I'm gonna call BS on that right now. The low dollar cost projects SETI, PBS, and NEA have been favorite points of attack for the dems and pubes in their little budget battles for years - any government funding of this sort of philosophical project is an endorsement of it by the recognized rules of engagement.
They are already working on getting restrictions placed on libraries - the country will have to get more corrupt or a lot more conservative for them to succeed at removing public funding altogether.
Re:Origination / Termination & Carrier Access
on
SBC's VoIP End Run
·
· Score: 1
Carrier access billing is a decent profit center in and of itself!
I know at least two people that struck it seriously rich with this as their only real source of revenue - they could sell to their customers at near cost because their customers were the destination for calls from Bell customers.
This may backfire on SBC because in the local markets these interconnect agreements are tied in with recip-comp - carrier A and carrier B have places where they they interconnect and each carrier is paid by the other for terminating calls for their customers. This has been a huge deal for dial ISPs who are also CLECs because their phone lines have been a destination rather than a source of calls and some VOIP architectures would have only increased that. In an effort to curry favor (and business) with SBC and the like many of the larger CLECs have backed SBC in seeking to change (or revoke) recip-comp, after this backstab I don't see that support continuing.
It almost sounds as if SBC wants the good parts of recip-comp (money paid to them) to increase and the bad parts (money they pay out) to go away. I doubt a hostile FCC will give them that if SBC alienates their support with this sort of move.
No it is not the same thing. Analogy is a weak tool for argument at best - but your statement is beyond ridiculous. A goods or service provider can provide a statement to law enforcement that they provided the good or service in the case of a crime - no problem, it becomes a problem when providers are required to spy on their customers in case any of them were to commit a crime.
The illegal trading of copyrighted (by others) files isn't a legimiate use of Internet2. I find it amazing that people get upset about the MPAA but these same people, for the most part, do not get nearly as upset about those who are breaking the law.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Users are misusing IN2 resources to copy MPAAs property
MPAA wants to get onto IN2
Item 1 and item 2 are separate, distinct, individual, apart, not the same issue. One has nothing to do with the other. What MPAA wants would lessen the value of IN2 and place an unfair burden on the operators.
...and once they have a connection to the research network they will let their little weasels run around looking for contraband and send cease and desist orders on flimsy evidence of data that looks like it might represent a work copyrighted by one of their members.
The MPAA will add a bureaucratic strain and have no legitimate use for the network. This is a research network being used for legitimate purposes and they have better things to do than the kind of inane crap this will lead to.
I've worked at small ISPs, I've owned small ISPs, I've worked at large ISPs, large network providers, and so on in many different jobs, so I've seen the change in things from 1995 to the present - there are very real costs to network management that are associated with the C&D letters that IP owners feel free to spam all over since the DMCA and I think it is unreasonable for everyone else to bear that cost.
Why should the network owner have to care that their network is used for copyright infringement? They probably care because that takes resources away from those available, but they shouldn't have to.
I just don't get why people think it is ok to take music/movies/software from people with out paying...
Two separate issues. This is not about copyright, this is about letting copyright holders interfere with my work and my property and make demands that I police my users to enforce their property rights.
Apparently neither do you. If this issue was about concern for network owners rights, and resources?
Local admin issue, local admin issue, local admin issue.
The local issue (improper use of network) is completely divorced from the MPAA requests to join the network to police it. IN2 does real work and the MPAA will be a parasite on the network.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your wild rantings.
BS.
The MPAA has an acknowledged intent to force network owners to police their own networks. They have a history of demanding (and getting) the ability to takedown or force a takedown of offending material. The fact that "it" (a network) can be used for "something" (copyright infringement) is not a valid argument to let the MPAA get in the way of people doing actual work.
But you are probably ok with that misuse of Inet2, arent you?
You just don't get it do you? The reason that this becomes a yro issue at all is not the "right" to trade in copyrighted materials, it is about the right of network owners not having to waste their resources turning their own equipment into snitches for the MPAA and network users not having to worry about accidentally naming a file "usher" and getting their node shut down.
"It could be used for things I don't like" can be applied to lots of things - it is certainly not a valid argument in this case.
Good old won.net, the first logo I remember treating as a "do not under any circumstances buy this game" warning. I don't know which was worse, their pathetic matchmaker service or their broken authentication system.
Eventually I guess I won't be able to buy any PC games as this sort of idiocy and contempt for the customer is here to stay.
My dog has coughed up things more insightful than that comment. Not everyone who complains about these ridiculous copy protection schemes is willing to waste money supporting them, I'd be willing to bet only a rabid minority of people who actually understand the issues are willing to put up with this crap, the majority of people buying this game were not aware that they were paying Valve to spit at them.
I remember how inconvenient the copy protection for HL1 was (at initial release) and guess what - having been burnt once I was smart enough to hold off this time. Last time Valve released a protection patch fairly quickly, so I'm sure I'll be able to buy the game eventually - like once they patch the single player version to not need activation.
A good SW MMORPG will be nearly impossible just because of this dilemma.
