You must not have read the whole post. What is utterly ridiculous here is how Blizard is not abiding by their own EULA.
Say you bought WoW and decided you really didn't like it, so you sold it to your friend. Assume no copies made and everything is done according to the EULA. You have no intention of playing again, and your friend wants to use your old copy to play himself. When he activates his, your account should be disabled. Problem solved.
What is happening here is like the RIAA saying you can buy the CD from the store, when you are done with it you can sell it to a friend or a used CD store, but they still won't be able to listen to it.
Blizard is in the wrong here. If they did not want people selling/giving their old copies to others, they should not have allowed it according to the EULA. The OP is not asking to have a second account active on the same CD key, he is asking to have a single account active on the CD key, with the old one being disabled.
This is the attitude that causes the problem. The left lane is the "passing lane" not the "fast lane." Legally, if you are in the passing lane, that same 65 MPH speed limit applies just as much as if you were in the "slow lane."
Assume a 65 MPH 2 lane (each direction) interstate for the example for simplicity. If a car is doing 64.5 MPH in the right lane, I have every legal right to pass them at 65 MPH in the passing lane. If I were to even speed up to 66 in order to pass faster, technically that is breaking the law. What I should legally do if the other car speeds up is slow down enough to allow the car to pass, and then change back into the right lane behind them.
My comment is probably meant more toward the parent, but your post adds fuel to the fire. Probably one of my pet peves is impatient drivers that break the law with this attitude: "they won't even get out of your way if you honk your horn or flash your lights as you quickly come up behind them." What right do they have to try to intimidate other drivers around them into breaking the law by speeding up to get out of their way? None whatsoever. I would argue against your point that it is the slow drivers that cause these people to get into accidents by saying if these people learned patience and courtesy on the road, and kept their road rage in check, they would be able to handle the occasional slow driver without accidents.
With all that being said regarding agressive drivers, my personal opinion is that speed itself is not a cause of accidents. I feel that speed should be a guideline that is safe and prudent for the conditions. That 65MPH speed limit should usually be at least 75 during non-peak traffic times, but much, much slower when traffic and weather are bad. I believe we should remove pure speed laws and go purely to a reckless style driving style of enforcement. I don't care if Joe Hotrod is running 85 down the freeway when there are few cars on the road. But if he is swerving between lanes and causing a hazard to other drivers in doing so, that is where he should get a ticket. Unfortunately the speed trap is a very lucrative method of revenue generation for the agencies that run them, so that isn't going to change any time soon.
Long and short of it is the laws are currently there, and they need to be followed by everyone, whether you are 5 minutes late getting to the sports bar for the Superbowl party or not.
I see your point. On the other hand, if "what you know" is simply to stay just above that "does more harm to keep than to fire" line, then it still holds true. You are correct though that once in, you are generally always in.
The first point of the phrase is a lot more relevant than the last. It is more so about who you know than what you know.
"It is who you know that gets you in the door. It is what you know that keeps you there."
My biggest advice to high school students is to get out and meet people. Meet and get to know as many people as you can. You never know when you may be talking to someone about something you'd like to do, and get "Hey, a friend of mine does that, I'll get you two in touch" as a response.
For the next part of it, you do need to know what you are talking about. You may meet (through a friend) someone who gets you into your dream position, but what happens if you can't fit that role? Yup, the proverbial pink slip. Learn as much as you can about as many things that interest you as possible. That way if (when) you do get that opportunity of a lifetime, you aren't scrambling to figure out how to do it. If you have a good solid base of knowledge to back it up with, you only have to learn the details.
Sure, I had a crummy after-school job when I was in high school, but even literally to this day, a couple of the people I worked with are some of the best business relationships I have.
Bad advice. The only way to know is to test it periodically. Call your local non-emergency police department number and tell them you would like to test your phone line to ensure 911 calls will go through properly. They will advise you to how they like to handle it. If you don't follow their instructions, sure, you may be subject to a fine, but as long as you do what they tell you to do, then you won't have to worry.
In my area, they just tell you to call during an odd time in the afternoon or morning, not peak driving and evening hours. They tell you to immediately tell the operator it is a test call, and you are set.
Keep in mind that is in my local area, and it can vary district to discrict. EMS operators are there to ensure you are safe and covered in the event you need them, and as long as you aren't abusive, they are more than happy to take a test call now and then.
I don't see how it is a problem to use a street address as an SSID. If somebody wants to figure out what house the AP is in, all it takes is a Pringles can (or less) and a couple dollars in parts. They can then look at the numbers on the front of the house, and they have the exact same information as before. I know what house every AP in my neighborhood belongs to, without even using directional antennas. I have spoken with their owners (was helping resolve interference problems in the neighborhood) and confirmed my guesses. If you don't want anyone finding out what house has the wireless AP, you probably shouldn't use wireless equipment in that house.
Using the address, or a phone number, or even both as I do, makes it very easy to get in contact with the owner should the need arise. If an AP is malfunctioning or misconfigured and is causing interference, the owner should be contacted and informed.
The other reason I have my phone number in mine is because if someone else wants to use it, they can. I don't want Johnny Scriptkiddy driving through and screwing with it. But if a neighbor has a guest staying who wants to use my wireless, that is fine. Long and short of it, if someone has the decency to call and ask permission, I will give them my WPA key. My AP is on a separate subnet and requires VPN to access my wired network, so I don't mind giving local people access. Without VPN, all they can do is browse the web and check e-mail.
No matter how you look at it, using wireless has some risks to it. The best way the average home user can protect themselves is to enable WEP (or WPA if available) and lock down the MAC addresses. Using an accurate and descriptive SSID is not a risk, and can actually be very helpfull. Turning off SSID broadcast does absolutely no good and can cause additional problems.
Advanced users and corporate users obviously have more options available to them, but out-of-the-box configuration options are adequate for home users as long as they configure them.
Look at the context. In a shopping mall, you walk up to a store with a door closed. It is safe to assume that if the door is unlocked it is OK to enter. Obviously if a CLOSED sign or similar message is present, it is not.
Now look in an apartment building. Is it OK for you to assume that you can step inside any apartment that is not locked? Of course not.
I am not saying that a lock is not an authentication method. All I am saying is computers placed in the open on the Internet should assume they will be treated as a business, people will try to gain access and move on if not allowed. They should not expect that people usually won't even try as in a residential building.
The Internet has historicaly been an open network, where you specifically lock people out if you don't want them there. If people attempt to circumvent that lock, then that line is crossed and we are on a
>> >> The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked.
>> Is this a legal ruling, or just how we would want it to be?
It is how the Internet was designed, open. No, there is no legal ruling, and yes it is how we would like it to be. But it has always had open standards and open access in mind.
