As per usual, the AC forgets to mention that said child immediately prior to the attack was shooting down coalition soldiers with an automatic rifle.
You may think that all child victims of war are innocent, but in some parts of the world even the children (well, some of them) are rabid fanatics.
Anyway, compare the number of innocent victims from robot warriors versus those from human warriors.
Personally I'll take the robot warriors any day - because eventually we'll get the programming right. A robot isn't going to go postal on a crowd of civilians because one of them threw a rock and killed his buddy.
In that case, how is VoIP different from recording a message and ataching it in an email? The series of messages sent mack and forth constitute "two or more people talking to each other" so FCC should regulate email.with exactly the same fees and requirements as landlines (because *that's* actually what's at question here)
Oh and ditto for file-sharing networks because people could be sending back-and-forth MP3s of snippets of conversation. And also Instant Messaging.
Or even (gasp) The Internet! Every TCP session is a "communication" between two parties - so we need FCC fees and regulations aplying to every single TCP session we create. Obviously we need E911 services (one of the regs which would apply) available for every-single-IP address (ie we need to know EXACTLY where you are physically when you're on the internet at all times)
Now do you see how simple-minded your thinking is?
You made the classic mistake of boiling down the definition of "telecommunications" to its most basic brain-dead terms, and then applied that brain-dead definition to an advanced service. Of course you completely forgot that (mathematically speaking) to balance an equation you need to do the same operation to both sides - which would mean applying brain-dead regulations to VoIP (as you have so clearly suggested)
Aside from they "what were they thinking" style questions, here's a little clear thinking that sort of gives you some answers.
Consider "the telecommunications infrastructure" (ie legacy wires-in-the-ground telcos)
wires-in-the-ground gives them a monopoly so you need to regulate them sharing the wires with other service providers
wires-in-the-ground means it's CHEAP to wire high-density populations so you need to legislate that they must ALSO provide services to LOW density polulations (eg rural communities)
These issues do NOT (sanely) apply to VoIP services (or to ANYTHING which is purely a "service" as opposed to an "infrastructure") so there's NO NEED to regulate/legislate these issues.
And also, VoIP is layered over InternetService which is layered over "TelecommunicationsService" (using the sense described initially). So if the "telecommunications service" attracts fees (eg billed as a % of costs) then applying the same fees to "internet service" amounts to double dipping and applying them again to "VoIP Service" amounts to tripple dipping.
How far do you think this would go before any additional service layers are technically do-able but the government fees would amount to a bazillion times more than the base cost of the service itself?
And we can also go into the fact that Telecommunications Services are considered a basic need in modern western society, so part of the regulated fees go towards providing cheaper service to the less wealthy members of society.
Internet Access is not (yet) a basic requirement and VoIP is still (and most likely will be for many many many many years to come) PURELY a luxury (after all, ALL it does is duplicate "basic phone service").
So again we see that (some) regulations which apply to "legacy telecommunications" make less than zero sense when applied to VoIP
because it's a SERVICE and not an INFRASTRUCTURE
because it's a LUXURY and not a BASIC NEED
I'm sure you now understand why the current telecomms regs do not apply as-is-and-wholus-bolus to VoIP and why therefore either amendments to the current regs or entirely new regs need to be drawn up for VoIPservices and service providers.
Come on people. They're POOR, but you expect them to have
a phoneline (which MY phone costs are already higher so as to help pay for this)
a computer
internet access
and NOW you want me so pay extra (ie extra AGAIN) so that they can use The Internet for phone calls instead of using the land-line I've already paid extra for them to have?
I can accept the argument that "the internet" is rapidly becoming such a pervasive part of modern western society that lack of accessibility to "the poor" and "the less-abled" is an unfortunate situation we should all work to minimize. But to argue that we as a community should also fork out our own hard-earned cash so that other people can have access to premium/luxury services is nothing more than rampant bleeding-heart stupidity.
