They know the numbers that they assigned to that line that the call is coming from. Anything not in the DID list shouldn't complete that call on that line.
While a cell phone number might be a legit callback number for that person the phone company providing the T1 doesn't know your cell number. At this point any call outgoing should send the caller id information to be able to call back on that number. Spoofing has been abused too much. Same with email address spoofing. Both have legit uses but their abuses outweigh the usefulness.
Exactly ipv4 needed address extension and simplification. People have a hard enough time understanding VLANs and subnets. Let alone trying to figure out how to calculate how much I can works.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about IPv6 proponents. They go all crazy defensive if you criticize anything about their protocol, even when the criticism is fair. I haven't seen anything from you that isn't fair and I have seen the opposite from jd.
It's a fact that IPv6 is much more complicated than IPv4.I would have just made a new protocol that corrected IPv4's mistakes, addresses would be 64bit long and used CIDR notation. Broadcast would have been kept since it's stupid simple to use the last address, with all FF's for the MAC. DHCP would still exist and would be the main way for a dynamic addresses would be assigned Dhcpv6 has a cool feature, a router can request to get a routable subnet.
IPv6 has two main mistakes. Trying to do too much for the layer it is in the network stack, and not learning from past mistakes.
What hardware concerns does IPv6 actually address? Far as I can tell it was created without too much concern for hardware. 128 bits for example. Most cpu's are going to have to use multiple cpu cycles. Due to registers being 32/64 bit (not including simd extensions.) These aren't really a concern considering how fast our computers are and that networking gear has special processors.
IPv6 fails in a few areas that some people refuse to even acknowledge. If they wanted IPv6 to be successful they would have kept it simple. For example getting rid of broadcast in favor or multicast. Another is the complete waste of addresses, each of my interfaces gets multiple/64 and then assigns the rest of the 64bit (randomly or from the mac address) if we were going to waste that many address we should have just stuck with 64bit.
64 bit addresses would have hit all the boxes of needs that ipv6 provides. BGP routes not taking up so much memory and being simpler globally. Every device being able to reasonably have it's own globally unique address.(Not every device needs a unique address) 128 bits is stupidly large, 33 bits for example is double the size of 32 bits. For each bit we are doubling.
IPv6 fails because they didn't think to make it simple. Embedded devices need to be simple, not every manufacturer is going to pay for the best programmers. I've dealt with too many "modems/routers" that barely understood ipv4 let alone ipv6.
IPxl if implemented could work. I see it as the same hack that UTF8 uses. It faces the same exact problem the IPv6 faces, Software/hardware would have to be upgraded. IPxl could then take the good stuff such as prefix delegation. (We are keeping dhcp and arp)
Chrome used to be this before Google bought doubleclick, then everything changed. Well maybe not memory efficient.
Seriously ad's can't get through if you block a few javascript API's. Javascript can't do anything without certain API's and access to the DOM. We know what API's/DOM get abused, lets create ways of letting users easily block those. Website abuses contextmenu functions. Let me block that easily.
Google even had it in their comics about how a popup would be minimized to the corner and required a user to drag it out before it would even render. Blocked a ton of annoying ad's. That is until Doubleclick was purchased.
It's annoyed me so much I even found the point that they refactored the code. I don't have the time or the understanding of the greater codebase to create a patch to add those features back in.
How is airbnb or many of these other startups tech companies?
Sure they use technology, but so does the grocery store down the street. Should we start labeling grocery stores as tech companies that have websites? If your main product isn't technology and instead you use some inhouse custom built website/app to sell some other product or service then your company isn't a tech company but a company that uses tech to enable your business model.
Lyft/uber/airbnb/ aren't tech companies They are something else. I wish they would stop masquerading.
Tesla autopilot is the roomba of self driving cars. It's enough to generate interest in self driving cars and will spur more development till we have something more intelligent.The roomba would blindly go in circles but now we have vacuum cleaners that scan the room and create optimal paths.
iMessage was a fix to a price issue, a political issue, and a control issue.
If cell phone companies weren't charging so much for something that should be free Apple would have had less incentive to come up with a solution that worked around them.
We should have extended sms/mms to include encryption and for it to be free worldwide. Instead we get a bunch of solutions that don't work with one another.
What is your deal? I've seen you post this comment almost word for word on various other sites.
You've got some good points. But a lot of your argument doesn't seem to be about those points. Your argument seems to mostly have a emotional basis to it. As if you don't like the company/ies involved for whatever reason that you don't seem to be saying.
