This is a great concept. If you guys actually read the (many) articles on Sam's speach, you'd see its nothing like timesharing either.
No, it's an Application Service Provider, the next step in outsourcing. The idea wasn't all that popular during the dotcom craze; is it any better now?
Such an agreement would not be binding unless it included the texts of all the EULAs.
Not really. There are lots of contracts that refer to other contracts and "incorporate" their terms "by refrence". Those other contracts have to be available to you as well, somehow. And they were in this case - the original submitter said that he saw them on the screen as the cable guy was clicking on them.
I agree with the premise, however. It's a scummy business practice illustrated here, but it's not surprising.
In all probability, one of those forms you signed was an agreement that extended the license agreement to you. So, even though the cable guy was the one "agreeing" to the EULAs, he was doing it on your behalf.
The huge up-front expenses are not really the problem for XM and Sirius, since they are now sunk costs. As Sirius stockholders are now finding out to their chagrin, such sunk costs can we wiped away with the stroke of a pen.
Depends. Are they associated with long-term debt? Or were they financed with a stock offering? If the latter, then yeah, you'd have a bunch of P.O.ed stockholders.
The problem with the satellite radio model is the huge up-front costs -- nearly a billion dollars to get the satellites up, ground stations established, and then repeaters in major metropolitian areas to help out when you don't have a good view of the sky. So, these two companies get this far, then this recession hits and people try not to spend too much. It's no wonder they are hurting.
Well, then I pity your ISP for having to add to their workload by updating the DHCP table whenever a customer get a new or changed Ethernet card. That's essentially the same workload as manually handing out static IP addresses, so DHCP really hasn't not saved your ISP much.
Also note: DHCP is still usually a local segment function. Yes, I know that there are modifications to various protocols to allow DHCP to function across routers, but that's the router temporarily providing IP service for a local node that hasn't picked up an IP address yet. The actual MAC address is still only used for communications on the local segment.
Further, anybody who's smart enough to figure out how to change MAC addresses can also figure out that they can assign their own static IP address from the DHCP pool and the DHCP server will often allocate around it.
Again, this is only an issue on the local segment, and it's not only the router that will have trouble - any machine on the local segment will have problems. IP address to MAC only happens on the local segment. Any machine on the other side of the router, including those machines across the country, won't know or care what the MAC address is. All they want is the IP address.
And remember that the MAC address is 6 bytes long. There's a lot of room for random grabbing of addresses.
I was referring to people on the same segment. Hardcore gamers in localities generally use the same provider to minimize latency issues. That is when the issue would crop up.
But if you're on the same segment, then routing is not an issue.
As noted, the answer is trivial: generate random MAC addresses. They are 6 bytes long - plenty of room for everyone to tumble the address every day and still not collide.
we could have some major routing issues should people choose the same MAC addresses.
Uh, no you won't. The only time MAC addresses make a difference is in ARP packets, and the only place MAC addresses make a difference is on your local LAN segment. The fact that two people in different cities have the same MAC address matters not a whit to the routers between them.
But, Google does not have a monopoly on all page ranking technology. There are lots of other search engines out there that rank pages using some other technology. Yours is a very weak objection.
Unless Google are deliberately out to get them, then SearchKing don't have a point. If SearchKing is being subjected to the same search algorithm as every other site then I don't see what the problem is. Unless that algorithm was designed specifically to weed out SsearchKing...
SearchKing doesn't have a point anyway, unless there's a contract between the two obligating Google to do something to benefit Searchking (in exchange for Searchking benefitting Google in return). If SearchKing doesn't have a contract, Google doesn't have an obligation, therefore SearchKing doesn't have a basis to file a suit (and the suit should get tossed relatively quickly).
Patent it - you can always issue royalty-free licenses if you want to give it away.
However, I concur with the other posters - If you reuse any part of the key, it's not a one-time pad. If you generate any part of it algorithmically, it's not a one-time pad. The history of crypography is littered with "replacements" for the one-time pad that turned out to be trivially breakable. This could be the first example that turned out to be worthwhile, but the odds are against you.
Do you work for DirecTV? This post sounds like it came from their PR department.
The card upgrade is for the security of DirecTV's revenue stream. Everything else is secondary.
Since they are not replacing the receivers, that means the cards will be as hackable as before. Somebody will get a legit card, pop it in a debugger and watch the communications between the card and the receiver, then get to work on reverse-engineering the card. It will take a while, but the new cards will ultimately be hacked too.
