Now, theres no hard and fast rule, that the simplest theory is the correct one.
Agreed. The simplest theory is not always the correct one. Take the theory of gravity. We know that is not perfect. It's a whole lot simpler than curved space, but we know that curved space is closer to the correct explanation than the theory of gravity.
The issue we have here is a question of thought. Basically we have a topic which does not completely answer all the questions. As a result, we have a group of people saying, add some other options. We discuss the fact that gravity isn't quite right, we discuss the fact that thermodynamics are not quite right, we discuss the idea of infinity/undefined in mathematics because there are holes in math where you divide by zero. So what is so sacred about the theory of evolution? The whole discussion has errupted into a firestorm where intelligent thought has been cast aside in the defense against Intelligent Design.
The article and the whole discussion here has seemed to ignore the actual school board decision in Dover. I'm including a quotation from the school board which is from a local publication (name ommitted to avoid slashdotting the publication)
During its regular meeting on Oct 18, the board voted 6-3 to allow changes to their biology curriculum that reads: "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."
As you can see here. We are not talking about Darwin's Theory vs. Intelligent Design. We are talking about Darwin's Theory vs. a whole slew of other ideas including intelligent design. Basically, the school board is saying, let's teach the students about Darwin's Theory and then let's explain to them that yes, as all theories, it has some issues that haven't been worked out and may or may not ever be worked out, so here's a few other theories.
First of all, humans "discovered" fusion in 1953 with the first fusion bomb, or "hydrogen" bomb. What this speaks of is controlled fusion.
Actually humans "discovered" fusion in prehistoric times when the first human looked up at the sun / stars. They may not have known what it was, but they discovered that there was something there and we now know it was a big fusion reactor.
Great so can I post my email address for the purpose of having potential vendors contact me with the stipulation that they must also pay me royalties for the use of my address?
A much easier solution is to place a true VPN device at the other end of your wireless network. Go get something like a Cisco VPN 3000. Connect the wireless network to the "public" port of the VPN concentrator. Connect your wired network to the "private" side of the concentrator. I know this sounds backwards when your wired network is the Internet. Now you can use WEP if you wish to give someone a little bigger challenge. Beyond that you need a DHCP server on the wireless network and your in business. Your users have to establish a VPN tunnel over the wireless to do anything. If they can't log in to establish a VPN tunnel, they are out of luck.
If your worried about a 3DES or AES tunnel then you shouldn't be doing something like wireless anyway.
Agreed. If you use that basis, most sources of energy on the planet are second or third-hand fusion energy then too. The energy being utilized when you burn coal is really chemical energy being released that was stored up by living plant or animal many years ago. That plant or animal got it's energy from photosynthesis which is natures version of solar power.
That's an interesting thought. Didn't I hear about those somewhere before. Yeah, that's it. They used to sell routers and vacated the market. Rather quickly if I recall and a number of people got stuck with gear that they couldn't use.
I just don't know how quickly people will be to jump on the bandwagon with an organization that left many of there customers hanging with a "we're not doing this business anymore" message 3-4 years ago.
Re:Not a bad start...but a couple of things on IPv
on
An Introduction to IPv6
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually some of those issues are covered in IPv6. There is a new address type called an any-cast address. The idea, which will be interesting to see how it's implimented, is that all DNS servers will use an single any-cast address. The routers will somehow be told that this any-cast exists on this particular machine. When someone needs a DNS lookup they will use the hard-code any-cast address for DNS that everyone else in the world uses; however, instead of everyone hitting the same machine, they will hit the "closest" machine with that any-cast address. The same can be true for NTP, etc. Basically these are services that do not require that you have any particular device, just one of any of the ones in the world... preferably the closest or least busy.
I have a Palm m515 that just recently quit working. I loved my m515 because so far I have not found a device as small as it. The thinness of the unit is very important. My m515 would fit in a back pocket just like a wallet and never be noticed. Now I have to go looking for something that is thin and small enough to be kept on me at all times. I don't do well with a unit that has to be carried around; I tend to lay it down and forget to pick it back up.
On the wireless front. This was the only drawback ot the m515. The m515 was plenty in all other areas. If I want a camera, I'll buy a camera. While the mp3 functionality is nice and I'd be happy to have it, I have an mp3 player that does that. What I really need is wireless device that I can access my schedule, some documents (using something like a word viewer or something), synchronize over 802.11 so I don't have to dock or even be at my desk, and be able to always have it on me.