T-Mobile just has to maintain the cdma network for a little while. Years perhaps. Customer and hardware turnover will get customers onto hspa/lte compatible hardware. A lot of MetroPCS customers already have lte compatible devices. From the google search I see that it's hardware that's able to handle VoLTE. T-Mobile can make a push to improve the lte coverage and current MetroPCS hardware will be able to work without the cdma network. In the meantime they can continue to roam onto sprints network.
The maintenance of four different networks isn't really even a big deal. With the tower equipment that T-Mobile is using and deploying is capable of running all four with either a software update or very little hardware changes. I feel that you are also being a bit disingenuous with this argument since 2GSM UMTS/HSPA and LTE are in the 3gsm family and were designed to do handoffs with each other, cdma and lte were not so much.
As for the FCC requirements you don't actually know that the fcc is going to do that. The last few years it's been the two big dogs that have been making acquisitions. Those are different stories and I wouldn't use them as examples for a company the size of the new T-Mobile. If the new T-Mobile does indeed have to give up some spectrum we won't and don't know how much.
The technical issues you listed just don't seem to be that big of an issue. This is a business move. This is about combining two companies for the synergies. The real winner here is Deutsche Telekom. Which can sell off stock slowly from the newly formed company.
You're real reasons really show through when you decided to use that last sentence "This is a terrible, terrible, idea, and the people behind it are terrible, terrible, people." So again I ask. What's your deal?
Slashdot Mirror
They know the numbers that they assigned to that line that the call is coming from. Anything not in the DID list shouldn't complete that call on that line.
While a cell phone number might be a legit callback number for that person the phone company providing the T1 doesn't know your cell number. At this point any call outgoing should send the caller id information to be able to call back on that number. Spoofing has been abused too much. Same with email address spoofing. Both have legit uses but their abuses outweigh the usefulness.
Exactly ipv4 needed address extension and simplification. People have a hard enough time understanding VLANs and subnets. Let alone trying to figure out how to calculate how much I can works.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about IPv6 proponents. They go all crazy defensive if you criticize anything about their protocol, even when the criticism is fair. I haven't seen anything from you that isn't fair and I have seen the opposite from jd.
It's a fact that IPv6 is much more complicated than IPv4.I would have just made a new protocol that corrected IPv4's mistakes, addresses would be 64bit long and used CIDR notation. Broadcast would have been kept since it's stupid simple to use the last address, with all FF's for the MAC. DHCP would still exist and would be the main way for a dynamic addresses would be assigned Dhcpv6 has a cool feature, a router can request to get a routable subnet.
IPv6 has two main mistakes. Trying to do too much for the layer it is in the network stack, and not learning from past mistakes.
No it's not.
Don't confuse a reasonable wanting with unreasonable wanting.
Multiple phones can have the same phone number. They just go in a round robin or another configuration. Zero need to spoof the number.
There are very very few legit uses of spoofing caller id and it shouldn't be generally allowed.
Trolling is just being mean and using those reasons as excuses are very bad excuses for being mean.
I guess I am asking too much.
Trolling by definition is not useful. It may be informative but there are much better ways of getting information through.
Trolling is just being an asshole to someone else online.
SMB is always running even if you turn off filesharing it's still there \\pcname\c$ will take you to that computers c drive.
Patch please
ZFS and any fs with the Copy on write feature should introduce a hinting api to rsync. That what the fs that knows what's changed can let rsync know.
What hardware concerns does IPv6 actually address? Far as I can tell it was created without too much concern for hardware. 128 bits for example. Most cpu's are going to have to use multiple cpu cycles. Due to registers being 32/64 bit (not including simd extensions.) These aren't really a concern considering how fast our computers are and that networking gear has special processors.
IPv6 fails in a few areas that some people refuse to even acknowledge. If they wanted IPv6 to be successful they would have kept it simple. For example getting rid of broadcast in favor or multicast. Another is the complete waste of addresses, each of my interfaces gets multiple /64 and then assigns the rest of the 64bit (randomly or from the mac address) if we were going to waste that many address we should have just stuck with 64bit.
64 bit addresses would have hit all the boxes of needs that ipv6 provides. BGP routes not taking up so much memory and being simpler globally. Every device being able to reasonably have it's own globally unique address.(Not every device needs a unique address) 128 bits is stupidly large, 33 bits for example is double the size of 32 bits. For each bit we are doubling.
IPv6 fails because they didn't think to make it simple. Embedded devices need to be simple, not every manufacturer is going to pay for the best programmers. I've dealt with too many "modems/routers" that barely understood ipv4 let alone ipv6.