>> Do things like the sassar worm change this? Do they have implicit access to your computer? How about a web indexing robot? What are the rules as to what does or does not have implicit access.
See the worm example changes things. The worm is not just entering and browsing, a worm is doing damage. It is illegal to walk into a book store and tear up pages out of a book, or spray paint on the fur coat. Even if you had the right to enter a store, it doesn't give you the right to committ a crime just because you can walk in.
Web spiders and robots are allowed. There is a standard practice to add a robots.txt file to tell them whether or not they are welcome, and further define their access. As long as they are following those standards-based rules, they are fine. Now the ones that ignore the rule file placed there for them are basically refusing to leave a property after being told to leave.
>> If you are walking down a street and see a building with a door in it. Have you been implicitly granted access to the inside of that building? It's not a simple yes or no answer. It depends on several factors, is it a business area, are there signs advertising something (and what is the wording on the signs), and so on.
That is exactly what I was saying. The Internet, historicaly, has been like a business district. You can walk in and browse as long as you are not locked out or told specifically not to enter by the management.
>> I am not saying the ruling is how we want it, but we do end up living with the legal rulings and not just how we would like them.
I agree as well. What irks me is these people are trying to enforce physical world laws and rules on a non-compatable medium. I can put up a web page that says you can't spam me or I will charge you $500 per spam message. Would that be enforcable if they use SMTP to spam me rather than my web mail interface? Probably not. How would you put up a "No Trespassing" sign on your mail server other than locking everyone out completely? That is why the foolishness of applying physical world laws to the electronic world is just plain silly.
Yes, I use physical world laws as examples, but that just goes to show that most everything in the digital world can be interpreted against several conflicting laws. Basically, if they want to ban it in the digital world, there needs to be a specific rule set, not selectively choosing laws that were not meant to cover it.
There are those that argue that we do not need more laws, just to enforce what is already in place. For things like copyright, that is correct. We don't need the DMCA in order to enforce the **AA's ownership of the "arts." But in cases where the existing law does not realistically apply, there is room for improvement.
I would say it is more equivilant to knocking on your door, and you answering. Then you decide based on whether or not you know the person as to whether or not they gain access.
When you are using FTP for example, you log in by telling the server who you are. It either allows access or denies it. Now you, as the server owner, can choose to set up an account to allow anonymous users to gain access, but that is completely up to you.
Web browsing could be arguably more similar to your example, but as others have already said, the Internet is more like a shopping mall than a residential neighborhood People (correctly so, in my opinion) assume they can go into any store they desire untill told otherwise. If you put a server on the Internet with a public IP, you are placing it there with the knowledge that people will be trying to access it. If you don't want them there, it is your responsibility to prevent the access. If you don't want them trying, then you should not have the system out in the public.
If you password protect or encrypt the resource, and they circumvent it, that is no different than picking a lock to enter a closed or private store and should be considered illegal. But if you don't have a closed sign visible to the public via the same means they are using to approach the store, you can't hardly blame them for trying to open the door to see if it is locked.
The Internet is the same way. If you don't want me even trying to log into your FTP, you need to place a "(un)welcome" message on there telling me so. If your server simply asks for the username, people are going to try to log in using the standard user/pass combinations for open systems, anonymous or ftp with their e-mail address as the password.
People trying to slap physical world laws and examples on the Internet need to consider the scope before doing so. The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked. Your example of the lock on a residential home is in a completely different scope, one where access is not assumed unless specifically given.
Just get another VoIP service like NuFone with a toll-free number for local people. I pay $1.9 cents per minute for toll-free calls and no monthly fee. I use Broadvoice for my local outbound calling, and Nufone for outbound long-distance and inbound toll-free. I only give my toll-free to friends and family, I figure telemarketers and other people can call long-distance if they want to call me. It has really cut down the junk calls!
Most access points I have seen default to 6. I wanted to be as far away from that as I could, so I picked 11. When I got my new PDA, I noticed the signal strength was unacceptable over most of my house, and determined it was due to the addition of 2 other APs, same channel.
Knowing the only discrete channels are basically only 1,6, and 11, I then changed mine to 1, hoping to avoid both 11 and the default of 6. I got a new access point a few weeks ago (went from 802.11b to g) and when configuring it noticed there was another AP on 1 now.
So now I'm running on 6, which I don't like, because for the time being it is the only discrete channel available. I am working now to try to coordinate between my neighbors and I to go to the 1,4,8,11 scheme due to lack of available options. From what I have read, even there is some overlap between channels, it is so little in actual use that is is fine.
It just gets back to my point. An AP should not allow itself to be set to a channel that is already in use, unless it warns the user and they accept it.
You could stretch this analogy (best one I've seen yet, by the way) to the next level with open shares.
Open Desktop (OD):...Files, files to share... Files, files to share...
Wardrivers's Laptop (WL): Oh, hello there Mr. Open Desktop. Do you have any files I can have?
OD: Well, I was told "everybody" should have access to it, so here is a list of what I have.
WL: That is a pretty nice list there. How about that MS Money file you have, may I please have a copy of it, kind sir?
OD: Just like the list, I was told "everybody" can read it, so let me send it on over.
WL: Thank you very much, be safe.
By that same analogy, the Windoze XP desktop is giving literally "Everybody" full rights to the shares that are turned on. Scarry thing is, that is the default way for the files to be shared. If I recall correctly, Windows 2000 gave read-only rights to everybody, but that is still just as bad.
While I don't sympathize with the crackers that are using the data available to them for less-than-good purposes, I don't feel very sorry for the people who set up open access to their systems. Wireless, and really computers in general to some degree, are advanced technological devices, and should not be used unless the user possesses enough understanding about what they are doing.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Grandma using her computer to type letters and surf the Internet. More power to her. But she should have someone who knows what they are doing set up her Internet access for her so that they ensure she is as safe as possible from the threats that are present. Would Grandma go buy a natural gas or propane fireplace and try to install it herself? Of course not. She hires someone qualified (and in this case, certified) to do it.
The same thing should go with Wireless access. People that have no concept of security, or even configuration are taking these things home and plugging them in. They have no regard for any other access points running in the area, and have a very good chance of interfering with other people. They run with not even basic security enabled at all, yet they are part of the group that is the first to cry foul when somebody has some "valuable" data taken.
I've had to change the channel I had been running mine on for several months in order to get away from people who had just set theirs up on the same channel as mine. I even went to them to see if they minded changing their channel (there ended up being 3 of us on the same channel within a 5 house radius) and they basically said "I don't know anything about that," and refused my offer to help them or do it for them. I just changed my channel and let the two of them keep interfering with each other.