Naw they just need to set it in an appropriate time period like KOTOR or when Luke is rebuilding the jedi after the war. They could make jedi just another (balanced) element of the game world.
I have been seriously hooked on that stupid SWG game twice now - I love the time setting and wish they had left jedi out of the game entirely. What I really wish it that they had provided the world described on the box and in the introduction booklet - smugglers, bounty hunters, crime lords, blasters (don't even get me started on melee in a SW game), storm troopers, battlefields, an actual civil war, and droids droids droids.
I've taken a second break from the game myself and I'll check back in a few months, but I seriously expect that unless they pull their head out and do some serious thinking about what they want the game to be and communicate that to the players in a meaningful way then that game is on the downhill slide to cancel town.
Might be, but I have a hard time taking the article entirely seriously with statements such as:
But big music's attitude towards the internet has changed, too. Over the past four years the big companies have come a long way towards accepting that the internet and digital technology will define the industry's future.
You better believe the majors have recognized the value of digital for a long time - the thing is that they wanted some locked in, super drm, industry standard digital nightmare (after a couple of years of jostling and failed competing formats to sucker the early adopters). I think they might finally be realizing that is not gonna happen - other formats got there first and are going to be difficult to displace, for the moment at least I think they will make due with what they have (apple and microsoft), use the lawsuits to continue vilifying mp3, and push for tighter restrictions on the formats that are almost acceptable to them.
"Assembly language Step-by-Step" is really an introduction to x86 architecture guide for people who missed out on those kind of classes in college, be warned that Jeff D is actually a filthy pascal fiend at heart:)
One of the key lessons from that work is that you create real boundaries around things, and prevent the faults crossing those boundaries. All Unix-like systems tend to have at least some kind of boundaries that are enforced, and it is relatively easy to tighten them up so that when things go bad, the damage does not spread too far or too fast.
Unix and Windows both have boundaries to try and limit damage - and they both fail in real world conditions. Windows fails because the security model combined with legacy components is too complicated for programmers and users - some critical element will require privileged access in a way that is not easily understandable. Unix fails in the same way but for the opposite reason - it is simple to understand but has an easy target, get root and win.
I don't think we will see real designed in security until it becomes invisible to programmers - it is not as simple as 'fgets' and 'strlcat/strncat' rather than 'gets' and 'strcat'. Managed code systems are a huge step in the right direction, but until everything those systems rely on are themselves reliable you have only shoved the point of failure back a level.
Really the only containment system that could not be subverted would be a system that does not trust the user or the programmer - probably a good idea for business systems but something I would never accept on my personal machines.
I've often found her editorial commentary overwrought and hyperbolic, but her information is excellent and her legal analysis is spot on.
I avoid reading that site for that very reason - she may be spot on and an excellent analyst but her fangirl presentation style damages her credibility.
Or a smart despot who is smart enough to realize he isn't smarter than everyone working for him. Every director making a "vanity movie" comes across as believing their own press about what a genius they are.
If by software you specifically mean source code then you are correct, but if you are talking about running instances of the program or an executable and its configuration then I'd say there is often degradation over time and actual maintenance required to correct that. Lots of systems out there that are restarted once a week because it is cheaper than finding and fixing the leak, plenty of programs out there that need to be reinstalled because some portion of the configuration is messed up or inconsistent.
If you have ever written an in-house network server you may be surprised to find an instance of it chugging away years later with a wrapper of shell scripts and operational processes to adapt it to whatever new purpose it has been put to.
There are some fairly high profile "pundits" like that dirtbag Hannity and that psychotic Coulter. The problem is that those people get to capper and dance and say outrageous things and then pretend to be serious when they want to be taken seriously and entertainers when they are caught in a logical inconsistency or lie.
I've noticed that slashdot posts are often subject to misreading based on popular interpretations of the meaning of a word, once that happens good luck getting the "nuh uh" crowd to realize that words have meaning beyond those currently assigned to them by the evening news.
You can have 2 year application uptime on Windows. As long as some form of failover has been set up then it does not matter if there have been hundreds of individual reboots of machines during that time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm gonna call BS on that right now. The low dollar cost projects SETI, PBS, and NEA have been favorite points of attack for the dems and pubes in their little budget battles for years - any government funding of this sort of philosophical project is an endorsement of it by the recognized rules of engagement.
They are already working on getting restrictions placed on libraries - the country will have to get more corrupt or a lot more conservative for them to succeed at removing public funding altogether.
I know at least two people that struck it seriously rich with this as their only real source of revenue - they could sell to their customers at near cost because their customers were the destination for calls from Bell customers.
Ah, if only it were still 1997. :)
It almost sounds as if SBC wants the good parts of recip-comp (money paid to them) to increase and the bad parts (money they pay out) to go away. I doubt a hostile FCC will give them that if SBC alienates their support with this sort of move.