It's interesting to note that DirecTV is in the process of sending out new smart cards for all of their satellite receivers nationwide. The letter announcing that fact cites "security", but it doesn't say whose security they are worried about. Unsophisticated DirecTV users will, of course, assume it's the user's security that's at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's an Application Service Provider, the next step in outsourcing. The idea wasn't all that popular during the dotcom craze; is it any better now?
Not really. There are lots of contracts that refer to other contracts and "incorporate" their terms "by refrence". Those other contracts have to be available to you as well, somehow. And they were in this case - the original submitter said that he saw them on the screen as the cable guy was clicking on them.
I agree with the premise, however. It's a scummy business practice illustrated here, but it's not surprising.
In all probability, one of those forms you signed was an agreement that extended the license agreement to you. So, even though the cable guy was the one "agreeing" to the EULAs, he was doing it on your behalf.
3. Profit!
It's arguably the first RPG in the universe
Nah. ADVENT beats it by a decade.
"Not doing something bad" is not the same as "doing something good".
All your cycles are belong to us?
Perhaps, but USAToday has a much wider audience.
Depends. Are they associated with long-term debt? Or were they financed with a stock offering? If the latter, then yeah, you'd have a bunch of P.O.ed stockholders.
The problem with the satellite radio model is the huge up-front costs -- nearly a billion dollars to get the satellites up, ground stations established, and then repeaters in major metropolitian areas to help out when you don't have a good view of the sky. So, these two companies get this far, then this recession hits and people try not to spend too much. It's no wonder they are hurting.
Well, then I pity your ISP for having to add to their workload by updating the DHCP table whenever a customer get a new or changed Ethernet card. That's essentially the same workload as manually handing out static IP addresses, so DHCP really hasn't not saved your ISP much.
Also note: DHCP is still usually a local segment function. Yes, I know that there are modifications to various protocols to allow DHCP to function across routers, but that's the router temporarily providing IP service for a local node that hasn't picked up an IP address yet. The actual MAC address is still only used for communications on the local segment.
Further, anybody who's smart enough to figure out how to change MAC addresses can also figure out that they can assign their own static IP address from the DHCP pool and the DHCP server will often allocate around it.
And remember that the MAC address is 6 bytes long. There's a lot of room for random grabbing of addresses.
But if you're on the same segment, then routing is not an issue.
As noted, the answer is trivial: generate random MAC addresses. They are 6 bytes long - plenty of room for everyone to tumble the address every day and still not collide.
Uh, no you won't. The only time MAC addresses make a difference is in ARP packets, and the only place MAC addresses make a difference is on your local LAN segment. The fact that two people in different cities have the same MAC address matters not a whit to the routers between them.
arg.
C/one/own/
What, to sell something you don't one? I suppose, though you should not be surprised when the true owner shows up and takes his property back.
But, Google does not have a monopoly on all page ranking technology. There are lots of other search engines out there that rank pages using some other technology. Yours is a very weak objection.
SearchKing doesn't have a point anyway, unless there's a contract between the two obligating Google to do something to benefit Searchking (in exchange for Searchking benefitting Google in return). If SearchKing doesn't have a contract, Google doesn't have an obligation, therefore SearchKing doesn't have a basis to file a suit (and the suit should get tossed relatively quickly).
ooooh! Castigated!! That's bad, right?
Well, the one with the "seventh grade" kid has been pulled too.
Remember "Betty Crocker" ??
Depends. Who did you register through? That outfit is the "registrar", who will probably be the ones sending you your renewal notice.
However, I concur with the other posters - If you reuse any part of the key, it's not a one-time pad. If you generate any part of it algorithmically, it's not a one-time pad. The history of crypography is littered with "replacements" for the one-time pad that turned out to be trivially breakable. This could be the first example that turned out to be worthwhile, but the odds are against you.
Do you work for DirecTV? This post sounds like it came from their PR department.
The card upgrade is for the security of DirecTV's revenue stream. Everything else is secondary.
Since they are not replacing the receivers, that means the cards will be as hackable as before. Somebody will get a legit card, pop it in a debugger and watch the communications between the card and the receiver, then get to work on reverse-engineering the card. It will take a while, but the new cards will ultimately be hacked too.
It's interesting to note that DirecTV is in the process of sending out new smart cards for all of their satellite receivers nationwide. The letter announcing that fact cites "security", but it doesn't say whose security they are worried about. Unsophisticated DirecTV users will, of course, assume it's the user's security that's at stake.