Now DSL is becomming available in our area, and the modems QWest is shipping are defaulting with Wireless on, even if the people using them don't have any wireless devices. I think all wireless devices should ship with the radio off, and the user must specifically enable it. That would be a good start. If the device could scan for channels in use near by and avoid them by default, even better. If a user tries to specifically go on a channel already in use, fine, but it should not default to a configuration that will harm an existing installation.
I know that would be a lot to ask, but enough is enough. Like I said, I have no problem with "everyone" having access to these devices, but they need to learn to use them properly. I view it like cars. Everybody that drives one has a responsibility to learn and prove they understand the operation of the vehicle. I don't expect them to understand pushing on a brake pedal causes the master to pressurize the hydraulic system and compress the brake pads against the rotor. But I do expect them to know that pushing on the brake pedal stops the vehicle.
On the same token, I don't expect everybody who uses 802.11 gear to know that channel X operates on a Y centered frequ
It actually just depends on the phone. My wife had an older Nextel phone (i60) that wasn't being used, so when my phone (i730) needed to be sent in for warranty service, I just used her old one.
Hers was a model that doesn't "work" with the new larger-memory-size SIMs as my phone uses. Therefore the phone could not access the address book of the SIM, but it still let me use the phone with direct connect, Internet, and standard calling. Nextel said I had the choice to take it in and transfer my data and service to the old style SIM at no charge, but since I only needed it for a week or so, I just waited and dealt with the inconvenience of using the web address book exclusively.
If I were to buy a new phone from them, like the new camera phone, I could just take my SIM and put it in the new phone. I would be up and running without even needing to call them. My brother broke his phone about a year ago, and he has been using his girlfriend's old phone for the whole year now, and Nextel doesn't even know the difference, or at least they don't care. Both phones use the older SIM style so he didn't have any issues at all.
As you said, they always offer to transfer data for free if you need to switch between SIM types, so it isn't much of a concern in reality. In the 6 years of using AT&T TDMA service, they never once offered to transfer my data to a new phone. When I inquired, they either charged an unreasonable fee, or didn't have ability to do so. Their new GSM service is obviously different, but my point is at least Nextel offers the ability at no charge, even if it means walking into the local store.
Actually they do, depending on your service plan. I use Nextel, and my plan includes unlimited direct connect. I can use it as much as I like, and not incurr any extra fees. Now Group Connect is different and charged by the minute.
Even though Nextel is more expensive when you look directly at the numbers, it actually can work out to be cheaper. Most of my family members have Nextel, so we get free Direct Connect between us. Free evenings and weekends, so we generally just call during that time. And yes, I do turn off the speaker when using DC around others, so I'm not one of those annoying people walking around going "beep-beep-beep" all the time.
The biggest thing that makes Nextel cheaper for me is the free incomming minutes I get with my plan. I like the fact that people can call me all they want, and it doesn't change my bill. My outgoing minutes are for *me* to use when I choose to use them, not to be used whenever the phone is in use as the other carriers choose to do.
I'd been an AT&T customer for about 6 years, and switched to Nextel about 3 months ago due to the rest of my family being happy. I had a couple of technical issues with my phone but Motorola warranty service resolved that. I couldn't be happier with the service itself.
The biggest thing to keep in mind is that the plan your company chooses to put your phone on doesn't necessarily represent the entire offerings of a company. Nextel has several different plans, some including unlimited direct connect, some that have a (limited) pool that can be individual or shared between phones, and some plans that charge by the minute of direct connect. Your company obviously feels they get the better value by having a limited pool of minutes, whereas I get better value with a plan that has unlimited.
Nah, they aren't morons. They are paying for something they feel is worth paying for. And if you think all of those high quality pics you are downloading from the Usenet News feeds are given to the world free of charge by professional photographers and professional models, you would be kidding yourself. Some may be, but I think it would be a safe wager that 95% or better come from sites which charge a fee and were eitehr shared by subscribers or ripped off like the parent poster was describing.
Long and short of it is that those "idiots" who pay for their wares are supporting the industry which is providing you with your (probably illegally) free wares.
To compare apples to apples, look at all of the free software you can download from the warez newsgroups. Are people who actually buy the software morons? That software you feel is worth stealing is obviously worth buying to others. And if it weren't for those "morons" actually paying for it, you wouldn't have it available for free download. The same thing goes. Most of these models probably would not be willing to do what they do if they weren't getting paid for it.
The only difference between the two scenarios is perception. Because that picture you downloaded didn't reqire a shrink-wrap license agreement or a keygen, many people choose not to acknowledge that they are probably looking at a copyrighted picture they don't have a (legal) right to look at without paying the appropriate fee.
If you are comfortable getting your fix from free, and possibly less-than-legit sources, then that is your decision to make. But don't call those who chose to ensure they are legally participating in their chosen activity idiots.
I am not accusing you of downloading illegal software, and maybe you are sure to only keep visual materials you have confirmed to be copyright free or with an open license. I have no way to verify either way. I only want to make the point that those who pay for a product are what makes them available for others to get free, legitimately or not.
The universal service fund is one that upsets me every time. That tax assumes a telephone line is a necessity. Truth is, it is not.
The fact that people who are low income are getting their phone bills reduced or free completely cheeses me off. I know people who are just barely above the cutoff point for those programs. This means by the time they pay full price for their phones, they have less take home pay than the low income people do to spend on other things.
Don't get me wrong, having access to emergency services is a great thing. But if I am paying for their phone line out of my pocket, it should be restricted to calling 911, local doctors' offices, and other public service oriented numbers, along with maybe numbers for immediate family members. I shouldn't have to fund their phone calls to their buddy to plan their next night at the bar.
Want an incomming number? No problem, give those subsidized phone lines a special prefix that you must dial a 1 in front of in order to call, like the old "calling party pays" cell phone plans we used to have when cellular phones were just starting in the US. Again, public service oriented companies should be able to call those numbers without additional expense.
It wouldn't upset me so much if there weren't so many abusers in all of our "welfare" systems. But I am so tired of seing people walk into a grocery store, pay with food stamps, then notice their kids always have the latest portable video game, they have a cell phone, lots of jewelery, a brand new car, you get the idea. As they say a bad apple spoils the bunch, the abusers have given me a very jaded view of the whole system.
Your story reminds me of a discount clothing and appliance store (yes, odd combination, but there are several such stores in my area) that went into one of the small local malls in my town. Even though they were part of the mall, and they allowed other stores' carts to browse inside their store, they decided to no longer allow their carts to be removed from the store. End result being if you had several stores you had to shop at, if you shopped at them first you had no shopping cart to cary the goods you purchased from them.
