I agree that certain aspects of intellectual property rights need to be addressed in a free trade treaty. But it is one thing to include protection of patent rights in a system. It quite something else to be talking about new restrictions on accessing copyrighted material.
I don't know about you guys, but I pay more for my cable connection than for my my phone service (as I'm sure many of you DSL users do). It aint anywhere near free, but it'd be nice to consolidate services.
But are you including long distance charges in the price of your phone service? Remember that with VoIP, there are no extra costs to calling long distance.
Yes, the major point of this will be to enable older 'dumb' phones to call a primitive x-digit phone number and be redirected (this will be handled transparently on the network) to either a SIP value (I think we need to add a new type SIP record to DNS like MX), or standard A or CNAME type record, so they can connect to another user or service that is delivered over the phone.
The parent post is modded funny. But it is probably a frigthening realistic scenario. If ENUM ever catches on, then you will have lots of older PBX-based users using it, trying to contact new native VoIP-based users. And what happens when they cannot reach the number? They'll get redirected to an "operator", who will gladly redirect your call to the correct user for a fee of course.
OK. I should thought about this a bit more before I posted. But I now see the main point behind ENUM, getting the old PBX network phones to communicate with future IPv6-based VoIP network phones.
I should be able to buy a Samsung/Apex/Sampo/$cheap_asian_brand VoIP phone, plug it into my ethernet network and have it just plain work with other VoIP phones, bridges, etc.
And for this to happen, we need IPv6 because VoIP does not play well with all those NAT IPv4 networks out there.
The parent to your post was being sarcastic. He doesn't really advocate getting rid of DNS. The point was that even this ENUM technology is not good enough because you have to remember a sequence of numbers, when written words are almost always much easier to remember.
In the future there will be two ways to call your friends, voice prompt (e.g. "Call Jenny") or some sort of scrolling/navigational tool. Pretty soon when the number of mobiles gets too numerous, we are going to run out of area codes. When that happens, it will be cheaper to just switch everything to VoIP and you won't have phone numbers anymore. You'll have some sort of SIP identity like joe.schmo@seattle.usa.verizon.
Anyway, we all knew deep down economists are a bunch of scumbags, I am just filling out the details.
Looks like you are trolling, but I'll bite anyways. By the way, when you have to resort to insults, you know that your argument is weak. If you paid any attention to modern economic theory, you would realize economists do acknowledge there are many external factors. They just do not try to include them in their theory and models because they overly complicate trying to understand what is going on. Remember, economics is *theory* not some golden law like the Law of Gravity.
And all of Switzerland will breathe a sigh of relief, as what could have been the single biggest competitor to that lovely wholey Swiss cheese, turns out not to be after all.
That's just the thing though. I would say that Congress had already made itself clear on the matter when it explicitly authorized funding for the list earlier in the year.
No, but he did ignore Congress' intentions. They had already previously given their permission for it by giving the FTC funding to operate the list. See the following press releases:
You make some good points. But not everyone likes working at home. For some, it can be depressing lonely at times if you never get to interact with your colleages in person. It can also be hard to stay motivated when you are telecommuting.
Wouldn't this now qualify as illegal bundling? And therefore not allowed under US and possible other international anti-trust/monopoly laws?
They are after all, forcing a service upon you. To which you cannot opt out, yet they are making money on it ( thru advertising ), and you are paying for it (thru increased bandwidth use). Or am I missing something here?
That is because Sun really doesn't know what it wants to do anymore. Their bread-and-butter has, and will continue to be selling systems: High-end servers complete with Solaris software, and enterprise support for those servers. But the days of high-end servers are coming to a close. Their market share is being taken over by commodity Intel boxes, running Linux and Windows. There will always be a market for high-end servers. You cannot run a stock exchange on Intel Pentiums. But will there be enough of a market to sustain a company like Sun? I do not believe so.
The last hope for Sun is their software business, not Solaris, but Java. But time over time, they have shown they cannot execute on any sort of plan for themselves in this sector. They haven't turned a profit on software in ages, and IBM and BEA make better Java app servers than Sun does.
They remind me very much of Sega. They cannot compete in hardware anymore, at least not to any degree that will support their whole company. The sooner they realize this, and shift their focus into a pure software company the better chances they have of surviving.
