Maybe I'm too hard on Telekom and their likes. Maybe they have a good reason. I'd like to hear it.
There is a good reason. They actually don't have that many static addresses to hand out. The registries just will not give them enough (because then the registry would run out!). So they have to keep their prices sufficiently high enough so thaty they can actually handle the customer demand for static adddresses. This will be fixed once IPv6 is rolled out, until that time though, you can expect it will become even harder for most organizations to get static addresses.
It will happen eventually. When the DoD and parts of the US government start demanding that its suppliers and partners connect to it over IPv6, then you see those ISPs start offering access. But yeah, it probably will not happen from any push within the corporate or consumer market.
That's because you only watch American television. Try getting some news from more internationally-based sources (like the BBC), and you will see just how biased the American media actually is.
It's not that they taint the truth they are reporting, but they just seem to leave out the other side of the story a little too often..
I could be wrong, but I don't think they are talking about aquiring the entire AOL Time Warner. Any deal between MSFT and AOLTW would probably only involve a sale of the AOL division to Microsoft. It is no secret that Time Warner has been looking at ways to make the most of AOL while it still can. Selling it to Microsoft, would probably be a very good deal for TimeWarner.
On the other hand, I cannot see the deal being that great for Microsoft. AOL is a dying division in AOLTW, their core market is in dialup, and they don't offer enough to survive (at least in their present size) in a broadband dominated market. Unless of course Microsoft is just looking to get the AOL division on the cheap, and strip it for the few assets it can make some use of.
SMTP is an application layer protocol, not transport layer. While it would be nice if somebody with sufficient backing could change SMTP and get everyone else to implement it, the DoD is not really the people to do that.
IPSec is more of an ad-hoc approach to security in the Internet Protocol. Part of the requirements of IPv6 is that nodes must support IPSec. But it's not really built into the protocol itself.
Voice is data, video is data, they all run over IP and therefore can be considered data just like anything else.
What we don't have is security built into IP. IPSec is a good beginning, but its more of an afterthought. Not nearly as good as what they could do if security were an integrated part of the native IP protocol.
I think you have to spend more time in the business world. I often find the quality of a person's intra-office email is inversely related to their salary/rank.
SCO's going to be shredding and I hear their email server *just* crashed and its hard drives are going to have to be replaced. All of the archive tapes have suddenly gone bad.
It is one thing to be less than forthcoming about your business relationships with other companies. It is an entirely different matter to intentionally destroy evidence like that, which would be relevant to the case. The only people hurt by this memo (if it is even true), are going to be Microsoft. Darl will do a lot of stupiod things for money, like suing IBM, but I do not think he would risk facing a lengthy criminal prosection and subsequent jail time in a federal prison, for destroying evidence that does not really do any harm to himself.
What the courts are doing is telling the FCC that they're attempts are too weak, and must come up with something better than simply letting states decide how to handle the problem. The courts in this case are on the consumer's side.
No, I do not see how the FCC letting the individual states regulate this is anti-consumer. Each state is going to have a much better understanding of its own local market, than the FCC would of that same market. But the court has ruled that the FCC now has to come up with its own set of rules for each and every market, and it must do this within 60 days! Please tell me how this is pro-consumer? If the ruling stands, it can only lead to short-sighted and uninformed regulations going into place in all of these various markets. Because how they could possibly expect any agency to do a full indepth analysis, and come to a decision in 60 days is beyond me.
The court ruled on the issue of "whether the FCC had the authority to allow states to decide when the Baby Bells must allow competitors access to their voice switching networks". The court decided the FCC did not, and thus "it gave the FCC 60 days to come up with its own rules for each individual market throughout the United States."
CNET News.com has good coverage on the ruling. So far the feedback on the decision is that it is so unfounded and ridiculous, that it is almost certain to be overturned by the Supreme Court (they are appealing after all!).
You are confusing restrictions on trade through the use of quotas, with restrictions on immigration through the use of quotas. They are not the same thing.