What they did to prevent people from removing their carts is put a 7 foot metal pole sticking up from one of the corners of the cart. Large enough to make it impossible to go out the door with the cart without dumping the contents.
Those poles were in place for about a month, then they were gone. I know after they added them that my wife and I no longer went in the store. I imagine enough other people did the same that they realized they were going to lose customers over it.
I like the ideas that I have seen where people pay a quarter to get a cart and get it back when they are done. That would have been a great compromise. I know a quarter isn't much, but I imagine most people who normally wouldn't bring it back would probably make sure they do.
Anyway, I just thought that the story was somewhat similar, but fortunately for the store they saw the error of their way before they forced themselves to close the doors permanently.
To the best of my knowledge, standard IDE signals are unbalanced. Telephone connections as you mention are ballanced.
With a ballanced signal, the twists in the line are meant to ensure that any noise is inserted on both wires in the same way. Since they are the same way, they cancel each other out. Without a ballanced signal, twisted pair will not help reduce interference, and could actually make it worse.
Take a look at a U160 or greater SCSI cable. They are a whole bunch of twisted pairs. Since the SCSI bus uses ballanced signals, the twisted pairs eliminates most interference problems. Why are they still flat then? Cost of manufacturing.
Exactly. I used to print my own business checks, and had no problems for about a year and a half. My bank then decided to start charging an "Alien media fee" of $5 for each check written. When I called them they said it was because they got new scanning machines that read the account number via the MICR magnetic ink. Since they wouldn't scan, they had to manually enter in each check. Before they "upgraded" their system, the scanning process optically scanned the checks so that the ink used didn't matter.
The bank told me that I could buy a laser printer cartridge from them for $120 that contained the correct ink and I would have no more problems. I was a quite upset of how the bank handled it (no warning of the fees, just a letter in the mail informing me of the fees a week after they started charging them, and treating me like I was a criminal for printing my own checks) so I just told them forget it and moved all of my accounts I had with them to another bank.
I haven't printed my own checks with the new bank, but they have assured me that I can do it with no problems and no special ink required. When I moved banks they actually have better online banking and bill payment services so I don't write as many checks as I used to, and it was easier just to buy a box of checks from the bank. When I run out of those, I may start printing again just to use up the blank check paper I have. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
The Libertarian Party is a third party, however it will split the vote with the Democratic Party, thereby giving the Republican Party a win. The previous poster meant another third (4th?) party that will split the vote with the Republican Party, to make it more even.
The way I see splitting the vote, it doesn't really matter all that much. As others have said, the Replubricrats are two sides of the same coin, so we will end up with one of them anyway. If one candidate gets the vote split by a large enough margin, maybe it will send a message to the two parties that they need to reform.
Force does not necessarily have to mean "men with guns." Force is just as effective on most sane people, by the threat of large fines, jail time, lawsuits, and other incentives.
I do disagree with paying as much tax as I do towards our abused welfare system. I have as much plans as anyone could have to not pay those taxes, however I am forced by the threat of fines, legal action, and jailtime, to pay those taxes against my wishes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all taxes need to go by the way of the Dodo bird. And as I said on my original message, I have no problem supporting the welfare program in its intended purpose. But when we have such a high rate of abuse on that particular aspect of our taxes, it becomes very easy to get upset about them.
As for your example of law enforcement of laws taht do not affect you, that is a completely non-related issue to my point. Laws like incarcerating child molesters are put in place to protect the society in whole, as are the welfare laws. I do not intend to become disabled, who does, but supporting those who have become disabled and unable to work is fine. It is those who choose not to work and abuse the generous handouts the society is offering to those with a genuine need that I feel is wrong to be forced into supporting.
It kind of depends on your point of view I guess. Since my wife and I both have cell phones, a home phone to us is for convenience. Obviously you don't want to make long calls on a cell phone for rate-plan reasons, so we have a VoIP line. With Broadvoice, I pay $11.75 per month including taxes, compared to the $35+ I was paying Qwest, plus I get more features.
Plus this also gives me an opportunity to learn more about telephony than I ever would have had, even if I had bought a simple PBX for my house. I have more fun trying out new features and solutions for situations that it is almost scarry.
Sure Vonage may have a higher uptime (Broadvoice has not been 100% reliable, just ask my wife, but more than acceptable for the price in my situation) but that is all they have going. Truth be known, a good portion of the issues I have had with Broadvoice have been self-inflicted by me experementing with something. Vonage is more expensive and more restrictive than any of the other major players (Broadvoice, Packet8, Nufone, Net2Phone, VoicePulse, etc..)
Now if that were my only phone, or if it were being used for business calls, I would agree with you. My "landline" is not considered essential to me, so the footprint and reliability is not an issue.
Because Vonage does not allow direct connection to their network, you would need an FXO port to attach their adapter to your Asterisk server, then whatever adapter you wanted to use to connect your Asterisk server to the side of your head (IP phone, adapter, etc.)
If you went with Broadvoice or another more flexible company, you can connect directly without needing any interface between your Asterisk server and their service.
As far as bandwidth goes, to be on the safe side, figure for each call, you need approximately 80-90K for full quality, non-compressed voice. So if you went in via Vonage, and back out to another point on the Internet, you are talking about doubling that for each call. Now if you are coming in via Vonage, then to an adapter on your LAN, you don't have to count that double bandwidth if you understand what I am saying.
I hate to reply to my own post, but I forgot to mention that FWD's and IAXtel's primary purpose is for users of those services to call each other at no charge. It is not intended to set up a free gateway to call non-users, even though some users do use it in limited ways for that purpose.
Sure, you can join Free World Dialup, or IAXtel, which are free worldwide networks. However, your system will not route calls through that you are not a party to, unless you set it up to do so, and have the owners of the network include your box in the routing.
Think of it in normal telephony situations. You have an office with 100 extensions, so you attach a PBX to your 10 phone lines. Just because you are attached to the public telephone network, does not mean your box will be used to route outside calls through to another outside party. Now if you so chose, you can give certain people access to do so, but only then would your PBX be used to route non-internal-party calls. Asterisk is the same way. On basic terms, Asterisk is simply a PBX for IP telephony rather than packet switched and analog telephony.
That being said, some users of FWD have set up their asterisk boxes to allow other FWD users to call local PSTN numbers. That was fully their choice, and they understand the consequences (bandwidth, phone usage, etc) that come along with it. It doesn't just install and share your line like P2P filesharing software does.
Slashdot Mirror
You must not have read the whole post. What is utterly ridiculous here is how Blizard is not abiding by their own EULA.
