No I think he covered blackholes. The spammers are just the opposite, they suck in massive amounts of people's energy and spew out lots of "anti-matter" ("matter" that does not matter).
When you combine the two, they will cancel each other out..... or if it IS more like matter-anti-matter, it will probably result in a massive explosion. Either way, worth a shot!
Actually the whole idea is awesome in potential, which is probably why it will never happen. Since day after I got my first tivo I knew that this is the future. If taken to it's logical conclusion, this means death to the concept of "channel" (and maybe even DVD sales and DSS). EVERYTHING is "on-demand pay-per-view". There is no more scheduling recordings. You can watch any movie or any episode of any show any time. You will be able to easily pay a little extra to have the same show w/o commercials. You will never have to pay for any show you do not want or watch. It will be a whole new concept of television.
Of course this is precisely why this will be fought tooth and nail. Too many companies will be obsolete by this, the TV studios will no longer need the channels to support them.
Someone could just probably figure out how money is "stored" and just keep on replenishing. Note the card is anonymous.
If they are smart, the card only carries a serial number and the actual amount is stored elsewhere (like credit cards) Replenishing in this case is as difficult as fake-paying off a credit card bill, however there would be fraud a-funding it and b-cloning existing cards
DirecTivos can already do this. They can record one program off the digital feed and one off the analog going in the back... both at the same time.
DTiVos are not capable of recording analog signals at all (unfortunately), but they do have 2 digital sat. tuners. And since the data is already digital there is not much overhead in recording both at once. The real difficulty for TiVo is that it's AI system needs to be able to plan on using both tuners at once, which is not as easy as it sounds. Incidentally, TiVo does a pretty good job of it, but occasionaly it does silly things like recording same channel on 2 tuners at once. But nice thing about TiVo is that you get updates every now and then which fix things like that.
Umm Microsofts Ultimate TV can handle two streams, so with it you could record two shows at one. I believe it's the only system to offer this in their first version. Perhaps Tivo will have it in their next?
UltimateTV (rest in pieces)was a DirecTV only device, like DirecTivo. And like DirecTivo it had a huge advantage of being able to record the digital DirecTV stream in the native MPEG2 form. (which, BTW, means it can (and does) do Dolby Digital 5.1 on some channels). Well, since this means it is not doing MPEG encoding, the overhead for recording a show is relatively low - so they had ability to record more than one show at a time. So from the very first DirecTivo units, TiVo build the hardware to support 2 Tuners.
I think they stopped at 2 because each tuner (for technical reasons I will not go into) required a dedicated LNB (device receiving data from satelite - the "eye" of the dish) and the best available dishes at the time had only dual LNB's. Since then multi-switch technology came out allowing one dish to be used with quite a few DTV receivers, but that is another story.
While hardware was there, the early DTiVo software did not use it. Only around time UltimateTV came out, TiVo added the software to support the second DTV tuner. All DirecTiVos are now capable of recording 2 shows at same time.
To make things nicer, an additional reciever charge from DTV is $5 regardless of the type of device, and you do not have to pay extra subscription charge for 2nd and on DTiVos (DTiVo's subscription is $4.99 per month regardless of number of DTiVo's per household or free if you order their top of the line package).
Further, even the identical DirecTiVo models are able to coexist in same room with unique remote control codes (up to 9 devices for most, plus 3 for sony, which uses different codes)
So, theoretically you can build a home system with 12 DTiVos (9 phillips, 3 Sony) with total of 24 tuners between them recording perfect DTV quality for the hardware price of the units ($200-$400 each) plus multiswitch(s) (who knows, probably $100-$300 total) plus one DTV subscription ($35-$87 per month depending on channels)plus 5x11=$55 per month for extra receivers (I wonder if DirecTV will freak out if you asked for 11 additional receivers).
Now, good luck figuring out which show goes on which TiVo though. Plus you'd probably want to invest in quite a few JP1 universal remotes;-D
Oh no!! not only is my cpu obsolete so is my monitor!! Next time i am buying a laptop. ....so that you do not have to wait so long for it to be obsolete?;-)
-EE
Re:Prior art? How is this different?
on
Peephole Displays
·
· Score: 1
After a quick research - they were made by Sony called Glasstron Goggles PLM-A35/55 but seem to be out of production now. At one point they also anounced support for macs.