I guess one of the benefits to linux is that two linux distributions can take two totally opposite sides of the same issue while running the exact same kernel, mail server, apache server, browser, etc. under their distributions logo. The issue with a closed-source application is that you have to pick one side in each conflict. Eventually you will probably run into a chain of people who can't utilize one of your apps because someone they do business with doesn't use it. Those people probably don't use it because someone they do business with hates your company for being "rude" to them. As a result, the middle person has no solution for a PC that interroperates.
One final point to note is that Newham will be using Internet Explorer. Steel explained that this is because Microsoft is very serious about addressing security concerns. ®
Where is the business sense? Very serious about addressing security concerns? You don't select a product to run your production apps based on someone being very serious. When it comes to security concerns, you select a product based on the product's track record with security.
I don't care if you like MS products or not; the statement above is not gounds for any business decision. When will people learn to evaluate products correctly. If MS wins on security, then say they win on security. If they don't, don't say they are very serious about getting there. Tell them they haven't done a good enough job yet and they need to prove it first.
Couldn't you put something in your motd that was written in a "code". As I understand it, you are in violation if I write my name as:
mjbn204 (one letter and one number higher) or possibly even l|i|a|m|1|9|3
and you attempt to decrypt it. You could create a junk login that has a/bin/false shell. Encrypt the password with some easily broken encryption and then claim a violation of the act when someone "decrypts" your text.
Your argument doesn't make sense. The web address is completely different from the IP address.
The problem is that IP addresses need to be assigned in blocks to keep the size of a full routing table down. Basically this ruling is nothing more than an indirect Internet Tax. The result of this ruling will be that backbone providers have to raise service rates to support the increased memory and processor requirements of their routers.
The size of a BGP routing table was skyrocketing until about 5-7 years ago. That's when groups like ARIN started saying, "we have to fix this".
The way to fix it is a logical method of subnetting. Big Blocks assigned to backbone providers...Smaller blocks within those assigned to the ISPs that connect to them...a few subnets givent to the customers that connect to them. If you move, you get new addresses. DNS solves all the problem of moving except the internal cost to readdress your machines. If your intelligent, you use DHCP for everything but servers so most of the work is easy. If your even more intelligent you run 95+% of your devices on internal addresses and NAT at your gateway so the work is even easier.
The problem is that users and some stupid programmers don't want to do what makes sense (utilizing DNS and NAT properly).
Plain and simple this ruling is ridiculous. Someone should buy this Judge, and more importantly, the fool that filed the complaint and his lawyer a copy of DNS for dummies.
Actually some of the regional airports are doing this. It is a push by the regionals to get people to fly out of them. Your point about a hub would be interesting though. As you point out, it would be interesting to see how much traffic a carrier could pull from the others if they offered free WiFi at one of their hubs.
I personally believe that free WiFi is a bonus that can be provided by a variety of businesses. In large markets, you can get a WiFi provider to come in and setup and run a pay for use service. However, in many small cities, you can't even find one of those.
The best hope for WiFi in these locations is convincing business owners in the area to create free hot spots as a competitive advantage. I know I would consider going more frequently to a given restaurant for lunch if WiFi were available.
Likewise, the whole WiFi handheld market is headed to a point where an organization like Walmart or Target would have a competitive advantage if free WiFi existed in their store. If it weren't for the fact that I can't find an 802.11b card for my Palm m515... I mean seriously, WiFi is making it's inroads everywhere. In my city we have at least one local church that got an access point and now the pastor often goes online with his handheld to look up a scripture reference or another translation during sunday service.
WiFi is becoming so prevalent that keeping it "pay for use" is almost impossible. However, WiFi has to pay for itself somehow. Free WiFi pays for itself as an advertising tool in the increased business. The sooner that businesses see the benefit of attracting customers, the sooner hot spots will appear. The regional airports are just the "pioneers" of this.
Yes, your numbers are correct. It is 500 shareholders or $10 million in assets. The SEC Website contains the corporate reporting guidelines set forth by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
What really bugs me about the cell-phone / camera combo is that most gyms won't allow you have a cell-phone because they could be a camera in disguise. Makes it a little hard to go to the gym while on call when you can't take a cell-phone with you. All because someone can't wait a few minutes to download photos from a real digital camera.