Verisign and ICANN's political influence are very limited though. If this creates enough uproar with the major carriers and telcos, I expect there will be enough subtle hints passed along to ICANN from Washington to force Verisign to back off on this.
No, they are not within their rights to do this. They were hired to manage the infrastructure, not provide sleazy business services. Think of this analogy. If the phone company were to bombard you with an advertisement everytime you dialed a number that was not in service or a cellphone that was unreachable, do you think the federal and state regulators would stand for that? I do not think so.
Most users don't have a notebook and travel to far away locations where you travel to. Most end user computers are still the family desktop hooked up to the hardline broadband or dialup connection. These are the computers that are often targetted the most. Filtering at the ISP level would greatly help in the fight against many worms.
Simply make use of different subnets for filtered and non-filtered users. The ISP's DHCP server could easily determine at initial configuration time, which subnet your MAC address belongs on. If users want to choose varying levels of filtering, it should be up to them to implement. You would have a default choice of everything > 1024 is blocked, and all else is let through. Or you could opt-in to everything goes through.
And upon reading your comment, I realized I was reading a statement by an unqualified critic.
In fact,.Net is largely the latest kludge slapped on top of COM/DCOM to try and hide it's hideous complexity. The programming community should wake up and see the obvious fact that Java provides everything that.Net provides, but in a platform neutral and sane manner. It even works great on Windows. (And for those of you that would bring up Mono - we'll discuss that again the day that Microsoft sues for patent infringement under the DMCA.)
No,.Net is not a kludge slapped on top of of COM. It is a platform created from the ground up to replace COM, among many other things. Many of the.Net APIs do call upon various services implemented in COM. But that is only because Micrsoft has not had the time to port that code to managed.Net code. I will agree that Java and.Net provide many similar services, they have more things in common than differences. However there are some things Java does better, and there are some things that.Net does better.
And your statement about Mono? How on earth does the DMCA relate to patent law? It is called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that certain aspects of intellectual property rights need to be addressed in a free trade treaty. But it is one thing to include protection of patent rights in a system. It quite something else to be talking about new restrictions on accessing copyrighted material.
I don't know about you guys, but I pay more for my cable connection than for my my phone service (as I'm sure many of you DSL users do). It aint anywhere near free, but it'd be nice to consolidate services.
But are you including long distance charges in the price of your phone service? Remember that with VoIP, there are no extra costs to calling long distance.
Yes, the major point of this will be to enable older 'dumb' phones to call a primitive x-digit phone number and be redirected (this will be handled transparently on the network) to either a SIP value (I think we need to add a new type SIP record to DNS like MX), or standard A or CNAME type record, so they can connect to another user or service that is delivered over the phone.
The parent post is modded funny. But it is probably a frigthening realistic scenario. If ENUM ever catches on, then you will have lots of older PBX-based users using it, trying to contact new native VoIP-based users. And what happens when they cannot reach the number? They'll get redirected to an "operator", who will gladly redirect your call to the correct user for a fee of course.
OK. I should thought about this a bit more before I posted. But I now see the main point behind ENUM, getting the old PBX network phones to communicate with future IPv6-based VoIP network phones.
I should be able to buy a Samsung/Apex/Sampo/$cheap_asian_brand VoIP phone, plug it into my ethernet network and have it just plain work with other VoIP phones, bridges, etc.
And for this to happen, we need IPv6 because VoIP does not play well with all those NAT IPv4 networks out there.
The parent to your post was being sarcastic. He doesn't really advocate getting rid of DNS. The point was that even this ENUM technology is not good enough because you have to remember a sequence of numbers, when written words are almost always much easier to remember.
In the future there will be two ways to call your friends, voice prompt (e.g. "Call Jenny") or some sort of scrolling/navigational tool. Pretty soon when the number of mobiles gets too numerous, we are going to run out of area codes. When that happens, it will be cheaper to just switch everything to VoIP and you won't have phone numbers anymore. You'll have some sort of SIP identity like joe.schmo@seattle.usa.verizon.
Software company criticizes competitor!
Why is this even news?
Anyway, we all knew deep down economists are a bunch of scumbags, I am just filling out the details.
Looks like you are trolling, but I'll bite anyways. By the way, when you have to resort to insults, you know that your argument is weak. If you paid any attention to modern economic theory, you would realize economists do acknowledge there are many external factors. They just do not try to include them in their theory and models because they overly complicate trying to understand what is going on. Remember, economics is *theory* not some golden law like the Law of Gravity.