Let me say it again, clearly, for those of you who're thick-as-a-brick
telephone service is near-enough to a basic necessity that I don't care to whine
Internet is getting there (and at least could be argued as such)
Voice Over IP services are a luxury ie they're cool and leet but they provide essentially nothing (certainly nothing that's absolutely essential) that Ye-Olde-Tele-o-Phone doesn't provide
Or let me say this another way - if we (the not-poor or otherwise disadvantaged) are going to pay extra so that Jimmy-Welfare can have affordable (phone+computer+internet+) VoIP, then I'd expect Billy G and suchlike people have all contributed part of their income so that I can be driven to work in a Stretch Limo.
Ok so let me hypothesize and extrapolate here for a moment.
FCC rules that "Pure VoIP that NEVER connects to the PSTN is not subject to 'the telecommunications regulations'. "
One interesting implication of this ruling is that suddenly there's a significant benefit to VoIP providers to directly and transparently interconnect/interoperate their services.
Instead of
Is it on My Network?
Else dump it to the PSTN
style services, we could now see VoIP evolving to operate more like:
Is it on My Network?
Is it on the network of any of the VoIP services I 'peer' directly with?
Else dump it to the PSTN
The industry already has (mostly?) functional standardised interfaces and interoperation between VoIP and PSTN, this ruling will strongly encourage true interoperability amongst VoIP providers, and transparent interoperability generally leads to competition on the basis of quality and services rather than purely on technology and customer-lock-ins.
Now they just need to require that where the VoIP service interfaces with the PSTN they must fully support E911 and phone-number-mobility (ie like cell providers have recently been required) then you'd have a very fair and competitive environment encouraging strong growth in the both the Internet Service and Telecommunications industries.
I mean seriously! In what way is a VoIP call that connects to a PSTN/legacy telecoms phone different to one from a Mobile Phone to a PSTN number? The only real diference is the medium of transmission (irrespective of the direction-of-calling, even).
The "telecommunications regulations" really apply to the infrastructure. Many of the regulations specifically relate to "how can we ensure the infrastructure reaches ALL parts of the community in a fair and reasonable manner". If you *never* use that infrastructure, then many those regulations just plain make no sense, would imply double-billing (or even triple-billing) of fees or would be unreasonably burdensome.
For example - VoIP over an ADSL customer.
telecoms fees apply to the physical line for the local phone company
internet service fees aply to the ADSL/Internet connection via the ISP
VoIP - so should the telecoms fees apply again?
Now if that VoIP call connected across to the PSTN, then fees apply (ie at the point of connecting to the PSTN, telecoms fees apply to the connecting line - like always; any per-call telecoms fees would also apply, naturally).
After reading the article, it turns out that *all* this hoo-ha is about the fact that INtel has worked out how do do telecommunications level optical switching (read LED-LASER-RAPID-BLINKING) on a chip built using "normal" chip fabrication techniques.
This is in no way about "faster CPUs" it's ALL about "now we can fabricate telecomms equipment using standard CPU techniques, so they'll be cheaper and therefore easier to put into devices".
So you're not likely to be getting significantly faster PCs from this technology, though it *does* make more likely the chance of (one day) having a direct gigabit fiber port on your PDA (or digital camera/other-small-electronics-device)
And of course you missed The Entire Point of OpenSource.
Let me paraphrase:
If there's a project out there (whether it's being actively maintained OR NOT) and you find a bug (major, critical, or otherwise) you have the source code, you can fix it yourself, and you can be a hero to all of geekdom for saving their collective asses.
However, on the other hand, if you're using proprietary software, when the developer decides to discontinue support and development - you're totally screwed in the sense that if ANY further bugs are discovered, you have no way to get them fixed. EVER.
A Microsoft security executive, Stephen Toulouse, said the flawed software was "an extremely deep and pervasive technology in Windows,"
Isn't amazing how well Microsoft SpinDoctors can spout the utterly obvious lies.
