You may want to do a little research on "Passive HookSwitch Bypass Methods". Most require modifications to the phone itself, but not all, that is some of these methods can be accomplished between the phone and outside service line.
If you can modify the phone, it's easy, granted. If you can intercept the line between the phone and the outside line, then with the right design of telephhone there's a possibility you might get something audible. But the claim was that the sound is always relayed all the way to the CO; picking up such a tiny signal at that distance (over all the noise picked up along the way) seems implausible to me.
When the phone is on-hook a minor current is still flowing through it. This is enough for sensitive equipment to pick up the background sound in the room, and this mode of monitoring has actually been used in US court cases, as well as US intelligence gathering operations. It only works with old-school analog phones though.
Whether there's any current flowing at all will depend on the exact design of the telephone, of course (there wouldn't be any at all in the one I looked at). However, I'm sceptical that any sound could be reliably picked up at the CO: the magnitude of the signal current would likely be dwarfed by the level of background noise from interference etc... if this has been claimed in court cases it seems more likely to me that it's a cover story to hide the actual surveillance techniques used (e.g. modifying the phone / installing bugs / etc).
All I need to do is poison DNS pretending to be your pop3 server, then Google will connect to me instead of you.
Most CAs only verify that you have control of a domain before issuing a certificate (eg by sending an email to something@youdomain.com and asking you to prove you've received it). So if you have control over DNS like that, getting a certificate is (alas) not very hard - and there are free CA services out there. I'm not yet convinced that spam is a big motivation for this change...
I'm guessing you never disassembled one to see how it actually worked. I did. Go ahead and find an exemplar and give it a go.
I have done so, and what you say makes no sense. The old carbon microphones require a current flowing through them in order to produce any signal, and that current draw is what signals to the CO that the receiver is off-hook. Therefore the microphone has to be disconnected from the line when the phone is on-hook (or else the CO would see the phone as permanently off-hook) and that is indeed the case in actual phones.
Spamtrap accounts don't reply to confirmation emails or click on confirmation links - ever. That's the whole point of them. Even if you're a malicious troll who got a list of Hotmail trap accounts from somewhere, how do you get control over them to confirm signup?
The malicious troll doesn't need to confirm signup - only to request it, at which point the list server will send an email to the spamtrap, and boom, your reputation takes a hit. All while you're conforming 100% to best practice.
Look. It's possible that this guy has done everything totally by the book and somehow has just got unlucky that his behaviour happens to closely match that of actual spammers. Or it's possible that we don't have the full story. Having been on the other side of such stories and investigated cases like these, I think "sender is not following standard mail etiquette" is far more likely than some enormous conspiracy theory against him. After all, plenty of bulk mail senders do just fine.
I see what you're saying, but he's not actually having his IP blocked in this case. The blocking is taking place based on the content of the message, specifically whether it mentions certain domains set up as relays. The interesting question (from his point of view and ours) is exactly how those domains become flagged as "spammy". For instance, I'd be interested to know (as others have asked) whether the relays allow traffic on port 25, and whether this is a factor.
I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.
I think some people have misunderstood your comment - you're talking about the ER in the US, not the UK, right? (For the benefit of others, in the UK people don't have to pay to see their doctor, and the "ER" is called "A&E" (accident & emergency)).
regarding comments about drs fees in UK clogging up ER's most drs are bulk billed ur free under our Medicare system. I thought the NHS was the same?
Bengie's comment was unclear - you're absolutely right, nobody pays to see their doctor in the UK - his point was that in the US people have to pay for their doctor so if they can't afford it they go to the ER instead, which is less efficient...
You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE.
In fairness you do still have the choice to purchase insurance that will give you additional cover. That's not taken away from you - you just get given a baseline level of care that you don't (directly) pay for.
Gender arguably is more relevant but seriously... there is no bias against women participating in free software projects. It's literally a sport open to anyone, with as few barriers as you can imagine. Age, gender, skin color, origin, perhaps the only filter that reduces diversity is the need for reasonably fluent English.
And still, the number of women in our communities is extremely low. That means the detailed technical world of software appeals to fewer women than it does to men.