With orginal link removed from existance and google cache not keeping pictures - how is this different from the screen goggles sold for quiet a few years now. I remmember seeing a few years back a goggle pair that claimed to be equivalent of a 42" display or something like it.
Interesting read, but there is actually a much more basic problem with VoIP 911 calling - WHICH 911 to call? 911 is NOT a single entity. Calling 911 on your land line and your cell phone will probably route you to completely different locations.(When I needed 911, cell phone took me to Highway Patrol, where land line took me to a local call center)
Aside from that, I do not think it is that complicated if you assume that 911 location identification is not big brother imposition but something consumer actually wants. Portability is not the most usefull feature of VoIP phones. Cell phones are much more usefull for that. Most people will use VoIP in a static location, portability being usefull only when they move. Keeping that in mind, you can store a "911" profile with the VoIP provider (can use billing info by default)that gets sent to 911 operator when you call. Heck, it can be sent in the CallerID string which would require no new programming on 911 call center part (and only a little for special case on VoIP provider's part.) This also takes care of privacy nuts, as it allows you to control what gets sent to 911 center. It can also be determined from profile which 911 center to contact.
Actually what I am talking about is service like Vonage, works kinda like Instant Messenger only in hardware. You log in and it keeps connection open, caller contacts the provider IP (or to be more exact, dials you phone number, yes a regular phone number) and your phone rings. No inbound ports open, NAT prefered (allows you to use your broadband for you home PC's, and in general a good idea for security). Noone cares what your IP is, as long as you can reach the internet.
Not sure but I bet you they can (and you probably do not need ANYONE with Vonage access), but WHY? They still will not be able to call anyone outside their local network without getting a service from Vonage or someone like that.
I keep seeing people saying this as being a stumbling block to voip. I don't really understand though, is not having 911 that big of a deal? The town I grew up in didn't have it till the mid 90s and we managed to survive OK. Also, unless I am mistaken, 911 is typically linked to a regular local number. So you can just program that number into a speed dial function of your phone. While the 911 operator won't be able to pull up an address, the same is true of cell phones and I know plenty of people that have replaced their land lines with cells.
Why can't VoIP service operator give it's info to 911 same as the bell does?
And BTW, the new cell phones are now getting the "E911" service, that will triangulate your signal if you dial 911.
people don't want to have to setup hardware and software to get a service. They want it commeing from the OEMs ready to go. The fax machine was a simple matter of pluging it into the wall. WiFi is all that simple (maybe to some). A horrible comparison and overall FUD aimed at Telcos that won't work.
Actually it IS that simple with newer VoIP offerings. Simply plug into your ethernet connection and connect your analog phone(s) and you are done. you keep you phone number and to end user there is NO difference, just some added features.
A. VOIP isn't that simple. Not yet. I can't buy anything at Wal-Mart and plug it into the wall. Until it's that easy, people won't do it.
From my understanding at least Vonage uses analog telephones which you can buy in Wal-Mart (and probably already have) which plug into a little cisco box which plugs into your DSL/Cable/Broadband connection (which I believe you can also buy in Wal-Mart).
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
True, but Broadband is growing fast. Heck, everyone I know and their grandmothers (literaly) are getting it. The real catch is that this only applies to non-DSL broadband, since most Bells force you to get a phone line to install DSL onto. I do not believe you can get DSL w/o paying for a phone line.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
So it may not be for you, but many people are already paying both. So since they already pay $50/mos for broadband, paying $25 to Bell vs paying $26 to Vonage is not that different, excpet they get A LOT more from the Vonage service for their buck like 500 minutes of LD and a few pennies per minute after, Voice Mail, remote access and most importantly complete number portability (ever move 10 blocks down the street and be forced to change your phone number by the bell? I have, it sucks!)
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't
Valid point, but while land line is less and less usefull, it is still needed. Cell phone technology in US...well to put it delicately, it sucks. Every phone service I have tested had some issues here or there, dropped calls, dead zones, etc. Not a single service (tried TDMA, CDMA, GSM phones, etc) works reliably in my office which is in downtown San Francisco - not exactly middle of nowhere. That verizon dude from their ad is asking if anyone hears him for a reason - because half the time noone can!!! Sometimes I sound just like him. Once you move out of major cities most digital cell services just go dead. Still, I am way off topic. My point is that the modern land line is not competing with the cell service -its augmenting it. I want a land line so that I can get my messages for less personal calls that I do not want to be bothered with. I want my land line so that I can call my family and not pay 35 cents a minute as most cell services charge for overage. I want a land line so that my tivo and directv devices work. I want a land line for my fax machine. There are many reasons people want a land line.