THIS IS A DLL
The issue was a bug in the internal decoding of ASN.1 within one single DLL which leads to an integer overflow cojndition.
Let me repeat that again
internal
dll
By definition (unless you're writing STUNNINGLY SCREWED UP CODE) the internals of a DLL are irrelevant to any program calling that DLL. ESPECIALLY in this case, where the conditions which cause this bug to surface produce FATAL results (ie as opposed to producing quirky results/output/return values whch has been coded-around all through the OS)
The fact that this DLL is called by almost-every-part-of-the-OS-and-his-mother is irrelevant.
Fix the "internal bug", release the new DLL. The External Interface to the DLL didn't change (this was an internal decoding bug) so it's not possible for there to be ANY impact on any code/programs/routines which call this DLL.
Of course these days suchlike activities would fall under the auspices of ECHELON and The Patriot Act and you'd most likely get locked away for MANY years.
If you speak with her, talk slowly and loudly. And no matter what you say, don't be offended if she looks at you blankly and repeatedly asks, "What did you say?"
Oh yeah, and the robot has less-than-perfect english skills, too.
Like his previous project, K-bot, Hanson sculpted Hertz to resemble his girlfriend.
Am I the only male reader of slashdot who takes offence at the implication that "Penis Enlargement Pills Do Not work" (and now someone has sued alleging fraud) is actually in any way relevant "stuff that matters" to me?
Just because I'm a geek of the highest order and a frequent slashdot poster doesn't mean I'm any less of a man (the fact that I don't have a girlfriend is neither here not there).
The trick is incorporating it into the file system mean you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Actually no, the trick is incorporating it into the filesystem LOCKS YOU INTO USING THAT FILESYSTEM EXCLUSIVELY.
Your metadata would no longer relate to an image, it relates to a particular file on a particular filesystem. If you copy that file with anything other than Microsoft Magic Filesystem Aware Software (like, I dunno, a 3rd party FTP client) and your precious metadata goes up in smoke faster than "medicinal" marijuana.
Move MetaData from files and into FileSYSTEM
PATENT said concept and technologies
and ONLY permit said FileSYSTEM on "Windows"
refuse technology licenses to software deveopers
Encourage users to meta-encode their files, without explaining the complications
time passes , users get addicted to havng metadata
Users discover their files are almost useless without Windows
Microsoft appoints Billy G President of the Corporate Empire of America.
ALL well and good if you speak Portuguese - but what of the bazillion other earthlings who don't , but would still like to license under the GPL via the CC License Markup Scheme?
For those of you who aren't already in the know The Drake Equation defines the possibility of Extraterrestrial Intelligence in terms of a whole bunch of probabilities.
And just like the above equation, nobody has nailed down exactly what those probabilities are.
Still, it has officially turned it into something you can calculate, and scientists the world over like to talk of The Drake Equation.
In 2002, after 7000 square metres of road surface in Milan, Italy, were covered with a catalytic cement, residents reported that it was noticeably easier to breathe - with the concentration of nitrogen oxides at street level cut by up to 60 per cent.
None of the usual "20% decrease in XYZ, 30% lower levels of ABC", plain and simple "it makes a difference noticeable to people".
Interesting technology, but the "paint will begin to discolor after approximately 5 years" may discourage widespread deployment.
It is important to note that it is easy for them to get enough evidence for probable cause.
Let me just say no easier than it is for any other business or even John Q Citizen... the point I was trying to make earlier was that "The BSA" has no more legal rights/backing than any other business and/or John Q Citizen.
The *AAs of the US have pushed through a several laws which extend their legal rights/backing above and beyond any other business/industry and borders on the powers most would usually expect ONLY in The Police.
Slashdot Mirror
a big explosion at the cost to the U.S. taxpayer
Ah! Yet another reference to the late '90s DotCOM boom-and-bust.
Skin Cancer is killing people every day and you want to burn in the sun?
