It's not questionably legal. It is simply not illegal.
It is against the terms agreed upon when accepting RUS money from the FCC. This is where Comcast got into trouble. The RUS guidelines are vague, but the part I'm referring to has to do with not blocking any legal form of traffic from any legal device.
There were murmurings of legal recourse due to some states' laws that makes it illegal to pretend to be someone else on-line (and Comcast was forging packets), but I never heard how far that went. My guess is no-where.
Working for a WISP has been interesting (to say the least). We have to deal
with direct competition from local cable/dsl providers, idiot customers who
think it is "just like radio" (meaning AM/FM), and federal ISP regulations. But,
there is a good community of WISPs who can definitely help to support each
other. Part-15 is a great resource and so
is WISPA.
Most of our customers are rural, we use 2.4GHz, 900MHz,
and some of the 5GHz spectrum to provide service. Our rates are 1Mbps for
$27.50/month, 2.5Mbps for $37.50/month, and 4Mbps for $45.95/month. We are
cheaper than all of our competition (cable and dsl) and, have a much wider
coverage
area. One thing that a lot of our customers
appreciate is that since we've never recieved money to help develople our network, thereare
no taxes or extranious fees attached to the bill. We know
when the cable company raises rate, we get an influx of people signing up
for service.
I actually know the guy who makes up the Western part of the Nebraska
map. The company that I work for makes up most of the central spot.
First, we should actually be talking about PAT, not NAT. In general parlance, they mean the same thing, but the distinction still needs to be made. It is my mistake to have not made that distinction in my previous post.
Yes, I've heard of a firewall, but have you ever seen a PAT/NAT setup that didn't include a firewall (otherwise there would be no need for PAT/NAT).
You are absolutely correct with your second point, if IPv6 were rolled out by now, it would be a moot discussion, but it hasn't been rolled out yet. So, here we are discussing the pro's and con's of PAT. Secondarily, there will still be a call for PAT once IPV6 is implemented as most ISP will not wish to allocate more that 1 IP address to each customer (think of the management and tracking overhead).
NAT itself does not have anything to do with security. I should have been referring to it as PAT. NAT is 1-to-1 translation while PAT is many-to-1 translation. Which does add a layer of security since nothing on the "many" side can be directly addressed from the outside.
First, this isn't a valid argument because even the Digital Imprimatur in fact doesn't condemn NAT'ing. It does suggest that NAT'ing is the next move that leads to the eventuality of your ISP stopping you from hosting any kind of server (which most already do).
As this is Slashdot, most of us could probably setup NAT pass-throughs in our sleep (in our given environment).
To the GP, one of the problems that I have with the grocery store having access to my dear Frigidaire is that if they have access, so does everyone else. Wouldn't it be a fun prank to break into someone anonymous' fridge and turn it off, or turn the temp up a few degrees? Another being that who is to suggest that they wouldn't be able (and willing) to put advertising/SPAM onto my food-cooler?
In the end, NAT'ing does many things, the main 2 being (1) save on IP space and (2) increase security in an area that has historically needed it.
It's basic RF. The higher the frequency, the worse the penetration. 700MHz and 900MHz go through just about everything (except dirt and metal). 2.4GHz (802.11b/g) can go through wood panels, drywall, and some forms of metal (not many). I don't know what the mathematical description is for the ratio of frequency vs rates of absorption/penetration, but it gets pretty bad at about 5.8GHz (802.11a). I can't imagine what it is at 60GHz and only 2W of output power.
Linky
"Indoor wave propagation is also affected by the building material. The density of the materials used in the construction of a building determines the number of walls the RF signal can pass through and still maintain adequate coverage. Paper and vinyl walls have little effect on signal penetration. Solid walls, solid floors and pre-cast concrete walls can limit signal penetration to one or two walls without degrading coverage. This can vary widely based any steel reinforcing within the concrete. Concrete and concrete block walls can limit signal penetration to three or four walls. Wood or drywall typically allows for adequate penetration of five or six walls. A thick metal wall causes signals to reflect off, which results in poor penetration. Steel reinforced concrete flooring restricts coverage between floors to perhaps one or two floors.