-Em
BTW, I do not work for Vonage, I was just researching them to switch from my local Bell, because once again they ticked me off. So far I think their service is pretty amaizing and everyone I encountered who got the service said it was great.
I personally think the idea of expanding the existing junk fax law to include spam [iwancio2002.org] would be easier to enact (add three or four words to existing law) and easier to enforce (track down spammers for a guranteed $500 instead of just a chance at $10,000), but I'm obviously biased.
Add $500 against the advertized entity (not just the sender) and it may be a much better deal. If it will cost $500 per spam message (even if only 1 out of a 1000 claim it) it'll be a nice deterent for buying spam services. If no one is buying spam services, there are no spam services.
If I could get $500 and $500 per spam message , I can be making at least $20k a day! I should write it up into an email and send it to every email address I can find under the subject like "Make $$$$$ at home the easy way!!!!":-)
Perhaps not an unbiased opinion, but at least its based on facts.
Owning a gun saved my life (and in process took someone elses.) Like the author of the story, I own a gun, but I only got it for range shooting, because I wanted to learn. Like many Americans, I always felt fairly secure in my own home and never thought that I needed a gun for protection.
That view changes pretty fast when there is a deranged lunatic hopped up on meth breaking through your window with clearly expressed purpose of killing you and your friends. Even then, I was just trying to get myself and my friends out of the house in one piece. I grabbed the gun only because it was my only means of defence. I only shot when I had no other choice.
People say that I should be the poster child for the NRA. Not sure about that. What I am sure about is that if I did not have a gun at that moment, I'd probably be dead. And if I made one wrong decision when I was trying to find my friends(I know exactly when) I would have probably not only be dead but also have delivered an extra weapon to our attacker.
All in all what people refuse to accept is that a gun is just a tool. Like a computer or a car. It's requires responsibility in use, like a computer or a car. The lack of responsibity, taught in US under the guise of "freedom" - THAT is the cause of the Americas current state. If you think the guns should be illegal, then you should also outlaw cars, as they kill way more people then guns. And don't forget that without computers all those pesky crackers (no pun intended) could not hack into anything. So out with computers!!!!
Somewhere there, American people should learn to be responsible for their actions instead of blaming it on everyone and everything else.
That responsibility should also be applied when we allow people to buy guns. I do believe we should not just blindly give everyone guns. There must be a process to make sure the person is responsible. But that has not much to do with guns, that has to do with education.
It's kinda strange amount. If it is just $200, it will not stop any company, it's nothing. But what is $200 covering? The company? The product? A copy of a product? If it is company, how do you pin responsibility? What if organization like FSF pays $200 and assumes responsibility for all Opens Source Products using any of the OSS licenses. Would that legaly cover all open source projects?
You can allways wait untill he serves you then get a lawyer, win the case, counter sue for court costs, lawyer costs, emotional damage, and stupidity. I say if this guy is loaded, the last two worth a few mil easy:-)
I have to say, I like coming up with a cool idea and then finding out that someone has not only already came up with it, but it's already developed.... Maybe I should post my plan for world peace....
Ok, I'll start off by saying I am not familiar with Jabber, so please do not flame me if it does what I am about to describe - which is "Peer to peer IM services."
Not client P2P, but server P2P. Follow the SMTP/IRC model. Anyone, ISP, company, whomever, can set up an IM server, just like they currently set up email servers (hell, you can probably combine the two.) Your IM name is similar to email address user@server. The client logs in to their IM server (user1@server1). When they try to lookup another user (user2@server2), the server opens a connection to server2.
If done right, all connections should be SSL encypted. And no more than 2 servers involved in any conversation. Like SMTP, the client uses standard protocol to talk to server and can log into any server he has an account with. The servers talk to each other and can negotiate common set of features (again like SMTP).
Like SMTP, this model is pretty scalable, and independant of a central server/service. But unlike SMTP, it can be build to be near real time and reliable and without large legacy overhead associated with email.
Unlike IRC, there is no need to keep a large number of servers always in sync for every message. A lifespan of the message is between client1 - server1 -server2 - client2.