Of course this only works because current-technology AIs haven't advanced enough to file suit because they're sentient.
As per usual, the AC forgets to mention that said child immediately prior to the attack was shooting down coalition soldiers with an automatic rifle.
You may think that all child victims of war are innocent, but in some parts of the world even the children (well, some of them) are rabid fanatics.
Anyway, compare the number of innocent victims from robot warriors versus those from human warriors.
Personally I'll take the robot warriors any day - because eventually we'll get the programming right. A robot isn't going to go postal on a crowd of civilians because one of them threw a rock and killed his buddy.
I have a counter argument for you
In that case, how is VoIP different from recording a message and ataching it in an email? The series of messages sent mack and forth constitute "two or more people talking to each other" so FCC should regulate email.with exactly the same fees and requirements as landlines (because *that's* actually what's at question here)
Oh and ditto for file-sharing networks because people could be sending back-and-forth MP3s of snippets of conversation. And also Instant Messaging.
Or even (gasp) The Internet! Every TCP session is a "communication" between two parties - so we need FCC fees and regulations aplying to every single TCP session we create. Obviously we need E911 services (one of the regs which would apply) available for every-single-IP address (ie we need to know EXACTLY where you are physically when you're on the internet at all times)
Now do you see how simple-minded your thinking is?
You made the classic mistake of boiling down the definition of "telecommunications" to its most basic brain-dead terms, and then applied that brain-dead definition to an advanced service. Of course you completely forgot that (mathematically speaking) to balance an equation you need to do the same operation to both sides - which would mean applying brain-dead regulations to VoIP (as you have so clearly suggested)
Consider "the telecommunications infrastructure" (ie legacy wires-in-the-ground telcos)
- wires-in-the-ground gives them a monopoly so you need to regulate them sharing the wires with other service providers
- wires-in-the-ground means it's CHEAP to wire high-density populations so you need to legislate that they must ALSO provide services to LOW density polulations (eg rural communities)
These issues do NOT (sanely) apply to VoIP services (or to ANYTHING which is purely a "service" as opposed to an "infrastructure") so there's NO NEED to regulate/legislate these issues.And also, VoIP is layered over InternetService which is layered over "TelecommunicationsService" (using the sense described initially). So if the "telecommunications service" attracts fees (eg billed as a % of costs) then applying the same fees to "internet service" amounts to double dipping and applying them again to "VoIP Service" amounts to tripple dipping.
How far do you think this would go before any additional service layers are technically do-able but the government fees would amount to a bazillion times more than the base cost of the service itself?
And we can also go into the fact that Telecommunications Services are considered a basic need in modern western society, so part of the regulated fees go towards providing cheaper service to the less wealthy members of society.
Internet Access is not (yet) a basic requirement and VoIP is still (and most likely will be for many many many many years to come) PURELY a luxury (after all, ALL it does is duplicate "basic phone service").
So again we see that (some) regulations which apply to "legacy telecommunications" make less than zero sense when applied to VoIP
- because it's a SERVICE and not an INFRASTRUCTURE
- because it's a LUXURY and not a BASIC NEED
I'm sure you now understand why the current telecomms regs do not apply as-is-and-wholus-bolus to VoIP and why therefore either amendments to the current regs or entirely new regs need to be drawn up for VoIPservices and service providers.Come on people. They're POOR, but you expect them to have
- a phoneline (which MY phone costs are already higher so as to help pay for this)
- a computer
- internet access
and NOW you want me so pay extra (ie extra AGAIN) so that they can use The Internet for phone calls instead of using the land-line I've already paid extra for them to have?I can accept the argument that "the internet" is rapidly becoming such a pervasive part of modern western society that lack of accessibility to "the poor" and "the less-abled" is an unfortunate situation we should all work to minimize. But to argue that we as a community should also fork out our own hard-earned cash so that other people can have access to premium/luxury services is nothing more than rampant bleeding-heart stupidity.