Agreed. The point I was making is that the article implies this is the IPv4 so it's a test that's just like your normal Internet connection. The fact is that they are doing something drastically different and saying it's like your normal Internet connection because it's IPv4 instead of IPv6 is like saying an SUV is like a motorcycle because it's not a horse; it may still be a vehicle with a gasoline engine, but there are a lot of differences that are being glossed over.
Am I the only one who picked up on this? They portray this as a test of a standard IPv4 file transfer. They are only half correct. While I don't doubt they used IPv4, they certainly didn't utilize standard TCP which their implications of this being similar to other transmissions (unlike the IPv6 test performed earlier) is way off base.
For example, if this test were performed with TCP, the largest TCP window size is 64K. Since TCP transfers must have an ack every window, you can only send 64KB in the amount of time that light travels the 11,000,000 m and back through fiber cable.
Some basic information:
d = 11,000,000 m (each direction) c = 199,861,638 m/s (in glass / fiber) W = 65536Bytes (TCP Window Size in Bytes)
The theoretical bandwidth for a transfer over this distance using TCP window sizes: bw = (W * 8 bits/Byte) / ((2d)/c) bw = 4.763Mb/s
So basically they had to use something like a UDP file transfer. While this is not an uncommon thing, it certainly isn't anything as "typical" as it's made to sound.
It doesn't make so much sense for them to focus on home users when it's the very uncommon home user/hobbyist that wants virtual machine software. They might as well ignore them.
I understand your statement, but your missing a key detail that many companies miss and it is their downfall. I personally believe that RedHat has made a similar error in judgement to this. The fact is that for a product that does not have a overwealmingly dominant install base, you must have a hobbyist to push along the deployment.
How did linux get started/grow in the business world? For the most part it started with a small server here a small server there. It started with a little box that was setup to put up a web page very quickly that could be accessed by a group in the company or a small samba or proxy server to help out a small organizational unit that couldn't justify buying something serious at the time.
So how did VMWare really get to where it was used? What I remember of the VMWare beginnings was that people around work said, "Yeah VM is a great thing for 'Big Iron', but why would we run that on a PC?" Noone knew much about it and the risk was too great to just follow the marketing junk. Unless managers were blinded into pushing the project without technical backing or engineers saw the benefits and could "push the issue", it wasn't going to fly. The engineers could only learn about it and feel comfortable with it by installing it at home, etc.
So the first few deployments of VMWare I saw were on a PC at work where an engineer installed it to test running a linux/windows hybrid desktop so they could run a few linux apps that made them more productive even though they needed Outlook, etc.
My first installation to really work with was a purchase the basic workstation for at home and run XP in a window of my linux boxes. This gave me a windows machine to run a few apps on. I now highly recommend the product, but would recommend against it if they dumped an option for the hobbyist to learn/test/utilize it.
True engineers, the ones that everyone considers subject matter experts, don't learn about a product just through training courses and white papers. They value their reputations enough to not recommend a product until they have some degree of confidence in it. Since a PC product can be run at home or on a test box that they figured out how to hide away at work or something, they test the product on their own. If the vendor doesn't provide a hobbist option, they look for a vendor who will. If all else fails, they make a more risky decision just based on the white papers. Vendors would be wise to realize though, that the hobbist copies are what give them the edge if their product is stable.
The rule would not affect consumers who record shows the old-fashioned way, with VCRs. Nor would it affect programming received on a cable or satellite system, in part because consumers pay for that content.
I was worried I wouldn't be able to use my PVR to time shift, but it looks like this won't change a thing except for those who are picking up the free to air signal. I'm still against this on principal, but at least it wouldn't affect me (or most of us I would think) since I subscribe to satellite.
I assume the point here is that the information telling the equipment to not allow recording would be sent by the TV stations over the airwaves and would not be included in the signal from the cable and satellite providers. I think that believing this to be true is rather short-sighted. When those providers realize that everyone's equipment has the ability to turn off the ability to record a program, you will see them sending it on programming and then working out deals with the content providers to allow them to offer pay-per-view services that do the timeshifting for you (of course at a cost to you).
For example: Suppose I am a cable provider. I know that a particular show is getting great ratings. I do the following:
Implement the necessary equipment to allow me to do the timeshifting (either via a pay-per-view channel or even better yet by making my set-top boxes be a DVR that I control).