The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength is. Shorter wavelengths have more probability to get absorbed and distorted by a building material. Therefore, 802.11a, which operates in a higher frequency band, is more prone to the building material effect."
Are you as crazy as you sound? Have you checked to make sure that your tinfoil hat is properly aligned? Did the aliens tell you to say this?
Who brought up "think tanks?"
My theory is that money drives the media outlets, not news. I don't care if you think or don't think that the National Enquirer and Entertainment Tonight aren't monetary successes, but by my experience, there are many shee-ple out there who happily consume from both of those sources. If you want my opinion of a conspiracy, look at the success of Oprah and Dr. Phil. If there isn't a conspiracy there, I don't know where one would be.
I answer both of your challenges with one comment: The news agencies report the news that makes money. How many of our fellow Americans do you think would turn the channel or skip the news article about someone on the hill breaking the law and getting away with it? The answer is most. I'm not defending it, I'm just postulating. As further proof of my theory, I offer the common occurrence in the US of a story being run to death. Every bit of it being reported in sensational ways to get more ratings and sell more papers, even though nothing new is being said.
If Americans took more interest in what actually happened in D.C., more news agencies would report it. Unfortunately, they don't. I don't know, but is it any different in the UK (with the glut of tabloid magazines vs legitimate news outlets)? In the US we have crap like Entertainment Tonight and the National Enquirer because people watch/read it. The consumers support what they want (whether is is worth while news or not). This is true throughout the US news systems, even your beloved blog-sphere. Repeat after me: someone reporting something doesn't (1) make it true or (2) make it news.
I'm not saying that it is better than any other system or time, but this is how I see it from here (in Nebraska, of all places). You do have to admit that reporting just about anything (real or fake, important or not) is protected in the US. You may face a civil case afterwards, but the government does not stop you from reporting it.
As a possible explanation of why we Americans are talked about the most, remember that we also have the most well developed (maybe overly developed) news and information system in the world. I'm not sure but I'd guess that our (generally) staunch stand in favor of free press has us being reported on by the most people to the most people. Couple that with the fact that just about every news item reported these days can be viewed on a worldwide basis and you can see why America's 'dirty laundry' gets aired much more often than most other countries of our caliber.
I shouldn't be a suspect until there's at least some evidence associating me with a crime. If they want to check my fingerprints then that presumes I start of as a potential suspect. I find this concept unsettling in and of itself.
Personally, I only want cops who immediately assume that anyone could have committed any crime and work back from there via elimination. But, deductive reasoning has it's faults too. Understand that, generally, if the prints are kept on file, they are kept by the employer, not the law enforcement agency running the check (most often the FBI, but sometimes the state will run them).
In the UK, every person who is arrested has DNA, photos, and fingerprints taken and filed. If they are not proven guilty or at some point are no longer considered a suspect, they are destroyed.
In the US, it is up to the state to prove your guilt, not up to you to prove your innocence. Any office who is smart enough to make it to the rank of detective will be smart enough to find out who's fingerprints should and shouldn't be at a crime scene.
As you say, the patent reads that it sends 'data' through the infra-red, and the Wiimote only transmits positional 'data' isn't that still data? Just because it only sends some data through it, it still may be infringing on the patent.
IANAL nor did I read the patent, but I really hope there is prior art and Nintendo comes out of this cleanly. I really have no idea as to whether or not they infringe though. If they do, and the patent is valid (i.e. not too ambiguous and no prior art can be found), then Nintendo should have done it's homework before it released the Wiimote.
A possible problem with your test is "how local was the station?" I live in the boonies. To get a decent radio signal, I listen to the stations/repeaters that are farther away or are more likely to pick up static at some times. I've been burned many times while driving and my NPR or semi-decent rock station gets fuzzed out for some Sirius/XM/iPod user's music. If you are sitting within about 10 miles of any radio station or within about 40 miles of a 'high power' station, your test is pretty invalid. If you were listening on a frequency that is coming from a low power station/repeater that was 15-20 miles away (like I generally do), you'd see quite the difference.
Reguardless, both have admited that their radios (or who ever manufactures their radios) are blairing much lowder than they should be on the FM spectrum. It would be nice to see some of them actually do something about it. What ever happened to that FCC filing against one of them (XM or Sirius, I can't remeber) for specifically this?