I agree. There is also another argument, that they are trying to make an example of this person too. If he gets off with a light sentence, then other people with not so great intentions might get the idea of writting an email virus that does just this too. Imagine a MyDoom, that caused each computer it affected to dial up 911 (obviously it would have be not on broadband). The thought of that happening scares me.
Guys, terrorism is where you like blow up a building or gas people in the subway in the name of a political or religious cause.
Initially, I was of the same opinion. But then I thought what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this? Would we still be so quick to deny it as being terrorism? Terrorism can occur by Americans too (i.e. the Unabomber).
OK, so what you are saying. Maybe you are thinking that regardless of who committed the crime, the incident was still too small to qualify as terrorism. But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users? 100 million users> (Though God help us if 100 million people are stupid enough to open and run an email attachment like that!) Where do you draw the line?
So, they need something an US software makers make. They just write there own
Yes, but if an American company is more efficient at producing a particular type of software over competing Chinese companies, then the Chinese companies who use that software are going to be put at a disadvantage because they will have to pay a higher relative price for the same software as their competitors abroad, who do not have to deal with these quotas.
Trade quotas are a bad thing in almost all cases. There are very few real exceptions.
If they're importing stuff, their economy suffers if they're not exporting more than they're importing. Currently this is the case with things, but to say that you're handicapping economic growth by not importing things, implies you know very little about how economics works.
No, I have a degree in economics. I do know what I am talking about. The issue you are referring to is called a trade deficit, and while a negative trade deficit is not a good thing, it is certainly not the most important indicator of a nation's economic well being. Countries DO benefit by importing the technologies and using that technology in the manufacturing of other items that the nation chooses to specialize in. Ever heard of comparative advantage? A nation does best by producing items they can produce for cheapest relatively, and importing those goods that are relatively more expensive to produce. This is exactly why setting an arbitrary quota for foreign software is a bad thing, because it may limit Chinese companies from using foreign technology when they need it most.
They can do anything they want to. But then they cannot really complain when the US reacts against this policy, and introduces a corresponding quota limiting the importation of China made software.
This will just backfire on them. Irregardless of whether this is designed to reduce Microsoft's monopoly, a quota that restricts the use of ALL foreign software is going to have a negative impact on China's ability to advance their economy.
It will help local software companies, but there will probably be no net gain to the nation as a whole. When you restrict the ability for domestic companies to use foreign software (especially when it is the best tool for the job) you are handicapping economic growth.
No, it is not insane. It is called cross-licensing. They are saying if you want to use this technology, then you agree that you are not going to come back and sue Microsoft (or any other licensee too!) for patent violations relating to this implementation. This is a good thing!! They are protecting themselves.
So by building support for "Caller ID for Email" into your software, you suddenly give Microsoft an unlimited license to use and sell it. And, in fact, not only Microsoft, but everyone else who writes software that supports "Caller ID for Email."
Absolutely not. There is something called copyright law. Microsoft or any other company cannot just go and resell your software on their own terms. The license just means you cannot sue them for patent violations when they choose to build software that implements technology similar to yours in this area (provided you had obtained additional patents relating to this 'Caller-ID').
Sorry for replying to my own post. But I missed another bit of information:
From the "terms of the patent license for implementing this specification":
"Microsoft and its Affiliates hereby grant you ("Licensee") a fully paid, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations, provided, Licensee, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, hereby grants Microsoft and all other Specification Licensees, a reciprocal fully paid, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide, nontransferable, non-sublicenseable, license under Necessary Claims of Licensee to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations. "
However, it disconcerts me that they are also applying for a patent in this area instead of engaging the community through a consortium-like committee that could share the technology across the board unencumbered by licensing fees.
It is called defensive patenting. There is nothing wrong with applying for a patent on this. We do not want another Eolas, where some other company that produces zero innovation gets a patent on it instead, and puts a strangehold on the industry. While not perfect, Microsoft has been pretty good about not going after other companies with frivolous lawsuits over patenting issues. Since the USPTO now seems to accept pretty much anything, companies have to apply for patents on whatever possible, so that they have something to use to defend themselves in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats what FreeNet does. And its incredibly slow because of it.
Maybe I'm too hard on Telekom and their likes. Maybe they have a good reason. I'd like to hear it.