No it is not the same thing. Analogy is a weak tool for argument at best - but your statement is beyond ridiculous. A goods or service provider can provide a statement to law enforcement that they provided the good or service in the case of a crime - no problem, it becomes a problem when providers are required to spy on their customers in case any of them were to commit a crime.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
- Users are misusing IN2 resources to copy MPAAs property
- MPAA wants to get onto IN2
Item 1 and item 2 are separate, distinct, individual, apart, not the same issue. One has nothing to do with the other. What MPAA wants would lessen the value of IN2 and place an unfair burden on the operators.The MPAA will add a bureaucratic strain and have no legitimate use for the network. This is a research network being used for legitimate purposes and they have better things to do than the kind of inane crap this will lead to.
I've worked at small ISPs, I've owned small ISPs, I've worked at large ISPs, large network providers, and so on in many different jobs, so I've seen the change in things from 1995 to the present - there are very real costs to network management that are associated with the C&D letters that IP owners feel free to spam all over since the DMCA and I think it is unreasonable for everyone else to bear that cost.
I just don't get why people think it is ok to take music/movies/software from people with out paying...
Two separate issues. This is not about copyright, this is about letting copyright holders interfere with my work and my property and make demands that I police my users to enforce their property rights.
Local admin issue, local admin issue, local admin issue.
The local issue (improper use of network) is completely divorced from the MPAA requests to join the network to police it. IN2 does real work and the MPAA will be a parasite on the network.
BS.
The MPAA has an acknowledged intent to force network owners to police their own networks. They have a history of demanding (and getting) the ability to takedown or force a takedown of offending material. The fact that "it" (a network) can be used for "something" (copyright infringement) is not a valid argument to let the MPAA get in the way of people doing actual work.
You just don't get it do you? The reason that this becomes a yro issue at all is not the "right" to trade in copyrighted materials, it is about the right of network owners not having to waste their resources turning their own equipment into snitches for the MPAA and network users not having to worry about accidentally naming a file "usher" and getting their node shut down.
"It could be used for things I don't like" can be applied to lots of things - it is certainly not a valid argument in this case.
Eventually I guess I won't be able to buy any PC games as this sort of idiocy and contempt for the customer is here to stay.
I remember how inconvenient the copy protection for HL1 was (at initial release) and guess what - having been burnt once I was smart enough to hold off this time. Last time Valve released a protection patch fairly quickly, so I'm sure I'll be able to buy the game eventually - like once they patch the single player version to not need activation.
Naw they just need to set it in an appropriate time period like KOTOR or when Luke is rebuilding the jedi after the war. They could make jedi just another (balanced) element of the game world.
I have been seriously hooked on that stupid SWG game twice now - I love the time setting and wish they had left jedi out of the game entirely. What I really wish it that they had provided the world described on the box and in the introduction booklet - smugglers, bounty hunters, crime lords, blasters (don't even get me started on melee in a SW game), storm troopers, battlefields, an actual civil war, and droids droids droids.
I've taken a second break from the game myself and I'll check back in a few months, but I seriously expect that unless they pull their head out and do some serious thinking about what they want the game to be and communicate that to the players in a meaningful way then that game is on the downhill slide to cancel town.
"Assembly language Step-by-Step" is really an introduction to x86 architecture guide for people who missed out on those kind of classes in college, be warned that Jeff D is actually a filthy pascal fiend at heart :)
Unix and Windows both have boundaries to try and limit damage - and they both fail in real world conditions. Windows fails because the security model combined with legacy components is too complicated for programmers and users - some critical element will require privileged access in a way that is not easily understandable. Unix fails in the same way but for the opposite reason - it is simple to understand but has an easy target, get root and win.
I don't think we will see real designed in security until it becomes invisible to programmers - it is not as simple as 'fgets' and 'strlcat/strncat' rather than 'gets' and 'strcat'. Managed code systems are a huge step in the right direction, but until everything those systems rely on are themselves reliable you have only shoved the point of failure back a level.
Really the only containment system that could not be subverted would be a system that does not trust the user or the programmer - probably a good idea for business systems but something I would never accept on my personal machines.
I avoid reading that site for that very reason - she may be spot on and an excellent analyst but her fangirl presentation style damages her credibility.
Or a smart despot who is smart enough to realize he isn't smarter than everyone working for him. Every director making a "vanity movie" comes across as believing their own press about what a genius they are.
If you have ever written an in-house network server you may be surprised to find an instance of it chugging away years later with a wrapper of shell scripts and operational processes to adapt it to whatever new purpose it has been put to.
There are some fairly high profile "pundits" like that dirtbag Hannity and that psychotic Coulter. The problem is that those people get to capper and dance and say outrageous things and then pretend to be serious when they want to be taken seriously and entertainers when they are caught in a logical inconsistency or lie.
For the markup? No. Were there a government mandated "towel theft levy" on hotel bills I'd say yes.
Creepy. It reads sort of like Gomer Pyle talking to his rifle in "Full Metal Jacket".
I've noticed that slashdot posts are often subject to misreading based on popular interpretations of the meaning of a word, once that happens good luck getting the "nuh uh" crowd to realize that words have meaning beyond those currently assigned to them by the evening news.
You can have 2 year application uptime on Windows. As long as some form of failover has been set up then it does not matter if there have been hundreds of individual reboots of machines during that time.