Contact the producers, etc. and get permission to do the "re-airing" of the program (probably will have to pay a royalty, but both of us make money off this plan... so...)
Begin charging my subscribers a premium pay-per-view charge for the service of watching the show at an off-schedule time.
Don't be fooled into believing it won't be used for something that wasn't indicated at this time.
As TRON runs billions of devices worldwide, this will help Microsoft's goal of
cementing WinCE /.NET in places as diverse as your toaster and cell phone, perhaps in a setup similar to how X-Windows is in relation to the Linux kernel."
The first thing I thought of when I saw this write-up was this poster about MS's new OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The simplest theory is not always the correct one. Take the theory of gravity. We know that is not perfect. It's a whole lot simpler than curved space, but we know that curved space is closer to the correct explanation than the theory of gravity.
The issue we have here is a question of thought. Basically we have a topic which does not completely answer all the questions. As a result, we have a group of people saying, add some other options. We discuss the fact that gravity isn't quite right, we discuss the fact that thermodynamics are not quite right, we discuss the idea of infinity/undefined in mathematics because there are holes in math where you divide by zero. So what is so sacred about the theory of evolution? The whole discussion has errupted into a firestorm where intelligent thought has been cast aside in the defense against Intelligent Design.
The article and the whole discussion here has seemed to ignore the actual school board decision in Dover. I'm including a quotation from the school board which is from a local publication (name ommitted to avoid slashdotting the publication)
As you can see here. We are not talking about Darwin's Theory vs. Intelligent Design. We are talking about Darwin's Theory vs. a whole slew of other ideas including intelligent design. Basically, the school board is saying, let's teach the students about Darwin's Theory and then let's explain to them that yes, as all theories, it has some issues that haven't been worked out and may or may not ever be worked out, so here's a few other theories.
Actually humans "discovered" fusion in prehistoric times when the first human looked up at the sun / stars. They may not have known what it was, but they discovered that there was something there and we now know it was a big fusion reactor.
That's ridiculous. Everyone knows the earth is not at the center of any system. It's beneath everything. Are you unaware that the earth is flat?
Great so can I post my email address for the purpose of having potential vendors contact me with the stipulation that they must also pay me royalties for the use of my address?
Could this be SPAM where the spammer pays you.
A much easier solution is to place a true VPN device at the other end of your wireless network. Go get something like a Cisco VPN 3000. Connect the wireless network to the "public" port of the VPN concentrator. Connect your wired network to the "private" side of the concentrator. I know this sounds backwards when your wired network is the Internet. Now you can use WEP if you wish to give someone a little bigger challenge. Beyond that you need a DHCP server on the wireless network and your in business. Your users have to establish a VPN tunnel over the wireless to do anything. If they can't log in to establish a VPN tunnel, they are out of luck.
If your worried about a 3DES or AES tunnel then you shouldn't be doing something like wireless anyway.
Agreed. If you use that basis, most sources of energy on the planet are second or third-hand fusion energy then too. The energy being utilized when you burn coal is really chemical energy being released that was stored up by living plant or animal many years ago. That plant or animal got it's energy from photosynthesis which is natures version of solar power.
That's an interesting thought. Didn't I hear about those somewhere before. Yeah, that's it. They used to sell routers and vacated the market. Rather quickly if I recall and a number of people got stuck with gear that they couldn't use.
I just don't know how quickly people will be to jump on the bandwagon with an organization that left many of there customers hanging with a "we're not doing this business anymore" message 3-4 years ago.
Actually some of those issues are covered in IPv6. There is a new address type called an any-cast address. The idea, which will be interesting to see how it's implimented, is that all DNS servers will use an single any-cast address. The routers will somehow be told that this any-cast exists on this particular machine. When someone needs a DNS lookup they will use the hard-code any-cast address for DNS that everyone else in the world uses; however, instead of everyone hitting the same machine, they will hit the "closest" machine with that any-cast address. The same can be true for NTP, etc. Basically these are services that do not require that you have any particular device, just one of any of the ones in the world... preferably the closest or least busy.
Shouldn't the Title of politics.slashdot.org be Politics for Nerds: Stuff That Matters
not
News for Nerds: Stuff That Matters
?
compact and wireless.
I have a Palm m515 that just recently quit working. I loved my m515 because so far I have not found a device as small as it. The thinness of the unit is very important. My m515 would fit in a back pocket just like a wallet and never be noticed. Now I have to go looking for something that is thin and small enough to be kept on me at all times. I don't do well with a unit that has to be carried around; I tend to lay it down and forget to pick it back up.