There is a good reason. They actually don't have that many static addresses to hand out. The registries just will not give them enough (because then the registry would run out!). So they have to keep their prices sufficiently high enough so thaty they can actually handle the customer demand for static adddresses. This will be fixed once IPv6 is rolled out, until that time though, you can expect it will become even harder for most organizations to get static addresses.
It will happen eventually. When the DoD and parts of the US government start demanding that its suppliers and partners connect to it over IPv6, then you see those ISPs start offering access. But yeah, it probably will not happen from any push within the corporate or consumer market.
No, but any IPv6 computer through NAT-like mechanisms can reach any IPv4 address. So it provides a nice incentive for people to upgrade :)
That's because you only watch American television. Try getting some news from more internationally-based sources (like the BBC), and you will see just how biased the American media actually is.
It's not that they taint the truth they are reporting, but they just seem to leave out the other side of the story a little too often..
I could be wrong, but I don't think they are talking about aquiring the entire AOL Time Warner. Any deal between MSFT and AOLTW would probably only involve a sale of the AOL division to Microsoft. It is no secret that Time Warner has been looking at ways to make the most of AOL while it still can. Selling it to Microsoft, would probably be a very good deal for TimeWarner.
On the other hand, I cannot see the deal being that great for Microsoft. AOL is a dying division in AOLTW, their core market is in dialup, and they don't offer enough to survive (at least in their present size) in a broadband dominated market. Unless of course Microsoft is just looking to get the AOL division on the cheap, and strip it for the few assets it can make some use of.
The entertainment industry (MPAA/RIAA) has lots of money, power and influence.
The automobile indudstry has even more money, power and influence.
The technology industry has comparatively less money, power and influence.
SMTP is an application layer protocol, not transport layer. While it would be nice if somebody with sufficient backing could change SMTP and get everyone else to implement it, the DoD is not really the people to do that.
IPSec is more of an ad-hoc approach to security in the Internet Protocol. Part of the requirements of IPv6 is that nodes must support IPSec. But it's not really built into the protocol itself.
Voice is data, video is data, they all run over IP and therefore can be considered data just like anything else.
What we don't have is security built into IP. IPSec is a good beginning, but its more of an afterthought. Not nearly as good as what they could do if security were an integrated part of the native IP protocol.
I think you have to spend more time in the business world. I often find the quality of a person's intra-office email is inversely related to their salary/rank.
SCO's going to be shredding and I hear their email server *just* crashed and its hard drives are going to have to be replaced. All of the archive tapes have suddenly gone bad.
It is one thing to be less than forthcoming about your business relationships with other companies. It is an entirely different matter to intentionally destroy evidence like that, which would be relevant to the case. The only people hurt by this memo (if it is even true), are going to be Microsoft. Darl will do a lot of stupiod things for money, like suing IBM, but I do not think he would risk facing a lengthy criminal prosection and subsequent jail time in a federal prison, for destroying evidence that does not really do any harm to himself.
What the courts are doing is telling the FCC that they're attempts are too weak, and must come up with something better than simply letting states decide how to handle the problem. The courts in this case are on the consumer's side.
No, I do not see how the FCC letting the individual states regulate this is anti-consumer. Each state is going to have a much better understanding of its own local market, than the FCC would of that same market. But the court has ruled that the FCC now has to come up with its own set of rules for each and every market, and it must do this within 60 days! Please tell me how this is pro-consumer? If the ruling stands, it can only lead to short-sighted and uninformed regulations going into place in all of these various markets. Because how they could possibly expect any agency to do a full indepth analysis, and come to a decision in 60 days is beyond me.
The court ruled on the issue of "whether the FCC had the authority to allow states to decide when the Baby Bells must allow competitors access to their voice switching networks". The court decided the FCC did not, and thus "it gave the FCC 60 days to come up with its own rules for each individual market throughout the United States."
CNET News.com has good coverage on the ruling. So far the feedback on the decision is that it is so unfounded and ridiculous, that it is almost certain to be overturned by the Supreme Court (they are appealing after all!).