Full Disclosure: I've used both companies radios with built-in FM modulators and both seemed to work really well unless you were getting too close to a tower that was using the specific freq. that you were.
Please check the below link, it's to an older news article, but it makes a point to remind people that the On-Star in-car mic's are either always on or can be easily tapped. The back story (that I've heard, just can't find justification) is that in Arizona, the FBI recorded the conversations of a mobster over the On-Star system in his new caddie...
Beyond that, it is an op-in option... there are plenty of car manufacturers. On the other hand, if I were to buy anything not GM, Ford, or Chrysler made, I would end up having to tow it somewhere (over 50 miles) to get it looked at under warranty...
My High School had a few copies of SimCity 3000 (or some such version). We were required to play for our government and economics class.
For world history, we were expected to play Risk (both the board and computer versions were available, until someone figured out how to cheat on the PC).
I also had a teacher who was a huge chess-hound. He let pretty much anyone play chess while he was 'guarding' the study hall or even PE if you wished.
I care because it eats up time and money that could otherwise help to lessen the work load of the US court system...
Currently, the US civil courts are clogged with crap-tastic lawsuits like this one, meaning that lawsuits of actual importance are not getting handled or have been delayed to some point in the future. This means that people with real problems and non-frivolous suits have to wait longer and longer to get what is legally and morally owed to them. I am not talking about the fat guys suing Mc Donald's or the Asshats suing Budweiser because they we hit by a drunk driver, I'm talking about true and absolute gross negligence, blatant and purposeful misguidance, and of course that ever so -wonderful- and oh so -important- SCO lawsuit...
The contention is that the store sold the game to the kid even though it was rated M and that they knew what the game could do to children.
One of my previous professors has his Juris Doc. and we (a class of mine) asking him about the legal basis for some of these suits. He fully agreed that if someone could prove that the video game caused the problem, the manufacturer/designer, publisher, and provider (store) are all liable for it. When we suggested that the kid's parents should have supervised the child a bit more, maybe actually spent time with them, and basically do what a real parent is supposed to, he agreed but also said that there was little legal precident for it as most of these cases have been settled and not too many get to court. Beyond that, when I mentioned that there was a self imposed rating system for most all video games to help parents to select appropriate titles for their children, he said that they (the labels) could help to estabolish culpability because the producers realize that it is mature content that should not be sold to children.
BTW IANAL and I surely don't understand this stuff as much as I wish I could.
Just so you all know, McAfee allows for corporations and colleges to run their own update server, if your version was put on by someone in your office or college, you may not be getting updates straight from McAfee, and therefore may not be able to get the updates as the corporation/college server may not have the packages available...
Since McAfee does it, Symantec may as well, can anyone give me verification of whether they do or not?
$25/hour (can change from free to $30, depending on person and situation)
I do live in rural Nebraska, so things are a bit tighter here. I also have some people who bitch about the $25/hour, untill I mention that the other option (a local store) charges $79/hour. I have been thinking of raising rates a bit because I am starting to value my time a bit more preciously.
I would suggest that you charge whatever it would take for you to go back to work once you get home and take your shoes off... that is how I set my rates.
I especially like the ones where it takes me four hours to clean off adware/malware/viruses, But I do take the time to educate the users about good surfing behaviors, even had a guy ask how to surf pr0n safely (that was a long and very akward conversation). I also try to tell people what I'm doing as well as why I'm doing it (what this program does, why I'm using it as opposed to the one that their third-cousin's-second-grade-teacher suggested - no really, I'm not kidding)
Good use of Spyware Blaster and Spybot helps to keep the "it still isn't fixed, and I want you to come and fix it for free this time, again" calls down to a minimum (only had one terrible customer)
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may be incorrect. As long as the police did not break the law while obtaining the evidence, I believe it can be accepted in court.
It's not questionably legal. It is simply not illegal.
It is against the terms agreed upon when accepting RUS money from the FCC. This is where Comcast got into trouble. The RUS guidelines are vague, but the part I'm referring to has to do with not blocking any legal form of traffic from any legal device.