Let me say it again, clearly, for those of you who're thick-as-a-brick
- telephone service is near-enough to a basic necessity that I don't care to whine
- Internet is getting there (and at least could be argued as such)
- Voice Over IP services are a luxury
Or let me say this another way - if we (the not-poor or otherwise disadvantaged) are going to pay extra so that Jimmy-Welfare can have affordable (phone+computer+internet+) VoIP, then I'd expect Billy G and suchlike people have all contributed part of their income so that I can be driven to work in a Stretch Limo.ie they're cool and leet but they provide essentially nothing (certainly nothing that's absolutely essential) that Ye-Olde-Tele-o-Phone doesn't provide
Turn your brain on before you post next time.
FCC rules that "Pure VoIP that NEVER connects to the PSTN is not subject to 'the telecommunications regulations'. "
One interesting implication of this ruling is that suddenly there's a significant benefit to VoIP providers to directly and transparently interconnect/interoperate their services.
Instead of
- Is it on My Network?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
style services, we could now see VoIP evolving to operate more like- Is it on My Network?
- Is it on the network of any of the VoIP services I 'peer' directly with?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
The industry already has (mostly?) functional standardised interfaces and interoperation between VoIP and PSTN, this ruling will strongly encourage true interoperability amongst VoIP providers, and transparent interoperability generally leads to competition on the basis of quality and services rather than purely on technology and customer-lock-ins.Now they just need to require that where the VoIP service interfaces with the PSTN they must fully support E911 and phone-number-mobility (ie like cell providers have recently been required) then you'd have a very fair and competitive environment encouraging strong growth in the both the Internet Service and Telecommunications industries.
I mean seriously! In what way is a VoIP call that connects to a PSTN/legacy telecoms phone different to one from a Mobile Phone to a PSTN number? The only real diference is the medium of transmission (irrespective of the direction-of-calling, even).
The "telecommunications regulations" really apply to the infrastructure. Many of the regulations specifically relate to "how can we ensure the infrastructure reaches ALL parts of the community in a fair and reasonable manner". If you *never* use that infrastructure, then many those regulations just plain make no sense, would imply double-billing (or even triple-billing) of fees or would be unreasonably burdensome.
For example - VoIP over an ADSL customer.
- telecoms fees apply to the physical line for the local phone company
- internet service fees aply to the ADSL/Internet connection via the ISP
- VoIP - so should the telecoms fees apply again?
Now if that VoIP call connected across to the PSTN, then fees apply (ie at the point of connecting to the PSTN, telecoms fees apply to the connecting line - like always; any per-call telecoms fees would also apply, naturally).After reading the article, it turns out that *all* this hoo-ha is about the fact that INtel has worked out how do do telecommunications level optical switching (read LED-LASER-RAPID-BLINKING) on a chip built using "normal" chip fabrication techniques.
This is in no way about "faster CPUs" it's ALL about "now we can fabricate telecomms equipment using standard CPU techniques, so they'll be cheaper and therefore easier to put into devices".
So you're not likely to be getting significantly faster PCs from this technology, though it *does* make more likely the chance of (one day) having a direct gigabit fiber port on your PDA (or digital camera/other-small-electronics-device)
I learned one thing from that event: don't argue with retards over the internet
And still you post on slashdot?
The above post qualifies to be moderated as interesting but uesless.
I went to the "color scheme generator" and gave it the equivalent HSB values for what I'm currently using on my website background.
That color *is* (both when I look at it, and when I punch the numbers into Adobe Photoshop) clearly a dark shade of blue.
In the "color scheme generator" it *clearly* shows as a dark shade of green.
Said "color scheme generator" is worse than useless, because it is DEAD SET WRONG.
You Have Been Warned.
And of course you missed The Entire Point of OpenSource.
Let me paraphrase:
If there's a project out there (whether it's being actively maintained OR NOT) and you find a bug (major, critical, or otherwise) you have the source code, you can fix it yourself, and you can be a hero to all of geekdom for saving their collective asses.
