.