Are you sure there are no barriers to participation by women? Have you, for example, asked any women who have tried to participate? A quick internet search suggests that those few women who have tried out participation in Open Source projects found that there was a significant element to the experience that wasn'tpretty. That is plenty to discourage women from taking part.
Errrrr, no. For one thing this actually takes effort which hardware manufacturers are not prone to actually putting in, for another I didn't think they give a crap about supporting any Linux operating systems
Actually Lenovo are often pretty good about supporting Linux - e.g. they provide information and often drivers and support. I don't think the M92p is a model for which they do this though.
Sometimes a central authority is a good thing. But no-fucking-body is telling me what software I can or can't download, or banning me from downloading certain titles over some stupid shit like this. And this is just a mild example of what they *could* do if they wanted.
Well, the developer (ANY developer, mind you) can get sued for trademark infringement, so even your "open access" rules can get curtailed.
This much is true...
Yes, if you make a "memory" game, expect to receive some cease-and-desist soon, regardless if it's walled, garden, open-source, whatever.
And Apple has so far let users keep their "removed" apps. I think even iCloud keeps a copy if you happen to not have a backed up copy.
Nope, it's nothing to do with a walled garden (which actually doesn't affect users so much as developers since removed apps still can be used by existing uesrs). This affects *ALL* developers.
... but you're missing an important point. The significance of the "walled garden" reference is this: if I am a developer of an application that uses the word "memory" in its title or as a keyword, but in a non-infringing way (and it's hard to imagine that every single possible use of the word "memory" infringes the trademark), then outside a walled garden, I have options: I may choose to capitulate to avoid a lawsuit, or I can choose to take my chances with the legal system and continue using the term (and, if I can get a good lawyer, I may well win). But Apple is not giving developers that choice - they can either remove the term "memory", or remove the app entirely.
I suspect that Ravensburger have taken action to protect their trademark, and are only likely concerned about apps that are similar to / might be confused with their product - and Apple are indeed probably liable if they are selling infringing products. But, rather than vet individual apps based on whether they infringe or not (which is time-consuming and error-prone), Apple have taken a decision to impose a blanket ban on the term - which, while I see the practical benefits from their point of view, is clearly detrimental to, say, people searching for an application to check what DIMMs might be compatible with some hardware they need to upgrade...
where I have severely limited vocabulary in the local language, a good dictionary application is one of those can't-live-without things
If you're trying to expand your vocabulary, throw the dictionary in the trash and get a thesaurus.
...and how does that help when you don't even know one synonym in the target language?
And I have no idea why you'd pay $50 for a dictionary app when you could just buy the actual paper dictionary for $20.
Clue: a good multilingual dictionary weighs several pounds. Installing an app adds no extra weight. When travelling to/around a foreign country, that can be important:-)
I know people are saying it's the same as Pakistan because it's only one letter removed. But look at Iran and Iraq and see where that kind of assumption gets us.
Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).
Some people might argue that. But would that be based on evidence and fact, or ill-informed speculation and prejudice? My own experience (and I have lived in a Muslim country) is that most Muslims are horrified at the views and actions of the fundamentalists - like folks anywhere, most people just want to get on with their own lives without interfering in, or being interfered with by, other people - especially other people in another country far away.
As for convictions, very few. Based first on my small amount of exposure to trial related forsensics, lawyers are nowhere near so familiar with technology that I am willing to believe that this type of technological point comes up that often.
Plus of course the fact that DKIM usually identifies the domain, rather than the user, so it would generally only be evidence that the email came from a specific ISP (or company), rather than a specific person, which is much less useful.
How is it not compression? It reduces the data size being transferred and is recoverable on the other end. Maybe I'm not an expert, but isn't that _exactly_ the definition of compression?
It doesn't make it smaller - in fact, it will make the data larger. It gives improved performance because of the way TCP responds to dropped packets:
(1) Normally the receiver has to notice the dropped packet, notify the sender, and wait for the packet to be retransmitted - meaning that the data in question (and any data after it in the stream) is delayed by at least one round-trip. With this scheme, there is enough redundancy in the data that the receiver can reconstruct the missing data provided not too much is lost, improving the latency.