You are confusing restrictions on trade through the use of quotas, with restrictions on immigration through the use of quotas. They are not the same thing.
I agree. There is also another argument, that they are trying to make an example of this person too. If he gets off with a light sentence, then other people with not so great intentions might get the idea of writting an email virus that does just this too. Imagine a MyDoom, that caused each computer it affected to dial up 911 (obviously it would have be not on broadband). The thought of that happening scares me.
Guys, terrorism is where you like blow up a building or gas people in the subway in the name of a political or religious cause.
Initially, I was of the same opinion. But then I thought what if this had been an al-Qaeda agent who had done this? Would we still be so quick to deny it as being terrorism? Terrorism can occur by Americans too (i.e. the Unabomber).
OK, so what you are saying. Maybe you are thinking that regardless of who committed the crime, the incident was still too small to qualify as terrorism. But what if it had been 100 users? 10,000 users? 1 million users? 100 million users> (Though God help us if 100 million people are stupid enough to open and run an email attachment like that!) Where do you draw the line?
So, they need something an US software makers make. They just write there own
Yes, but if an American company is more efficient at producing a particular type of software over competing Chinese companies, then the Chinese companies who use that software are going to be put at a disadvantage because they will have to pay a higher relative price for the same software as their competitors abroad, who do not have to deal with these quotas.
Trade quotas are a bad thing in almost all cases. There are very few real exceptions.
If they're importing stuff, their economy suffers if they're not exporting more than they're importing. Currently this is the case with things, but to say that you're handicapping economic growth by not importing things, implies you know very little about how economics works.
No, I have a degree in economics. I do know what I am talking about. The issue you are referring to is called a trade deficit, and while a negative trade deficit is not a good thing, it is certainly not the most important indicator of a nation's economic well being. Countries DO benefit by importing the technologies and using that technology in the manufacturing of other items that the nation chooses to specialize in. Ever heard of comparative advantage? A nation does best by producing items they can produce for cheapest relatively, and importing those goods that are relatively more expensive to produce. This is exactly why setting an arbitrary quota for foreign software is a bad thing, because it may limit Chinese companies from using foreign technology when they need it most.
Doesn't China remind you of a budding United States?
No, the US has been a democracy since day one. China is one of the few remaining Communist regimes in the world.
They can do anything they want to. But then they cannot really complain when the US reacts against this policy, and introduces a corresponding quota limiting the importation of China made software.
This will just backfire on them. Irregardless of whether this is designed to reduce Microsoft's monopoly, a quota that restricts the use of ALL foreign software is going to have a negative impact on China's ability to advance their economy.
It will help local software companies, but there will probably be no net gain to the nation as a whole. When you restrict the ability for domestic companies to use foreign software (especially when it is the best tool for the job) you are handicapping economic growth.
No, it is not insane. It is called cross-licensing. They are saying if you want to use this technology, then you agree that you are not going to come back and sue Microsoft (or any other licensee too!) for patent violations relating to this implementation. This is a good thing!! They are protecting themselves.
So by building support for "Caller ID for Email" into your software, you suddenly give Microsoft an unlimited license to use and sell it. And, in fact, not only Microsoft, but everyone else who writes software that supports "Caller ID for Email."
Absolutely not. There is something called copyright law. Microsoft or any other company cannot just go and resell your software on their own terms. The license just means you cannot sue them for patent violations when they choose to build software that implements technology similar to yours in this area (provided you had obtained additional patents relating to this 'Caller-ID').
From the "terms of the patent license for implementing this specification":
However, it disconcerts me that they are also applying for a patent in this area instead of engaging the community through a consortium-like committee that could share the technology across the board unencumbered by licensing fees.
It is called defensive patenting. There is nothing wrong with applying for a patent on this. We do not want another Eolas, where some other company that produces zero innovation gets a patent on it instead, and puts a strangehold on the industry. While not perfect, Microsoft has been pretty good about not going after other companies with frivolous lawsuits over patenting issues. Since the USPTO now seems to accept pretty much anything, companies have to apply for patents on whatever possible, so that they have something to use to defend themselves in the future.