Say you bought WoW and decided you really didn't like it, so you sold it to your friend. Assume no copies made and everything is done according to the EULA. You have no intention of playing again, and your friend wants to use your old copy to play himself. When he activates his, your account should be disabled. Problem solved.
What is happening here is like the RIAA saying you can buy the CD from the store, when you are done with it you can sell it to a friend or a used CD store, but they still won't be able to listen to it.
Blizard is in the wrong here. If they did not want people selling/giving their old copies to others, they should not have allowed it according to the EULA. The OP is not asking to have a second account active on the same CD key, he is asking to have a single account active on the CD key, with the old one being disabled.
Jeremy
This is the attitude that causes the problem. The left lane is the "passing lane" not the "fast lane." Legally, if you are in the passing lane, that same 65 MPH speed limit applies just as much as if you were in the "slow lane."
Assume a 65 MPH 2 lane (each direction) interstate for the example for simplicity. If a car is doing 64.5 MPH in the right lane, I have every legal right to pass them at 65 MPH in the passing lane. If I were to even speed up to 66 in order to pass faster, technically that is breaking the law. What I should legally do if the other car speeds up is slow down enough to allow the car to pass, and then change back into the right lane behind them.
My comment is probably meant more toward the parent, but your post adds fuel to the fire. Probably one of my pet peves is impatient drivers that break the law with this attitude: "they won't even get out of your way if you honk your horn or flash your lights as you quickly come up behind them." What right do they have to try to intimidate other drivers around them into breaking the law by speeding up to get out of their way? None whatsoever. I would argue against your point that it is the slow drivers that cause these people to get into accidents by saying if these people learned patience and courtesy on the road, and kept their road rage in check, they would be able to handle the occasional slow driver without accidents.
With all that being said regarding agressive drivers, my personal opinion is that speed itself is not a cause of accidents. I feel that speed should be a guideline that is safe and prudent for the conditions. That 65MPH speed limit should usually be at least 75 during non-peak traffic times, but much, much slower when traffic and weather are bad. I believe we should remove pure speed laws and go purely to a reckless style driving style of enforcement. I don't care if Joe Hotrod is running 85 down the freeway when there are few cars on the road. But if he is swerving between lanes and causing a hazard to other drivers in doing so, that is where he should get a ticket. Unfortunately the speed trap is a very lucrative method of revenue generation for the agencies that run them, so that isn't going to change any time soon.
Long and short of it is the laws are currently there, and they need to be followed by everyone, whether you are 5 minutes late getting to the sports bar for the Superbowl party or not.
Jeremy
I see your point. On the other hand, if "what you know" is simply to stay just above that "does more harm to keep than to fire" line, then it still holds true. You are correct though that once in, you are generally always in.
The first point of the phrase is a lot more relevant than the last. It is more so about who you know than what you know.
My personal belief is:
"It is who you know that gets you in the door. It is what you know that keeps you there."
My biggest advice to high school students is to get out and meet people. Meet and get to know as many people as you can. You never know when you may be talking to someone about something you'd like to do, and get "Hey, a friend of mine does that, I'll get you two in touch" as a response.
For the next part of it, you do need to know what you are talking about. You may meet (through a friend) someone who gets you into your dream position, but what happens if you can't fit that role? Yup, the proverbial pink slip. Learn as much as you can about as many things that interest you as possible. That way if (when) you do get that opportunity of a lifetime, you aren't scrambling to figure out how to do it. If you have a good solid base of knowledge to back it up with, you only have to learn the details.
Sure, I had a crummy after-school job when I was in high school, but even literally to this day, a couple of the people I worked with are some of the best business relationships I have.
Jeremy
Bad advice. The only way to know is to test it periodically. Call your local non-emergency police department number and tell them you would like to test your phone line to ensure 911 calls will go through properly. They will advise you to how they like to handle it. If you don't follow their instructions, sure, you may be subject to a fine, but as long as you do what they tell you to do, then you won't have to worry.
In my area, they just tell you to call during an odd time in the afternoon or morning, not peak driving and evening hours. They tell you to immediately tell the operator it is a test call, and you are set.
Keep in mind that is in my local area, and it can vary district to discrict. EMS operators are there to ensure you are safe and covered in the event you need them, and as long as you aren't abusive, they are more than happy to take a test call now and then.
I don't see how it is a problem to use a street address as an SSID. If somebody wants to figure out what house the AP is in, all it takes is a Pringles can (or less) and a couple dollars in parts. They can then look at the numbers on the front of the house, and they have the exact same information as before. I know what house every AP in my neighborhood belongs to, without even using directional antennas. I have spoken with their owners (was helping resolve interference problems in the neighborhood) and confirmed my guesses. If you don't want anyone finding out what house has the wireless AP, you probably shouldn't use wireless equipment in that house.
Using the address, or a phone number, or even both as I do, makes it very easy to get in contact with the owner should the need arise. If an AP is malfunctioning or misconfigured and is causing interference, the owner should be contacted and informed.
The other reason I have my phone number in mine is because if someone else wants to use it, they can. I don't want Johnny Scriptkiddy driving through and screwing with it. But if a neighbor has a guest staying who wants to use my wireless, that is fine. Long and short of it, if someone has the decency to call and ask permission, I will give them my WPA key. My AP is on a separate subnet and requires VPN to access my wired network, so I don't mind giving local people access. Without VPN, all they can do is browse the web and check e-mail.
No matter how you look at it, using wireless has some risks to it. The best way the average home user can protect themselves is to enable WEP (or WPA if available) and lock down the MAC addresses. Using an accurate and descriptive SSID is not a risk, and can actually be very helpfull. Turning off SSID broadcast does absolutely no good and can cause additional problems.
Advanced users and corporate users obviously have more options available to them, but out-of-the-box configuration options are adequate for home users as long as they configure them.
Jeremy
Look at the context. In a shopping mall, you walk up to a store with a door closed. It is safe to assume that if the door is unlocked it is OK to enter. Obviously if a CLOSED sign or similar message is present, it is not.
Now look in an apartment building. Is it OK for you to assume that you can step inside any apartment that is not locked? Of course not.
I am not saying that a lock is not an authentication method. All I am saying is computers placed in the open on the Internet should assume they will be treated as a business, people will try to gain access and move on if not allowed. They should not expect that people usually won't even try as in a residential building.
The Internet has historicaly been an open network, where you specifically lock people out if you don't want them there. If people attempt to circumvent that lock, then that line is crossed and we are on a
Jeremy
>> >> The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked.
>> Is this a legal ruling, or just how we would want it to be?
It is how the Internet was designed, open. No, there is no legal ruling, and yes it is how we would like it to be. But it has always had open standards and open access in mind.