(2)TCP responds to packet loss by assuming that it is an indication of link congestion, and slowing down transmission. With wired links, this is a good assumption, and results in TCP using the full bandwidth of the link fairly smoothly. With wireless links, however, you can get loss due to random interference, and so TCP will often end up going slower than it needs to as a result. The error correction allows this to be avoided too.
It's like if tomorrow I invent a new protocol for mobile phones and I call it GSM.
Or is this a fucking joke?
Not a joke, but a badly-worded summary - the invention is called "coded TCP" (presumably because it's a version of TCP with error-correcting codes). I agree that the summary reads as if the protocol is called "TCP"...
It's not N!, it's N + (N-1) +... + 2 + 1. It probably can be written more easily somehow.
You are correct... here's an easy way of figuring it out: N+... +1 = (N+1) (N-1)+...+2=(N+1) (N-2)+...+3=(N+1) Pairing up a term from the beginning of the expression with one from the end always makes (N-1), and there are N/2 such pairs. So the total is N(N-1)/2 (at least for even N - though it works for odd N too).
I did not (and would not) say that door-hinge and orange is a perfect rhyme, however... only that is very good. Specifically, their rhyming parts differ in a single phoneme, where "hinge" uses the short 'i' sound, orange uses the schwa (upside-down e) sound in its second syllable
I think you're possibly underestimating the degree of variation in pronunciation of English... for example, where I come from, the vowel you mention is in fact identical between the two words - but the "-inge" ending is all they have in common (e.g. the first vowel differs noticeably, and the "r" in "door-hinge" is not pronounced). This may go some way to explain the amount of disagreement you're encountering with your assertion:)
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to do a little research on "Passive HookSwitch Bypass Methods". Most require modifications to the phone itself, but not all, that is some of these methods can be accomplished between the phone and outside service line.
If you can modify the phone, it's easy, granted. If you can intercept the line between the phone and the outside line, then with the right design of telephhone there's a possibility you might get something audible. But the claim was that the sound is always relayed all the way to the CO; picking up such a tiny signal at that distance (over all the noise picked up along the way) seems implausible to me.
When the phone is on-hook a minor current is still flowing through it. This is enough for sensitive equipment to pick up the background sound in the room, and this mode of monitoring has actually been used in US court cases, as well as US intelligence gathering operations. It only works with old-school analog phones though.
Whether there's any current flowing at all will depend on the exact design of the telephone, of course (there wouldn't be any at all in the one I looked at). However, I'm sceptical that any sound could be reliably picked up at the CO: the magnitude of the signal current would likely be dwarfed by the level of background noise from interference etc... if this has been claimed in court cases it seems more likely to me that it's a cover story to hide the actual surveillance techniques used (e.g. modifying the phone / installing bugs / etc).
All I need to do is poison DNS pretending to be your pop3 server, then Google will connect to me instead of you.
Most CAs only verify that you have control of a domain before issuing a certificate (eg by sending an email to something@youdomain.com and asking you to prove you've received it). So if you have control over DNS like that, getting a certificate is (alas) not very hard - and there are free CA services out there. I'm not yet convinced that spam is a big motivation for this change...
I'm guessing you never disassembled one to see how it actually worked. I did. Go ahead and find an exemplar and give it a go.
I have done so, and what you say makes no sense. The old carbon microphones require a current flowing through them in order to produce any signal, and that current draw is what signals to the CO that the receiver is off-hook. Therefore the microphone has to be disconnected from the line when the phone is on-hook (or else the CO would see the phone as permanently off-hook) and that is indeed the case in actual phones.
Indeed. Or the 2nd of November :-)
Not in Europe, that's the point - over here the convention is to put the day before the month when writing the day in figures.
Spamtrap accounts don't reply to confirmation emails or click on confirmation links - ever. That's the whole point of them. Even if you're a malicious troll who got a list of Hotmail trap accounts from somewhere, how do you get control over them to confirm signup?
The malicious troll doesn't need to confirm signup - only to request it, at which point the list server will send an email to the spamtrap, and boom, your reputation takes a hit. All while you're conforming 100% to best practice.