IPxl if implemented could work. I see it as the same hack that UTF8 uses. It faces the same exact problem the IPv6 faces, Software/hardware would have to be upgraded. IPxl could then take the good stuff such as prefix delegation. (We are keeping dhcp and arp)
Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they also don't have an understanding.
It just means they disagree with you.
I don't think it's lazy, It's just that many of the good names are being squated on.
Squatters are a huge problem on the internet and should have been put a stop to in the beginning.
Bindings for nodejs doesn't mean those bindings are in the browser.
I am not sure what the purpose of binding libusb if you can run your own code on the computer. Just run native code.
Chrome used to be this before Google bought doubleclick, then everything changed. Well maybe not memory efficient.
Seriously ad's can't get through if you block a few javascript API's. Javascript can't do anything without certain API's and access to the DOM. We know what API's/DOM get abused, lets create ways of letting users easily block those. Website abuses contextmenu functions. Let me block that easily.
Google even had it in their comics about how a popup would be minimized to the corner and required a user to drag it out before it would even render. Blocked a ton of annoying ad's. That is until Doubleclick was purchased.
It's annoyed me so much I even found the point that they refactored the code. I don't have the time or the understanding of the greater codebase to create a patch to add those features back in.
How is airbnb or many of these other startups tech companies?
Sure they use technology, but so does the grocery store down the street. Should we start labeling grocery stores as tech companies that have websites? If your main product isn't technology and instead you use some inhouse custom built website/app to sell some other product or service then your company isn't a tech company but a company that uses tech to enable your business model.
Lyft/uber/airbnb/ aren't tech companies They are something else. I wish they would stop masquerading.
No you can't remove the dots. You can however turn it into a number after doing a little math for each section.
Tesla autopilot is the roomba of self driving cars. It's enough to generate interest in self driving cars and will spur more development till we have something more intelligent.The roomba would blindly go in circles but now we have vacuum cleaners that scan the room and create optimal paths.
It's a step in the correct direction.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but a golf ball hitting a windshield going at highway speeds could cause quite the crash and potential death.
Better safe then sorry.
Then the rest do subpar work or are looking for another job.
Moral in a company is very important more so then just someone's cert lasping.
Older versions do. Apple has switched over to PF.
iMessage was a fix to a price issue, a political issue, and a control issue.
If cell phone companies weren't charging so much for something that should be free Apple would have had less incentive to come up with a solution that worked around them.
We should have extended sms/mms to include encryption and for it to be free worldwide. Instead we get a bunch of solutions that don't work with one another.
What is your deal? I've seen you post this comment almost word for word on various other sites.
You've got some good points. But a lot of your argument doesn't seem to be about those points. Your argument seems to mostly have a emotional basis to it. As if you don't like the company/ies involved for whatever reason that you don't seem to be saying.
T-Mobile just has to maintain the cdma network for a little while. Years perhaps. Customer and hardware turnover will get customers onto hspa/lte compatible hardware. A lot of MetroPCS customers already have lte compatible devices. From the google search I see that it's hardware that's able to handle VoLTE. T-Mobile can make a push to improve the lte coverage and current MetroPCS hardware will be able to work without the cdma network. In the meantime they can continue to roam onto sprints network.
The maintenance of four different networks isn't really even a big deal. With the tower equipment that T-Mobile is using and deploying is capable of running all four with either a software update or very little hardware changes. I feel that you are also being a bit disingenuous with this argument since 2GSM UMTS/HSPA and LTE are in the 3gsm family and were designed to do handoffs with each other, cdma and lte were not so much.
As for the FCC requirements you don't actually know that the fcc is going to do that. The last few years it's been the two big dogs that have been making acquisitions. Those are different stories and I wouldn't use them as examples for a company the size of the new T-Mobile. If the new T-Mobile does indeed have to give up some spectrum we won't and don't know how much.
The technical issues you listed just don't seem to be that big of an issue. This is a business move. This is about combining two companies for the synergies. The real winner here is Deutsche Telekom. Which can sell off stock slowly from the newly formed company.
You're real reasons really show through when you decided to use that last sentence "This is a terrible, terrible, idea, and the people behind it are terrible, terrible, people." So again I ask. What's your deal?
The ram maxes out at 4GB per process. Not per system. LPAE allows memory to be addressed up to 40bits
Serial ports may not be fast but they are very useful for low bandwidth tasks. One I use all the time is for console.
39/3.9 Buying t mobile is about ten times more expensive then just upgrading the network. Not 1/4