>> Do things like the sassar worm change this? Do they have implicit access to your computer? How about a web indexing robot? What are the rules as to what does or does not have implicit access.
See the worm example changes things. The worm is not just entering and browsing, a worm is doing damage. It is illegal to walk into a book store and tear up pages out of a book, or spray paint on the fur coat. Even if you had the right to enter a store, it doesn't give you the right to committ a crime just because you can walk in.
Web spiders and robots are allowed. There is a standard practice to add a robots.txt file to tell them whether or not they are welcome, and further define their access. As long as they are following those standards-based rules, they are fine. Now the ones that ignore the rule file placed there for them are basically refusing to leave a property after being told to leave.
>> If you are walking down a street and see a building with a door in it. Have you been implicitly granted access to the inside of that building? It's not a simple yes or no answer. It depends on several factors, is it a business area, are there signs advertising something (and what is the wording on the signs), and so on.
That is exactly what I was saying. The Internet, historicaly, has been like a business district. You can walk in and browse as long as you are not locked out or told specifically not to enter by the management.
>> I am not saying the ruling is how we want it, but we do end up living with the legal rulings and not just how we would like them.
I agree as well. What irks me is these people are trying to enforce physical world laws and rules on a non-compatable medium. I can put up a web page that says you can't spam me or I will charge you $500 per spam message. Would that be enforcable if they use SMTP to spam me rather than my web mail interface? Probably not. How would you put up a "No Trespassing" sign on your mail server other than locking everyone out completely? That is why the foolishness of applying physical world laws to the electronic world is just plain silly.
Yes, I use physical world laws as examples, but that just goes to show that most everything in the digital world can be interpreted against several conflicting laws. Basically, if they want to ban it in the digital world, there needs to be a specific rule set, not selectively choosing laws that were not meant to cover it.
There are those that argue that we do not need more laws, just to enforce what is already in place. For things like copyright, that is correct. We don't need the DMCA in order to enforce the **AA's ownership of the "arts." But in cases where the existing law does not realistically apply, there is room for improvement.
Jeremy
I would say it is more equivilant to knocking on your door, and you answering. Then you decide based on whether or not you know the person as to whether or not they gain access.
When you are using FTP for example, you log in by telling the server who you are. It either allows access or denies it. Now you, as the server owner, can choose to set up an account to allow anonymous users to gain access, but that is completely up to you.
Web browsing could be arguably more similar to your example, but as others have already said, the Internet is more like a shopping mall than a residential neighborhood People (correctly so, in my opinion) assume they can go into any store they desire untill told otherwise. If you put a server on the Internet with a public IP, you are placing it there with the knowledge that people will be trying to access it. If you don't want them there, it is your responsibility to prevent the access. If you don't want them trying, then you should not have the system out in the public.
If you password protect or encrypt the resource, and they circumvent it, that is no different than picking a lock to enter a closed or private store and should be considered illegal. But if you don't have a closed sign visible to the public via the same means they are using to approach the store, you can't hardly blame them for trying to open the door to see if it is locked.
The Internet is the same way. If you don't want me even trying to log into your FTP, you need to place a "(un)welcome" message on there telling me so. If your server simply asks for the username, people are going to try to log in using the standard user/pass combinations for open systems, anonymous or ftp with their e-mail address as the password.
People trying to slap physical world laws and examples on the Internet need to consider the scope before doing so. The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked. Your example of the lock on a residential home is in a completely different scope, one where access is not assumed unless specifically given.
Jeremy
Just get another VoIP service like NuFone with a toll-free number for local people. I pay $1.9 cents per minute for toll-free calls and no monthly fee. I use Broadvoice for my local outbound calling, and Nufone for outbound long-distance and inbound toll-free. I only give my toll-free to friends and family, I figure telemarketers and other people can call long-distance if they want to call me. It has really cut down the junk calls!
Jeremy
Most access points I have seen default to 6. I wanted to be as far away from that as I could, so I picked 11. When I got my new PDA, I noticed the signal strength was unacceptable over most of my house, and determined it was due to the addition of 2 other APs, same channel.
Knowing the only discrete channels are basically only 1,6, and 11, I then changed mine to 1, hoping to avoid both 11 and the default of 6. I got a new access point a few weeks ago (went from 802.11b to g) and when configuring it noticed there was another AP on 1 now.
So now I'm running on 6, which I don't like, because for the time being it is the only discrete channel available. I am working now to try to coordinate between my neighbors and I to go to the 1,4,8,11 scheme due to lack of available options. From what I have read, even there is some overlap between channels, it is so little in actual use that is is fine.
It just gets back to my point. An AP should not allow itself to be set to a channel that is already in use, unless it warns the user and they accept it.
Jeremy
You could stretch this analogy (best one I've seen yet, by the way) to the next level with open shares.
...Files, files to share... Files, files to share...
Open Desktop (OD):
Wardrivers's Laptop (WL): Oh, hello there Mr. Open Desktop. Do you have any files I can have?
OD: Well, I was told "everybody" should have access to it, so here is a list of what I have.
WL: That is a pretty nice list there. How about that MS Money file you have, may I please have a copy of it, kind sir?
OD: Just like the list, I was told "everybody" can read it, so let me send it on over.
WL: Thank you very much, be safe.
By that same analogy, the Windoze XP desktop is giving literally "Everybody" full rights to the shares that are turned on. Scarry thing is, that is the default way for the files to be shared. If I recall correctly, Windows 2000 gave read-only rights to everybody, but that is still just as bad.
While I don't sympathize with the crackers that are using the data available to them for less-than-good purposes, I don't feel very sorry for the people who set up open access to their systems. Wireless, and really computers in general to some degree, are advanced technological devices, and should not be used unless the user possesses enough understanding about what they are doing.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Grandma using her computer to type letters and surf the Internet. More power to her. But she should have someone who knows what they are doing set up her Internet access for her so that they ensure she is as safe as possible from the threats that are present. Would Grandma go buy a natural gas or propane fireplace and try to install it herself? Of course not. She hires someone qualified (and in this case, certified) to do it.
The same thing should go with Wireless access. People that have no concept of security, or even configuration are taking these things home and plugging them in. They have no regard for any other access points running in the area, and have a very good chance of interfering with other people. They run with not even basic security enabled at all, yet they are part of the group that is the first to cry foul when somebody has some "valuable" data taken.
I've had to change the channel I had been running mine on for several months in order to get away from people who had just set theirs up on the same channel as mine. I even went to them to see if they minded changing their channel (there ended up being 3 of us on the same channel within a 5 house radius) and they basically said "I don't know anything about that," and refused my offer to help them or do it for them. I just changed my channel and let the two of them keep interfering with each other.