Look. It's possible that this guy has done everything totally by the book and somehow has just got unlucky that his behaviour happens to closely match that of actual spammers. Or it's possible that we don't have the full story. Having been on the other side of such stories and investigated cases like these, I think "sender is not following standard mail etiquette" is far more likely than some enormous conspiracy theory against him. After all, plenty of bulk mail senders do just fine.
I see what you're saying, but he's not actually having his IP blocked in this case. The blocking is taking place based on the content of the message, specifically whether it mentions certain domains set up as relays. The interesting question (from his point of view and ours) is exactly how those domains become flagged as "spammy". For instance, I'd be interested to know (as others have asked) whether the relays allow traffic on port 25, and whether this is a factor.
If the guy does not want his stuff flagged as spam he should try sending e-mails with the same address people opted in for.
He is doing that - but the mail is being blocked purely because it mentions certain domains in the body of the message.
Since 112 takes place in Europe, we should be remembering the 11th of February.
Indeed. Or the first of December :-)
I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.
I think some people have misunderstood your comment - you're talking about the ER in the US, not the UK, right? (For the benefit of others, in the UK people don't have to pay to see their doctor, and the "ER" is called "A&E" (accident & emergency)).
regarding comments about drs fees in UK clogging up ER's most drs are bulk billed ur free under our Medicare system. I thought the NHS was the same?
Bengie's comment was unclear - you're absolutely right, nobody pays to see their doctor in the UK - his point was that in the US people have to pay for their doctor so if they can't afford it they go to the ER instead, which is less efficient...
You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE.
In fairness you do still have the choice to purchase insurance that will give you additional cover. That's not taken away from you - you just get given a baseline level of care that you don't (directly) pay for.
the only sane person who's an expert with another tool switching to SVN is just in the process of leaving CVS...
Or RCS. Or SCCS. Or PVCS. Or Clearcase. Or (shudder) Visual SourceSafe. There are a lot of tools out there that are more painful than Subversion...
Gender arguably is more relevant but seriously... there is no bias against women participating in free software projects. It's literally a sport open to anyone, with as few barriers as you can imagine. Age, gender, skin color, origin, perhaps the only filter that reduces diversity is the need for reasonably fluent English.
And still, the number of women in our communities is extremely low. That means the detailed technical world of software appeals to fewer women than it does to men.
Are you sure there are no barriers to participation by women? Have you, for example, asked any women who have tried to participate? A quick internet search suggests that those few women who have tried out participation in Open Source projects found that there was a significant element to the experience that wasn't pretty. That is plenty to discourage women from taking part.
Errrrr, no. For one thing this actually takes effort which hardware manufacturers are not prone to actually putting in, for another I didn't think they give a crap about supporting any Linux operating systems
Actually Lenovo are often pretty good about supporting Linux - e.g. they provide information and often drivers and support. I don't think the M92p is a model for which they do this though.
Well, the developer (ANY developer, mind you) can get sued for trademark infringement, so even your "open access" rules can get curtailed.
This much is true...
Yes, if you make a "memory" game, expect to receive some cease-and-desist soon, regardless if it's walled, garden, open-source, whatever.
And Apple has so far let users keep their "removed" apps. I think even iCloud keeps a copy if you happen to not have a backed up copy.
Nope, it's nothing to do with a walled garden (which actually doesn't affect users so much as developers since removed apps still can be used by existing uesrs). This affects *ALL* developers.
... but you're missing an important point. The significance of the "walled garden" reference is this: if I am a developer of an application that uses the word "memory" in its title or as a keyword, but in a non-infringing way (and it's hard to imagine that every single possible use of the word "memory" infringes the trademark), then outside a walled garden, I have options: I may choose to capitulate to avoid a lawsuit, or I can choose to take my chances with the legal system and continue using the term (and, if I can get a good lawyer, I may well win). But Apple is not giving developers that choice - they can either remove the term "memory", or remove the app entirely.