The protocol is open so anyone can run their own server, their own client, etc. Large company like AOL/Yahoo/etc. can sell/give away their own accounts (like email accounts now) but any ISP can easily throw in this as service. No matter who your provicer is, you can communicate with anyone.
For a large company, like the financial companies mentions, it would be easy to run an internal server that can have secure connections with their partners - one that never even has to leave private networks - like internal email or in the olden days Lotus Notes peering modem networks (anyone still remember those?) . The security implications of this alone are worth the trouble for them. And if they are concerned with logging everything, it would be as easy as logging email if they are running their own servers (I do not like this, but I am sure it will be needed).
All in all, this is not all that different from SMTP, but SMTP is aging and has too much overhead to accomplish this. But it will be duplicating much of SMTP purpose and I can even see it replacing SMTP all together.
The two biggest problems I see is a - the big guys will not like this - the only way to shove ads down your throat is to make you use THEIR service and THEIR client - and there will be no reason to. But if it gains enough momentum, it can happen. The bigger problem I forsee is SPAM. Not sure how to keep it down without compromising the whole model.
Expect it to be in the $150-$200 range. Still sounds like a good price for what it provides.
I would probably even say - expect it to be in $400-$500 range when it comes out and then drop to $150-$200 in 6 mos or so. They love to mark up new stuff like this, which I can;t say I blame them for. It makes sense because a - they have to recoup R&D costs (everyone forgets that when they count the cost of the device) and b - they know the bleeding edge junkies will shell out the money no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
No I think he covered blackholes. The spammers are just the opposite, they suck in massive amounts of people's energy and spew out lots of "anti-matter" ("matter" that does not matter).
When you combine the two, they will cancel each other out..... or if it IS more like matter-anti-matter, it will probably result in a massive explosion. Either way, worth a shot!
-Em
Actually the whole idea is awesome in potential, which is probably why it will never happen. Since day after I got my first tivo I knew that this is the future. If taken to it's logical conclusion, this means death to the concept of "channel" (and maybe even DVD sales and DSS). EVERYTHING is "on-demand pay-per-view". There is no more scheduling recordings. You can watch any movie or any episode of any show any time. You will be able to easily pay a little extra to have the same show w/o commercials. You will never have to pay for any show you do not want or watch. It will be a whole new concept of television.
Of course this is precisely why this will be fought tooth and nail. Too many companies will be obsolete by this, the TV studios will no longer need the channels to support them.
-Em
Magnifico, from what I recall. And was that not "Foundation and Empire" - not "Second foundation"?
Someone could just probably figure out how money is "stored" and just keep on replenishing. Note the card is anonymous.
If they are smart, the card only carries a serial number and the actual amount is stored elsewhere (like credit cards) Replenishing in this case is as difficult as fake-paying off a credit card bill, however there would be fraud a-funding it and b-cloning existing cards
DirecTivos can already do this. They can record one program off the digital feed and one off the analog going in the back... both at the same time.
DTiVos are not capable of recording analog signals at all (unfortunately), but they do have 2 digital sat. tuners. And since the data is already digital there is not much overhead in recording both at once. The real difficulty for TiVo is that it's AI system needs to be able to plan on using both tuners at once, which is not as easy as it sounds. Incidentally, TiVo does a pretty good job of it, but occasionaly it does silly things like recording same channel on 2 tuners at once. But nice thing about TiVo is that you get updates every now and then which fix things like that.
-Em
Umm Microsofts Ultimate TV can handle two streams, so with it you could record two shows at one. I believe it's the only system to offer this in their first version. Perhaps Tivo will have it in their next?
;-D
UltimateTV (rest in pieces)was a DirecTV only device, like DirecTivo. And like DirecTivo it had a huge advantage of being able to record the digital DirecTV stream in the native MPEG2 form. (which, BTW, means it can (and does) do Dolby Digital 5.1 on some channels). Well, since this means it is not doing MPEG encoding, the overhead for recording a show is relatively low - so they had ability to record more than one show at a time. So from the very first DirecTivo units, TiVo build the hardware to support 2 Tuners.
I think they stopped at 2 because each tuner (for technical reasons I will not go into) required a dedicated LNB (device receiving data from satelite - the "eye" of the dish) and the best available dishes at the time had only dual LNB's. Since then multi-switch technology came out allowing one dish to be used with quite a few DTV receivers, but that is another story.