But can you prove they hired a telemarking firm? Or are they the telemarketing firm?
You don't need to. Just file a complaint and let the FTC investigate them.
And all of Switzerland will breathe a sigh of relief, as what could have been the single biggest competitor to that lovely wholey Swiss cheese, turns out not to be after all.
That's just the thing though. I would say that Congress had already made itself clear on the matter when it explicitly authorized funding for the list earlier in the year.
No, but he did ignore Congress' intentions. They had already previously given their permission for it by giving the FTC funding to operate the list. See the following press releases:
Congress Pass Measure to Curb Unwanted Calls
Consumers Gain Power Over Unwanted Telemarketers
You make some good points. But not everyone likes working at home. For some, it can be depressing lonely at times if you never get to interact with your colleages in person. It can also be hard to stay motivated when you are telecommuting.
See a comment below, that has a reply from Verisign.. According to Verisign, even if you disagree with the terms, you cannot opt out..
Wouldn't this now qualify as illegal bundling? And therefore not allowed under US and possible other international anti-trust/monopoly laws?
They are after all, forcing a service upon you. To which you cannot opt out, yet they are making money on it ( thru advertising ), and you are paying for it (thru increased bandwidth use). Or am I missing something here?
That is because Sun really doesn't know what it wants to do anymore. Their bread-and-butter has, and will continue to be selling systems: High-end servers complete with Solaris software, and enterprise support for those servers. But the days of high-end servers are coming to a close. Their market share is being taken over by commodity Intel boxes, running Linux and Windows. There will always be a market for high-end servers. You cannot run a stock exchange on Intel Pentiums. But will there be enough of a market to sustain a company like Sun? I do not believe so.
The last hope for Sun is their software business, not Solaris, but Java. But time over time, they have shown they cannot execute on any sort of plan for themselves in this sector. They haven't turned a profit on software in ages, and IBM and BEA make better Java app servers than Sun does.
They remind me very much of Sega. They cannot compete in hardware anymore, at least not to any degree that will support their whole company. The sooner they realize this, and shift their focus into a pure software company the better chances they have of surviving.
Verisign and ICANN's political influence are very limited though. If this creates enough uproar with the major carriers and telcos, I expect there will be enough subtle hints passed along to ICANN from Washington to force Verisign to back off on this.
No, they are not within their rights to do this. They were hired to manage the infrastructure, not provide sleazy business services. Think of this analogy. If the phone company were to bombard you with an advertisement everytime you dialed a number that was not in service or a cellphone that was unreachable, do you think the federal and state regulators would stand for that? I do not think so.
Yes, but it is one thing when the application software does it. It is another matter when the network infrastructure provider does it.
Most users don't have a notebook and travel to far away locations where you travel to. Most end user computers are still the family desktop hooked up to the hardline broadband or dialup connection. These are the computers that are often targetted the most. Filtering at the ISP level would greatly help in the fight against many worms.
That should have read everything < port 1024 would be blocked.
Simply make use of different subnets for filtered and non-filtered users. The ISP's DHCP server could easily determine at initial configuration time, which subnet your MAC address belongs on. If users want to choose varying levels of filtering, it should be up to them to implement. You would have a default choice of everything > 1024 is blocked, and all else is let through. Or you could opt-in to everything goes through.
No, the technical term is BeoWOLF cluster.
*ba-dum-ching!*
And upon reading your comment, I realized I was reading a statement by an unqualified critic.
.Net is largely the latest kludge slapped on top of COM/DCOM to try and hide it's hideous complexity. The programming community should wake up and see the obvious fact that Java provides everything that .Net provides, but in a platform neutral and sane manner. It even works great on Windows. (And for those of you that would bring up Mono - we'll discuss that again the day that Microsoft sues for patent infringement under the DMCA.)
.Net is not a kludge slapped on top of of COM. It is a platform created from the ground up to replace COM, among many other things. Many of the .Net APIs do call upon various services implemented in COM. But that is only because Micrsoft has not had the time to port that code to managed .Net code. I will agree that Java and .Net provide many similar services, they have more things in common than differences. However there are some things Java does better, and there are some things that .Net does better.
In fact,
No,
And your statement about Mono? How on earth does the DMCA relate to patent law? It is called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.