There were murmurings of legal recourse due to some states' laws that makes it illegal to pretend to be someone else on-line (and Comcast was forging packets), but I never heard how far that went. My guess is no-where.
Working for a WISP has been interesting (to say the least). We have to deal with direct competition from local cable/dsl providers, idiot customers who think it is "just like radio" (meaning AM/FM), and federal ISP regulations. But, there is a good community of WISPs who can definitely help to support each other. Part-15 is a great resource and so is WISPA.
Most of our customers are rural, we use 2.4GHz, 900MHz, and some of the 5GHz spectrum to provide service. Our rates are 1Mbps for $27.50/month, 2.5Mbps for $37.50/month, and 4Mbps for $45.95/month. We are cheaper than all of our competition (cable and dsl) and, have a much wider coverage area. One thing that a lot of our customers appreciate is that since we've never recieved money to help develople our network, thereare no taxes or extranious fees attached to the bill. We know when the cable company raises rate, we get an influx of people signing up for service.
I actually know the guy who makes up the Western part of the Nebraska map. The company that I work for makes up most of the central spot.
First, we should actually be talking about PAT, not NAT. In general parlance, they mean the same thing, but the distinction still needs to be made. It is my mistake to have not made that distinction in my previous post.
Yes, I've heard of a firewall, but have you ever seen a PAT/NAT setup that didn't include a firewall (otherwise there would be no need for PAT/NAT).
You are absolutely correct with your second point, if IPv6 were rolled out by now, it would be a moot discussion, but it hasn't been rolled out yet. So, here we are discussing the pro's and con's of PAT. Secondarily, there will still be a call for PAT once IPV6 is implemented as most ISP will not wish to allocate more that 1 IP address to each customer (think of the management and tracking overhead).
NAT itself does not have anything to do with security. I should have been referring to it as PAT. NAT is 1-to-1 translation while PAT is many-to-1 translation. Which does add a layer of security since nothing on the "many" side can be directly addressed from the outside.
First, this isn't a valid argument because even the Digital Imprimatur in fact doesn't condemn NAT'ing. It does suggest that NAT'ing is the next move that leads to the eventuality of your ISP stopping you from hosting any kind of server (which most already do).
As this is Slashdot, most of us could probably setup NAT pass-throughs in our sleep (in our given environment).
To the GP, one of the problems that I have with the grocery store having access to my dear Frigidaire is that if they have access, so does everyone else. Wouldn't it be a fun prank to break into someone anonymous' fridge and turn it off, or turn the temp up a few degrees? Another being that who is to suggest that they wouldn't be able (and willing) to put advertising/SPAM onto my food-cooler?
In the end, NAT'ing does many things, the main 2 being (1) save on IP space and (2) increase security in an area that has historically needed it.
It's basic RF. The higher the frequency, the worse the penetration. 700MHz and 900MHz go through just about everything (except dirt and metal). 2.4GHz (802.11b/g) can go through wood panels, drywall, and some forms of metal (not many). I don't know what the mathematical description is for the ratio of frequency vs rates of absorption/penetration, but it gets pretty bad at about 5.8GHz (802.11a). I can't imagine what it is at 60GHz and only 2W of output power.
Linky
"Indoor wave propagation is also affected by the building material. The density of the materials used in the construction of a building determines the number of walls the RF signal can pass through and still maintain adequate coverage. Paper and vinyl walls have little effect on signal penetration. Solid walls, solid floors and pre-cast concrete walls can limit signal penetration to one or two walls without degrading coverage. This can vary widely based any steel reinforcing within the concrete. Concrete and concrete block walls can limit signal penetration to three or four walls. Wood or drywall typically allows for adequate penetration of five or six walls. A thick metal wall causes signals to reflect off, which results in poor penetration. Steel reinforced concrete flooring restricts coverage between floors to perhaps one or two floors.
The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength is. Shorter wavelengths have more probability to get absorbed and distorted by a building material. Therefore, 802.11a, which operates in a higher frequency band, is more prone to the building material effect."
Are you as crazy as you sound? Have you checked to make sure that your tinfoil hat is properly aligned? Did the aliens tell you to say this?
Who brought up "think tanks?"