Now DSL is becomming available in our area, and the modems QWest is shipping are defaulting with Wireless on, even if the people using them don't have any wireless devices. I think all wireless devices should ship with the radio off, and the user must specifically enable it. That would be a good start. If the device could scan for channels in use near by and avoid them by default, even better. If a user tries to specifically go on a channel already in use, fine, but it should not default to a configuration that will harm an existing installation.
I know that would be a lot to ask, but enough is enough. Like I said, I have no problem with "everyone" having access to these devices, but they need to learn to use them properly. I view it like cars. Everybody that drives one has a responsibility to learn and prove they understand the operation of the vehicle. I don't expect them to understand pushing on a brake pedal causes the master to pressurize the hydraulic system and compress the brake pads against the rotor. But I do expect them to know that pushing on the brake pedal stops the vehicle.
On the same token, I don't expect everybody who uses 802.11 gear to know that channel X operates on a Y centered frequ
It actually just depends on the phone. My wife had an older Nextel phone (i60) that wasn't being used, so when my phone (i730) needed to be sent in for warranty service, I just used her old one.
Hers was a model that doesn't "work" with the new larger-memory-size SIMs as my phone uses. Therefore the phone could not access the address book of the SIM, but it still let me use the phone with direct connect, Internet, and standard calling. Nextel said I had the choice to take it in and transfer my data and service to the old style SIM at no charge, but since I only needed it for a week or so, I just waited and dealt with the inconvenience of using the web address book exclusively.
If I were to buy a new phone from them, like the new camera phone, I could just take my SIM and put it in the new phone. I would be up and running without even needing to call them. My brother broke his phone about a year ago, and he has been using his girlfriend's old phone for the whole year now, and Nextel doesn't even know the difference, or at least they don't care. Both phones use the older SIM style so he didn't have any issues at all.
As you said, they always offer to transfer data for free if you need to switch between SIM types, so it isn't much of a concern in reality. In the 6 years of using AT&T TDMA service, they never once offered to transfer my data to a new phone. When I inquired, they either charged an unreasonable fee, or didn't have ability to do so. Their new GSM service is obviously different, but my point is at least Nextel offers the ability at no charge, even if it means walking into the local store.
Jeremy
Actually they do, depending on your service plan. I use Nextel, and my plan includes unlimited direct connect. I can use it as much as I like, and not incurr any extra fees. Now Group Connect is different and charged by the minute.
Even though Nextel is more expensive when you look directly at the numbers, it actually can work out to be cheaper. Most of my family members have Nextel, so we get free Direct Connect between us. Free evenings and weekends, so we generally just call during that time. And yes, I do turn off the speaker when using DC around others, so I'm not one of those annoying people walking around going "beep-beep-beep" all the time.
The biggest thing that makes Nextel cheaper for me is the free incomming minutes I get with my plan. I like the fact that people can call me all they want, and it doesn't change my bill. My outgoing minutes are for *me* to use when I choose to use them, not to be used whenever the phone is in use as the other carriers choose to do.
I'd been an AT&T customer for about 6 years, and switched to Nextel about 3 months ago due to the rest of my family being happy. I had a couple of technical issues with my phone but Motorola warranty service resolved that. I couldn't be happier with the service itself.
The biggest thing to keep in mind is that the plan your company chooses to put your phone on doesn't necessarily represent the entire offerings of a company. Nextel has several different plans, some including unlimited direct connect, some that have a (limited) pool that can be individual or shared between phones, and some plans that charge by the minute of direct connect. Your company obviously feels they get the better value by having a limited pool of minutes, whereas I get better value with a plan that has unlimited.
Jeremy
Nah, they aren't morons. They are paying for something they feel is worth paying for. And if you think all of those high quality pics you are downloading from the Usenet News feeds are given to the world free of charge by professional photographers and professional models, you would be kidding yourself. Some may be, but I think it would be a safe wager that 95% or better come from sites which charge a fee and were eitehr shared by subscribers or ripped off like the parent poster was describing.
Long and short of it is that those "idiots" who pay for their wares are supporting the industry which is providing you with your (probably illegally) free wares.
To compare apples to apples, look at all of the free software you can download from the warez newsgroups. Are people who actually buy the software morons? That software you feel is worth stealing is obviously worth buying to others. And if it weren't for those "morons" actually paying for it, you wouldn't have it available for free download. The same thing goes. Most of these models probably would not be willing to do what they do if they weren't getting paid for it.
The only difference between the two scenarios is perception. Because that picture you downloaded didn't reqire a shrink-wrap license agreement or a keygen, many people choose not to acknowledge that they are probably looking at a copyrighted picture they don't have a (legal) right to look at without paying the appropriate fee.
If you are comfortable getting your fix from free, and possibly less-than-legit sources, then that is your decision to make. But don't call those who chose to ensure they are legally participating in their chosen activity idiots.
I am not accusing you of downloading illegal software, and maybe you are sure to only keep visual materials you have confirmed to be copyright free or with an open license. I have no way to verify either way. I only want to make the point that those who pay for a product are what makes them available for others to get free, legitimately or not.
The universal service fund is one that upsets me every time. That tax assumes a telephone line is a necessity. Truth is, it is not.
The fact that people who are low income are getting their phone bills reduced or free completely cheeses me off. I know people who are just barely above the cutoff point for those programs. This means by the time they pay full price for their phones, they have less take home pay than the low income people do to spend on other things.
Don't get me wrong, having access to emergency services is a great thing. But if I am paying for their phone line out of my pocket, it should be restricted to calling 911, local doctors' offices, and other public service oriented numbers, along with maybe numbers for immediate family members. I shouldn't have to fund their phone calls to their buddy to plan their next night at the bar.
Want an incomming number? No problem, give those subsidized phone lines a special prefix that you must dial a 1 in front of in order to call, like the old "calling party pays" cell phone plans we used to have when cellular phones were just starting in the US. Again, public service oriented companies should be able to call those numbers without additional expense.
It wouldn't upset me so much if there weren't so many abusers in all of our "welfare" systems. But I am so tired of seing people walk into a grocery store, pay with food stamps, then notice their kids always have the latest portable video game, they have a cell phone, lots of jewelery, a brand new car, you get the idea. As they say a bad apple spoils the bunch, the abusers have given me a very jaded view of the whole system.
Jeremy
Your story reminds me of a discount clothing and appliance store (yes, odd combination, but there are several such stores in my area) that went into one of the small local malls in my town. Even though they were part of the mall, and they allowed other stores' carts to browse inside their store, they decided to no longer allow their carts to be removed from the store. End result being if you had several stores you had to shop at, if you shopped at them first you had no shopping cart to cary the goods you purchased from them.