However, on the other hand, if you're using proprietary software, when the developer decides to discontinue support and development - you're totally screwed in the sense that if ANY further bugs are discovered, you have no way to get them fixed. EVER.
Isn't amazing how well Microsoft SpinDoctors can spout the utterly obvious lies.
- THIS IS A DLL
- The issue was a bug in the internal decoding of ASN.1 within one single DLL which leads to an integer overflow cojndition.
Let me repeat that again- internal
- dll
By definition (unless you're writing STUNNINGLY SCREWED UP CODE) the internals of a DLL are irrelevant to any program calling that DLL. ESPECIALLY in this case, where the conditions which cause this bug to surface produce FATAL results (ie as opposed to producing quirky results/output/return values whch has been coded-around all through the OS)The fact that this DLL is called by almost-every-part-of-the-OS-and-his-mother is irrelevant.
Fix the "internal bug", release the new DLL. The External Interface to the DLL didn't change (this was an internal decoding bug) so it's not possible for there to be ANY impact on any code/programs/routines which call this DLL.
Of course these days suchlike activities would fall under the auspices of ECHELON and The Patriot Act and you'd most likely get locked away for MANY years.
If you speak with her, talk slowly and loudly. And no matter what you say, don't be offended if she looks at you blankly and repeatedly asks, "What did you say?"
Oh yeah, and the robot has less-than-perfect english skills, too.
Like his previous project, K-bot, Hanson sculpted Hertz to resemble his girlfriend.
Am I the only male reader of slashdot who takes offence at the implication that "Penis Enlargement Pills Do Not work" (and now someone has sued alleging fraud) is actually in any way relevant "stuff that matters" to me?
Just because I'm a geek of the highest order and a frequent slashdot poster doesn't mean I'm any less of a man (the fact that I don't have a girlfriend is neither here not there).
NO, it would make them less useful because now you would never be able to share said contacts with
Actually no, the trick is incorporating it into the filesystem LOCKS YOU INTO USING THAT FILESYSTEM EXCLUSIVELY.
Your metadata would no longer relate to an image, it relates to a particular file on a particular filesystem. If you copy that file with anything other than Microsoft Magic Filesystem Aware Software (like, I dunno, a 3rd party FTP client) and your precious metadata goes up in smoke faster than "medicinal" marijuana.
ALL well and good if you speak Portuguese - but what of the bazillion other earthlings who don't , but would still like to license under the GPL via the CC License Markup Scheme?
Actually, no. I suck Bawls.
The Drake Equation of FileSharing.
For those of you who aren't already in the know The Drake Equation defines the possibility of Extraterrestrial Intelligence in terms of a whole bunch of probabilities.
And just like the above equation, nobody has nailed down exactly what those probabilities are.
Still, it has officially turned it into something you can calculate, and scientists the world over like to talk of The Drake Equation.
Be pure and join our team.
I guess that would make Microsoft Programmers
(wait for it)
Pure Evil
What? Just ONE ?
In 2002, after 7000 square metres of road surface in Milan, Italy, were covered with a catalytic cement, residents reported that it was noticeably easier to breathe - with the concentration of nitrogen oxides at street level cut by up to 60 per cent.
None of the usual "20% decrease in XYZ, 30% lower levels of ABC", plain and simple "it makes a difference noticeable to people".
Interesting technology, but the "paint will begin to discolor after approximately 5 years" may discourage widespread deployment.
It is important to note that it is easy for them to get enough evidence for probable cause.
... the point I was trying to make earlier was that "The BSA" has no more legal rights/backing than any other business and/or John Q Citizen.
Let me just say no easier than it is for any other business or even John Q Citizen
The *AAs of the US have pushed through a several laws which extend their legal rights/backing above and beyond any other business/industry and borders on the powers most would usually expect ONLY in The Police.