I suspect that Ravensburger have taken action to protect their trademark, and are only likely concerned about apps that are similar to / might be confused with their product - and Apple are indeed probably liable if they are selling infringing products. But, rather than vet individual apps based on whether they infringe or not (which is time-consuming and error-prone), Apple have taken a decision to impose a blanket ban on the term - which, while I see the practical benefits from their point of view, is clearly detrimental to, say, people searching for an application to check what DIMMs might be compatible with some hardware they need to upgrade...
where I have severely limited vocabulary in the local language, a good dictionary application is one of those can't-live-without things
If you're trying to expand your vocabulary, throw the dictionary in the trash and get a thesaurus.
...and how does that help when you don't even know one synonym in the target language?
And I have no idea why you'd pay $50 for a dictionary app when you could just buy the actual paper dictionary for $20.
Clue: a good multilingual dictionary weighs several pounds. Installing an app adds no extra weight. When travelling to/around a foreign country, that can be important :-)
I know people are saying it's the same as Pakistan because it's only one letter removed. But look at Iran and Iraq and see where that kind of assumption gets us.
Or USA and KSA, come to that :-)
If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists
Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).
Some people might argue that. But would that be based on evidence and fact, or ill-informed speculation and prejudice? My own experience (and I have lived in a Muslim country) is that most Muslims are horrified at the views and actions of the fundamentalists - like folks anywhere, most people just want to get on with their own lives without interfering in, or being interfered with by, other people - especially other people in another country far away.
As for convictions, very few. Based first on my small amount of exposure to trial related forsensics, lawyers are nowhere near so familiar with technology that I am willing to believe that this type of technological point comes up that often.
Plus of course the fact that DKIM usually identifies the domain, rather than the user, so it would generally only be evidence that the email came from a specific ISP (or company), rather than a specific person, which is much less useful.
AES is synchrounous
I think you meant "symmetric" :-)
How is it not compression? It reduces the data size being transferred and is recoverable on the other end. Maybe I'm not an expert, but isn't that _exactly_ the definition of compression?
It doesn't make it smaller - in fact, it will make the data larger. It gives improved performance because of the way TCP responds to dropped packets:
(1) Normally the receiver has to notice the dropped packet, notify the sender, and wait for the packet to be retransmitted - meaning that the data in question (and any data after it in the stream) is delayed by at least one round-trip. With this scheme, there is enough redundancy in the data that the receiver can reconstruct the missing data provided not too much is lost, improving the latency.
(2)TCP responds to packet loss by assuming that it is an indication of link congestion, and slowing down transmission. With wired links, this is a good assumption, and results in TCP using the full bandwidth of the link fairly smoothly. With wireless links, however, you can get loss due to random interference, and so TCP will often end up going slower than it needs to as a result. The error correction allows this to be avoided too.
What the fuck were they thinking?
It's like if tomorrow I invent a new protocol for mobile phones and I call it GSM.
Or is this a fucking joke?
Not a joke, but a badly-worded summary - the invention is called "coded TCP" (presumably because it's a version of TCP with error-correcting codes). I agree that the summary reads as if the protocol is called "TCP"...
It's not N!, it's N + (N-1) + ... + 2 + 1. It probably can be written more easily somehow.
You are correct... here's an easy way of figuring it out: ... +1 = (N+1)
N+
(N-1)+...+2=(N+1)
(N-2)+...+3=(N+1)
Pairing up a term from the beginning of the expression with one from the end always makes (N-1), and there are N/2 such pairs. So the total is N(N-1)/2 (at least for even N - though it works for odd N too).
I did not (and would not) say that door-hinge and orange is a perfect rhyme, however... only that is very good. Specifically, their rhyming parts differ in a single phoneme, where "hinge" uses the short 'i' sound, orange uses the schwa (upside-down e) sound in its second syllable
I think you're possibly underestimating the degree of variation in pronunciation of English... for example, where I come from, the vowel you mention is in fact identical between the two words - but the "-inge" ending is all they have in common (e.g. the first vowel differs noticeably, and the "r" in "door-hinge" is not pronounced). This may go some way to explain the amount of disagreement you're encountering with your assertion :)
She is exempted from taxes?
She is exempt from some taxes, but not others. Of the ones from which she is exempt, she pays most of them on a voluntary basis.