On the wireless front. This was the only drawback ot the m515. The m515 was plenty in all other areas. If I want a camera, I'll buy a camera. While the mp3 functionality is nice and I'd be happy to have it, I have an mp3 player that does that. What I really need is wireless device that I can access my schedule, some documents (using something like a word viewer or something), synchronize over 802.11 so I don't have to dock or even be at my desk, and be able to always have it on me.
I guess one of the benefits to linux is that two linux distributions can take two totally opposite sides of the same issue while running the exact same kernel, mail server, apache server, browser, etc. under their distributions logo. The issue with a closed-source application is that you have to pick one side in each conflict. Eventually you will probably run into a chain of people who can't utilize one of your apps because someone they do business with doesn't use it. Those people probably don't use it because someone they do business with hates your company for being "rude" to them. As a result, the middle person has no solution for a PC that interroperates.
Where is the business sense? Very serious about addressing security concerns? You don't select a product to run your production apps based on someone being very serious. When it comes to security concerns, you select a product based on the product's track record with security.
I don't care if you like MS products or not; the statement above is not gounds for any business decision. When will people learn to evaluate products correctly. If MS wins on security, then say they win on security. If they don't, don't say they are very serious about getting there. Tell them they haven't done a good enough job yet and they need to prove it first.
Couldn't you put something in your motd that was written in a "code". As I understand it, you are in violation if I write my name as:
/bin/false shell. Encrypt the password with some easily broken encryption and then claim a violation of the act when someone "decrypts" your text.
mjbn204 (one letter and one number higher)
or possibly even
l|i|a|m|1|9|3
and you attempt to decrypt it. You could create a junk login that has a
Am I missing something here?
This bring a whole new twist to graffiti. Virtual markings on buildings.
Your argument doesn't make sense. The web address is completely different from the IP address.
The problem is that IP addresses need to be assigned in blocks to keep the size of a full routing table down. Basically this ruling is nothing more than an indirect Internet Tax. The result of this ruling will be that backbone providers have to raise service rates to support the increased memory and processor requirements of their routers.
The size of a BGP routing table was skyrocketing until about 5-7 years ago. That's when groups like ARIN started saying, "we have to fix this".
The way to fix it is a logical method of subnetting. Big Blocks assigned to backbone providers...Smaller blocks within those assigned to the ISPs that connect to them...a few subnets givent to the customers that connect to them. If you move, you get new addresses. DNS solves all the problem of moving except the internal cost to readdress your machines. If your intelligent, you use DHCP for everything but servers so most of the work is easy. If your even more intelligent you run 95+% of your devices on internal addresses and NAT at your gateway so the work is even easier.
The problem is that users and some stupid programmers don't want to do what makes sense (utilizing DNS and NAT properly).
Plain and simple this ruling is ridiculous. Someone should buy this Judge, and more importantly, the fool that filed the complaint and his lawyer a copy of DNS for dummies.
Actually some of the regional airports are doing this. It is a push by the regionals to get people to fly out of them. Your point about a hub would be interesting though. As you point out, it would be interesting to see how much traffic a carrier could pull from the others if they offered free WiFi at one of their hubs.
I personally believe that free WiFi is a bonus that can be provided by a variety of businesses. In large markets, you can get a WiFi provider to come in and setup and run a pay for use service. However, in many small cities, you can't even find one of those.
The best hope for WiFi in these locations is convincing business owners in the area to create free hot spots as a competitive advantage. I know I would consider going more frequently to a given restaurant for lunch if WiFi were available.
Likewise, the whole WiFi handheld market is headed to a point where an organization like Walmart or Target would have a competitive advantage if free WiFi existed in their store. If it weren't for the fact that I can't find an 802.11b card for my Palm m515... I mean seriously, WiFi is making it's inroads everywhere. In my city we have at least one local church that got an access point and now the pastor often goes online with his handheld to look up a scripture reference or another translation during sunday service.
WiFi is becoming so prevalent that keeping it "pay for use" is almost impossible. However, WiFi has to pay for itself somehow. Free WiFi pays for itself as an advertising tool in the increased business. The sooner that businesses see the benefit of attracting customers, the sooner hot spots will appear. The regional airports are just the "pioneers" of this.