What they did to prevent people from removing their carts is put a 7 foot metal pole sticking up from one of the corners of the cart. Large enough to make it impossible to go out the door with the cart without dumping the contents.
Those poles were in place for about a month, then they were gone. I know after they added them that my wife and I no longer went in the store. I imagine enough other people did the same that they realized they were going to lose customers over it.
I like the ideas that I have seen where people pay a quarter to get a cart and get it back when they are done. That would have been a great compromise. I know a quarter isn't much, but I imagine most people who normally wouldn't bring it back would probably make sure they do.
Anyway, I just thought that the story was somewhat similar, but fortunately for the store they saw the error of their way before they forced themselves to close the doors permanently.
Jeremy
To the best of my knowledge, standard IDE signals are unbalanced. Telephone connections as you mention are ballanced.
With a ballanced signal, the twists in the line are meant to ensure that any noise is inserted on both wires in the same way. Since they are the same way, they cancel each other out. Without a ballanced signal, twisted pair will not help reduce interference, and could actually make it worse.
Take a look at a U160 or greater SCSI cable. They are a whole bunch of twisted pairs. Since the SCSI bus uses ballanced signals, the twisted pairs eliminates most interference problems. Why are they still flat then? Cost of manufacturing.
Hope that helps explain the difference for you.
Jeremy
Exactly. I used to print my own business checks, and had no problems for about a year and a half. My bank then decided to start charging an "Alien media fee" of $5 for each check written. When I called them they said it was because they got new scanning machines that read the account number via the MICR magnetic ink. Since they wouldn't scan, they had to manually enter in each check. Before they "upgraded" their system, the scanning process optically scanned the checks so that the ink used didn't matter.
The bank told me that I could buy a laser printer cartridge from them for $120 that contained the correct ink and I would have no more problems. I was a quite upset of how the bank handled it (no warning of the fees, just a letter in the mail informing me of the fees a week after they started charging them, and treating me like I was a criminal for printing my own checks) so I just told them forget it and moved all of my accounts I had with them to another bank.
I haven't printed my own checks with the new bank, but they have assured me that I can do it with no problems and no special ink required. When I moved banks they actually have better online banking and bill payment services so I don't write as many checks as I used to, and it was easier just to buy a box of checks from the bank. When I run out of those, I may start printing again just to use up the blank check paper I have. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Jeremy
The Libertarian Party is a third party, however it will split the vote with the Democratic Party, thereby giving the Republican Party a win. The previous poster meant another third (4th?) party that will split the vote with the Republican Party, to make it more even.
The way I see splitting the vote, it doesn't really matter all that much. As others have said, the Replubricrats are two sides of the same coin, so we will end up with one of them anyway. If one candidate gets the vote split by a large enough margin, maybe it will send a message to the two parties that they need to reform.
Force does not necessarily have to mean "men with guns." Force is just as effective on most sane people, by the threat of large fines, jail time, lawsuits, and other incentives.
I do disagree with paying as much tax as I do towards our abused welfare system. I have as much plans as anyone could have to not pay those taxes, however I am forced by the threat of fines, legal action, and jailtime, to pay those taxes against my wishes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all taxes need to go by the way of the Dodo bird. And as I said on my original message, I have no problem supporting the welfare program in its intended purpose. But when we have such a high rate of abuse on that particular aspect of our taxes, it becomes very easy to get upset about them.
As for your example of law enforcement of laws taht do not affect you, that is a completely non-related issue to my point. Laws like incarcerating child molesters are put in place to protect the society in whole, as are the welfare laws. I do not intend to become disabled, who does, but supporting those who have become disabled and unable to work is fine. It is those who choose not to work and abuse the generous handouts the society is offering to those with a genuine need that I feel is wrong to be forced into supporting.
It kind of depends on your point of view I guess. Since my wife and I both have cell phones, a home phone to us is for convenience. Obviously you don't want to make long calls on a cell phone for rate-plan reasons, so we have a VoIP line. With Broadvoice, I pay $11.75 per month including taxes, compared to the $35+ I was paying Qwest, plus I get more features.
Plus this also gives me an opportunity to learn more about telephony than I ever would have had, even if I had bought a simple PBX for my house. I have more fun trying out new features and solutions for situations that it is almost scarry.
Sure Vonage may have a higher uptime (Broadvoice has not been 100% reliable, just ask my wife, but more than acceptable for the price in my situation) but that is all they have going. Truth be known, a good portion of the issues I have had with Broadvoice have been self-inflicted by me experementing with something. Vonage is more expensive and more restrictive than any of the other major players (Broadvoice, Packet8, Nufone, Net2Phone, VoicePulse, etc..)
Now if that were my only phone, or if it were being used for business calls, I would agree with you. My "landline" is not considered essential to me, so the footprint and reliability is not an issue.
Because Vonage does not allow direct connection to their network, you would need an FXO port to attach their adapter to your Asterisk server, then whatever adapter you wanted to use to connect your Asterisk server to the side of your head (IP phone, adapter, etc.)
If you went with Broadvoice or another more flexible company, you can connect directly without needing any interface between your Asterisk server and their service.
As far as bandwidth goes, to be on the safe side, figure for each call, you need approximately 80-90K for full quality, non-compressed voice. So if you went in via Vonage, and back out to another point on the Internet, you are talking about doubling that for each call. Now if you are coming in via Vonage, then to an adapter on your LAN, you don't have to count that double bandwidth if you understand what I am saying.
I hate to reply to my own post, but I forgot to mention that FWD's and IAXtel's primary purpose is for users of those services to call each other at no charge. It is not intended to set up a free gateway to call non-users, even though some users do use it in limited ways for that purpose.
Sure, you can join Free World Dialup, or IAXtel, which are free worldwide networks. However, your system will not route calls through that you are not a party to, unless you set it up to do so, and have the owners of the network include your box in the routing.
Think of it in normal telephony situations. You have an office with 100 extensions, so you attach a PBX to your 10 phone lines. Just because you are attached to the public telephone network, does not mean your box will be used to route outside calls through to another outside party. Now if you so chose, you can give certain people access to do so, but only then would your PBX be used to route non-internal-party calls. Asterisk is the same way. On basic terms, Asterisk is simply a PBX for IP telephony rather than packet switched and analog telephony.
That being said, some users of FWD have set up their asterisk boxes to allow other FWD users to call local PSTN numbers. That was fully their choice, and they understand the consequences (bandwidth, phone usage, etc) that come along with it. It doesn't just install and share your line like P2P filesharing software does.
Hope that helps!
Jeremy