While hardware was there, the early DTiVo software did not use it. Only around time UltimateTV came out, TiVo added the software to support the second DTV tuner. All DirecTiVos are now capable of recording 2 shows at same time.
To make things nicer, an additional reciever charge from DTV is $5 regardless of the type of device, and you do not have to pay extra subscription charge for 2nd and on DTiVos (DTiVo's subscription is $4.99 per month regardless of number of DTiVo's per household or free if you order their top of the line package).
Further, even the identical DirecTiVo models are able to coexist in same room with unique remote control codes (up to 9 devices for most, plus 3 for sony, which uses different codes)
So, theoretically you can build a home system with 12 DTiVos (9 phillips, 3 Sony) with total of 24 tuners between them recording perfect DTV quality for the hardware price of the units ($200-$400 each) plus multiswitch(s) (who knows, probably $100-$300 total) plus one DTV subscription ($35-$87 per month depending on channels)plus 5x11=$55 per month for extra receivers (I wonder if DirecTV will freak out if you asked for 11 additional receivers).
Now, good luck figuring out which show goes on which TiVo though. Plus you'd probably want to invest in quite a few JP1 universal remotes
-Em
Oh no!! not only is my cpu obsolete so is my monitor!! Next time i am buying a laptop.
....so that you do not have to wait so long for it to be obsolete? ;-)
-EE
After a quick research - they were made by Sony called Glasstron Goggles PLM-A35/55 but seem to be out of production now. At one point they also anounced support for macs.
With orginal link removed from existance and google cache not keeping pictures - how is this different from the screen goggles sold for quiet a few years now. I remmember seeing a few years back a goggle pair that claimed to be equivalent of a 42" display or something like it.
These are not applications that really require an OS. Some good firmware is all you need.
What's the diffrence between complex enough firmware handling multiple tasks and an embedded OS?? Oh yeah - NAME.
So why can't I write my own BIOS (or mod some other BIOS) that will provide a known good signature regardless of the OS booted?
Interesting read, but there is actually a much more basic problem with VoIP 911 calling - WHICH 911 to call? 911 is NOT a single entity. Calling 911 on your land line and your cell phone will probably route you to completely different locations.(When I needed 911, cell phone took me to Highway Patrol, where land line took me to a local call center)
Aside from that, I do not think it is that complicated if you assume that 911 location identification is not big brother imposition but something consumer actually wants. Portability is not the most usefull feature of VoIP phones. Cell phones are much more usefull for that. Most people will use VoIP in a static location, portability being usefull only when they move. Keeping that in mind, you can store a "911" profile with the VoIP provider (can use billing info by default)that gets sent to 911 operator when you call. Heck, it can be sent in the CallerID string which would require no new programming on 911 call center part (and only a little for special case on VoIP provider's part.)
This also takes care of privacy nuts, as it allows you to control what gets sent to 911 center. It can also be determined from profile which 911 center to contact.
-Em
Actually what I am talking about is service like Vonage, works kinda like Instant Messenger only in hardware. You log in and it keeps connection open, caller contacts the provider IP (or to be more exact, dials you phone number, yes a regular phone number) and your phone rings. No inbound ports open, NAT prefered (allows you to use your broadband for you home PC's, and in general a good idea for security). Noone cares what your IP is, as long as you can reach the internet.
-Em
Not sure but I bet you they can (and you probably do not need ANYONE with Vonage access), but WHY? They still will not be able to call anyone outside their local network without getting a service from Vonage or someone like that.
-Em
I keep seeing people saying this as being a stumbling block to voip. I don't really understand though, is not having 911 that big of a deal? The town I grew up in didn't have it till the mid 90s and we managed to survive OK. Also, unless I am mistaken, 911 is typically linked to a regular local number. So you can just program that number into a speed dial function of your phone. While the 911 operator won't be able to pull up an address, the same is true of cell phones and I know plenty of people that have replaced their land lines with cells.
Why can't VoIP service operator give it's info to 911 same as the bell does?
And BTW, the new cell phones are now getting the "E911" service, that will triangulate your signal if you dial 911.