Can you imagine a massive cluster of servers infected with the RPC or Sasser Worms?
I'm sure Microsoft will probably develop this and market it as a network performance testing tool.
Yes, your numbers are correct. It is 500 shareholders or $10 million in assets. The SEC Website contains the corporate reporting guidelines set forth by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
What really bugs me about the cell-phone / camera combo is that most gyms won't allow you have a cell-phone because they could be a camera in disguise. Makes it a little hard to go to the gym while on call when you can't take a cell-phone with you. All because someone can't wait a few minutes to download photos from a real digital camera.
Agreed. The point I was making is that the article implies this is the IPv4 so it's a test that's just like your normal Internet connection. The fact is that they are doing something drastically different and saying it's like your normal Internet connection because it's IPv4 instead of IPv6 is like saying an SUV is like a motorcycle because it's not a horse; it may still be a vehicle with a gasoline engine, but there are a lot of differences that are being glossed over.
Am I the only one who picked up on this? They portray this as a test of a standard IPv4 file transfer. They are only half correct. While I don't doubt they used IPv4, they certainly didn't utilize standard TCP which their implications of this being similar to other transmissions (unlike the IPv6 test performed earlier) is way off base.
For example, if this test were performed with TCP, the largest TCP window size is 64K. Since TCP transfers must have an ack every window, you can only send 64KB in the amount of time that light travels the 11,000,000 m and back through fiber cable.
Some basic information:
d = 11,000,000 m (each direction)
c = 199,861,638 m/s (in glass / fiber)
W = 65536Bytes (TCP Window Size in Bytes)
The theoretical bandwidth for a transfer over this distance using TCP window sizes:
bw = (W * 8 bits/Byte) / ((2d)/c)
bw = 4.763Mb/s
So basically they had to use something like a UDP file transfer. While this is not an uncommon thing, it certainly isn't anything as "typical" as it's made to sound.
I understand your statement, but your missing a key detail that many companies miss and it is their downfall. I personally believe that RedHat has made a similar error in judgement to this. The fact is that for a product that does not have a overwealmingly dominant install base, you must have a hobbyist to push along the deployment.
How did linux get started/grow in the business world? For the most part it started with a small server here a small server there. It started with a little box that was setup to put up a web page very quickly that could be accessed by a group in the company or a small samba or proxy server to help out a small organizational unit that couldn't justify buying something serious at the time.
So how did VMWare really get to where it was used? What I remember of the VMWare beginnings was that people around work said, "Yeah VM is a great thing for 'Big Iron', but why would we run that on a PC?" Noone knew much about it and the risk was too great to just follow the marketing junk. Unless managers were blinded into pushing the project without technical backing or engineers saw the benefits and could "push the issue", it wasn't going to fly. The engineers could only learn about it and feel comfortable with it by installing it at home, etc.
So the first few deployments of VMWare I saw were on a PC at work where an engineer installed it to test running a linux/windows hybrid desktop so they could run a few linux apps that made them more productive even though they needed Outlook, etc.
My first installation to really work with was a purchase the basic workstation for at home and run XP in a window of my linux boxes. This gave me a windows machine to run a few apps on. I now highly recommend the product, but would recommend against it if they dumped an option for the hobbyist to learn/test/utilize it.
True engineers, the ones that everyone considers subject matter experts, don't learn about a product just through training courses and white papers. They value their reputations enough to not recommend a product until they have some degree of confidence in it. Since a PC product can be run at home or on a test box that they figured out how to hide away at work or something, they test the product on their own. If the vendor doesn't provide a hobbist option, they look for a vendor who will. If all else fails, they make a more risky decision just based on the white papers. Vendors would be wise to realize though, that the hobbist copies are what give them the edge if their product is stable.
I assume the point here is that the information telling the equipment to not allow recording would be sent by the TV stations over the airwaves and would not be included in the signal from the cable and satellite providers. I think that believing this to be true is rather short-sighted. When those providers realize that everyone's equipment has the ability to turn off the ability to record a program, you will see them sending it on programming and then working out deals with the content providers to allow them to offer pay-per-view services that do the timeshifting for you (of course at a cost to you).
For example: Suppose I am a cable provider. I know that a particular show is getting great ratings. I do the following:
Don't be fooled into believing it won't be used for something that wasn't indicated at this time.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this write-up was this poster about MS's new OS.