-Em
people don't want to have to setup hardware and software to get a service. They want it commeing from the OEMs ready to go. The fax machine was a simple matter of pluging it into the wall. WiFi is all that simple (maybe to some). A horrible comparison and overall FUD aimed at Telcos that won't work.
Actually it IS that simple with newer VoIP offerings. Simply plug into your ethernet connection and connect your analog phone(s) and you are done. you keep you phone number and to end user there is NO difference, just some added features.
A. VOIP isn't that simple. Not yet. I can't buy anything at Wal-Mart and plug it into the wall. Until it's that easy, people won't do it.
From my understanding at least Vonage uses analog telephones which you can buy in Wal-Mart (and probably already have) which plug into a little cisco box which plugs into your DSL/Cable/Broadband connection (which I believe you can also buy in Wal-Mart).
B. You need broadband. Broadband is far from ubiquitous, and will probably remain so for a good while until customers (such as myself) see a real need for it.
True, but Broadband is growing fast. Heck, everyone I know and their grandmothers (literaly) are getting it. The real catch is that this only applies to non-DSL broadband, since most Bells force you to get a phone line to install DSL onto. I do not believe you can get DSL w/o paying for a phone line.
C. My options now are to pay $50/month for broadband plus some amount for software and hardware, or pay $25/month for phone service plus $5 for a phone.
So it may not be for you, but many people are already paying both. So since they already pay $50/mos for broadband, paying $25 to Bell vs paying $26 to Vonage is not that different, excpet they get A LOT more from the Vonage service for their buck like 500 minutes of LD and a few pennies per minute after, Voice Mail, remote access and most importantly complete number portability (ever move 10 blocks down the street and be forced to change your phone number by the bell? I have, it sucks!)
D. VOIP is moot as cell phones are becoming increasingly better and cheaper. I can call anyone in the country from anywhere in the country as part of the minutes I buy every month. Why would I want to step backwards to be tied down to a land line (ie: Net connection)? I don't
Valid point, but while land line is less and less usefull, it is still needed. Cell phone technology in US...well to put it delicately, it sucks. Every phone service I have tested had some issues here or there, dropped calls, dead zones, etc. Not a single service (tried TDMA, CDMA, GSM phones, etc) works reliably in my office which is in downtown San Francisco - not exactly middle of nowhere. That verizon dude from their ad is asking if anyone hears him for a reason - because half the time noone can!!! Sometimes I sound just like him. Once you move out of major cities most digital cell services just go dead. Still, I am way off topic. My point is that the modern land line is not competing with the cell service -its augmenting it. I want a land line so that I can get my messages for less personal calls that I do not want to be bothered with. I want my land line so that I can call my family and not pay 35 cents a minute as most cell services charge for overage. I want a land line so that my tivo and directv devices work. I want a land line for my fax machine. There are many reasons people want a land line.
-Em
BTW, I do not work for Vonage, I was just researching them to switch from my local Bell, because once again they ticked me off. So far I think their service is pretty amaizing and everyone I encountered who got the service said it was great.
I personally think the idea of expanding the existing junk fax law to include spam [iwancio2002.org] would be easier to enact (add three or four words to existing law) and easier to enforce (track down spammers for a guranteed $500 instead of just a chance at $10,000), but I'm obviously biased.
:-)
Add $500 against the advertized entity (not just the sender) and it may be a much better deal. If it will cost $500 per spam message (even if only 1 out of a 1000 claim it) it'll be a nice deterent for buying spam services. If no one is buying spam services, there are no spam services.
If I could get $500 and $500 per spam message , I can be making at least $20k a day! I should write it up into an email and send it to every email address I can find under the subject like "Make $$$$$ at home the easy way!!!!"
-H
Perhaps not an unbiased opinion, but at least its based on facts.
Owning a gun saved my life (and in process took someone elses.) Like the author of the story, I own a gun, but I only got it for range shooting, because I wanted to learn. Like many Americans, I always felt fairly secure in my own home and never thought that I needed a gun for protection.
That view changes pretty fast when there is a deranged lunatic hopped up on meth breaking through your window with clearly expressed purpose of killing you and your friends. Even then, I was just trying to get myself and my friends out of the house in one piece. I grabbed the gun only because it was my only means of defence. I only shot when I had no other choice.
People say that I should be the poster child for the NRA. Not sure about that. What I am sure about is that if I did not have a gun at that moment, I'd probably be dead. And if I made one wrong decision when I was trying to find my friends(I know exactly when) I would have probably not only be dead but also have delivered an extra weapon to our attacker.
All in all what people refuse to accept is that a gun is just a tool. Like a computer or a car. It's requires responsibility in use, like a computer or a car. The lack of responsibity, taught in US under the guise of "freedom" - THAT is the cause of the Americas current state. If you think the guns should be illegal, then you should also outlaw cars, as they kill way more people then guns. And don't forget that without computers all those pesky crackers (no pun intended) could not hack into anything. So out with computers!!!!
Somewhere there, American people should learn to be responsible for their actions instead of blaming it on everyone and everything else.
That responsibility should also be applied when we allow people to buy guns. I do believe we should not just blindly give everyone guns. There must be a process to make sure the person is responsible. But that has not much to do with guns, that has to do with education.
-H
Well, the article is about as insightful as a "first-post" troll but I absolutely loved the BestBuy TiVo ad at the end.
-Em
It's kinda strange amount. If it is just $200, it will not stop any company, it's nothing. But what is $200 covering? The company? The product? A copy of a product? If it is company, how do you pin responsibility? What if organization like FSF pays $200 and assumes responsibility for all Opens Source Products using any of the OSS licenses. Would that legaly cover all open source projects?
-Em
...look at this as an opportunity.
:-)
You can allways wait untill he serves you then get a lawyer, win the case, counter sue for court costs, lawyer costs, emotional damage, and stupidity. I say if this guy is loaded, the last two worth a few mil easy
-Em
The protocol is completely open, it's 100% XML.
I am drooling already.
I have to say, I like coming up with a cool idea and then finding out that someone has not only already came up with it, but it's already developed.... Maybe I should post my plan for world peace....
Off to download jabberd.
-Em
Ok, I'll start off by saying I am not familiar with Jabber, so please do not flame me if it does what I am about to describe - which is "Peer to peer IM services."
Not client P2P, but server P2P. Follow the SMTP/IRC model. Anyone, ISP, company, whomever, can set up an IM server, just like they currently set up email servers (hell, you can probably combine the two.) Your IM name is similar to email address user@server. The client logs in to their IM server (user1@server1). When they try to lookup another user (user2@server2), the server opens a connection to server2.
If done right, all connections should be SSL encypted. And no more than 2 servers involved in any conversation. Like SMTP, the client uses standard protocol to talk to server and can log into any server he has an account with. The servers talk to each other and can negotiate common set of features (again like SMTP).
Like SMTP, this model is pretty scalable, and independant of a central server/service. But unlike SMTP, it can be build to be near real time and reliable and without large legacy overhead associated with email.
Unlike IRC, there is no need to keep a large number of servers always in sync for every message. A lifespan of the message is between client1 - server1 -server2 - client2.
The protocol is open so anyone can run their own server, their own client, etc. Large company like AOL/Yahoo/etc. can sell/give away their own accounts (like email accounts now) but any ISP can easily throw in this as service. No matter who your provicer is, you can communicate with anyone.
For a large company, like the financial companies mentions, it would be easy to run an internal server that can have secure connections with their partners - one that never even has to leave private networks - like internal email or in the olden days Lotus Notes peering modem networks (anyone still remember those?) . The security implications of this alone are worth the trouble for them. And if they are concerned with logging everything, it would be as easy as logging email if they are running their own servers (I do not like this, but I am sure it will be needed).
All in all, this is not all that different from SMTP, but SMTP is aging and has too much overhead to accomplish this. But it will be duplicating much of SMTP purpose and I can even see it replacing SMTP all together.
The two biggest problems I see is a - the big guys will not like this - the only way to shove ads down your throat is to make you use THEIR service and THEIR client - and there will be no reason to. But if it gains enough momentum, it can happen. The bigger problem I forsee is SPAM. Not sure how to keep it down without compromising the whole model.
It's my dream, what do ya think?
-Em
Expect it to be in the $150-$200 range. Still sounds like a good price for what it provides.
I would probably even say - expect it to be in $400-$500 range when it comes out and then drop to $150-$200 in 6 mos or so. They love to mark up new stuff like this, which I can;t say I blame them for. It makes sense because a - they have to recoup R&D costs (everyone forgets that when they count the cost of the device) and b - they know the bleeding edge junkies will shell out the money no matter what.