My theory is that money drives the media outlets, not news. I don't care if you think or don't think that the National Enquirer and Entertainment Tonight aren't monetary successes, but by my experience, there are many shee-ple out there who happily consume from both of those sources. If you want my opinion of a conspiracy, look at the success of Oprah and Dr. Phil. If there isn't a conspiracy there, I don't know where one would be.
I answer both of your challenges with one comment: The news agencies report the news that makes money. How many of our fellow Americans do you think would turn the channel or skip the news article about someone on the hill breaking the law and getting away with it? The answer is most. I'm not defending it, I'm just postulating. As further proof of my theory, I offer the common occurrence in the US of a story being run to death. Every bit of it being reported in sensational ways to get more ratings and sell more papers, even though nothing new is being said.
If Americans took more interest in what actually happened in D.C., more news agencies would report it. Unfortunately, they don't. I don't know, but is it any different in the UK (with the glut of tabloid magazines vs legitimate news outlets)? In the US we have crap like Entertainment Tonight and the National Enquirer because people watch/read it. The consumers support what they want (whether is is worth while news or not). This is true throughout the US news systems, even your beloved blog-sphere. Repeat after me: someone reporting something doesn't (1) make it true or (2) make it news.
I'm not saying that it is better than any other system or time, but this is how I see it from here (in Nebraska, of all places). You do have to admit that reporting just about anything (real or fake, important or not) is protected in the US. You may face a civil case afterwards, but the government does not stop you from reporting it.
As a possible explanation of why we Americans are talked about the most, remember that we also have the most well developed (maybe overly developed) news and information system in the world. I'm not sure but I'd guess that our (generally) staunch stand in favor of free press has us being reported on by the most people to the most people. Couple that with the fact that just about every news item reported these days can be viewed on a worldwide basis and you can see why America's 'dirty laundry' gets aired much more often than most other countries of our caliber.
I was not aware that the law had been changed, thank you for correcting me.
Personally, I only want cops who immediately assume that anyone could have committed any crime and work back from there via elimination. But, deductive reasoning has it's faults too. Understand that, generally, if the prints are kept on file, they are kept by the employer, not the law enforcement agency running the check (most often the FBI, but sometimes the state will run them).
In the UK, every person who is arrested has DNA, photos, and fingerprints taken and filed. If they are not proven guilty or at some point are no longer considered a suspect, they are destroyed.
In the US, it is up to the state to prove your guilt, not up to you to prove your innocence. Any office who is smart enough to make it to the rank of detective will be smart enough to find out who's fingerprints should and shouldn't be at a crime scene.
Google Cache: you know, since I can't see the page anymore, maybe some of you can't either.
As you say, the patent reads that it sends 'data' through the infra-red, and the Wiimote only transmits positional 'data' isn't that still data? Just because it only sends some data through it, it still may be infringing on the patent. IANAL nor did I read the patent, but I really hope there is prior art and Nintendo comes out of this cleanly. I really have no idea as to whether or not they infringe though. If they do, and the patent is valid (i.e. not too ambiguous and no prior art can be found), then Nintendo should have done it's homework before it released the Wiimote.
A possible problem with your test is "how local was the station?" I live in the boonies. To get a decent radio signal, I listen to the stations/repeaters that are farther away or are more likely to pick up static at some times. I've been burned many times while driving and my NPR or semi-decent rock station gets fuzzed out for some Sirius/XM/iPod user's music. If you are sitting within about 10 miles of any radio station or within about 40 miles of a 'high power' station, your test is pretty invalid. If you were listening on a frequency that is coming from a low power station/repeater that was 15-20 miles away (like I generally do), you'd see quite the difference.
Reguardless, both have admited that their radios (or who ever manufactures their radios) are blairing much lowder than they should be on the FM spectrum. It would be nice to see some of them actually do something about it. What ever happened to that FCC filing against one of them (XM or Sirius, I can't remeber) for specifically this?
Full Disclosure: I've used both companies radios with built-in FM modulators and both seemed to work really well unless you were getting too close to a tower that was using the specific freq. that you were.
I find your ideas intriguing, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You are evil, I like that; also, are you looking for an apprentice? I can make some damn good coffee!
Remember, just because you don't know how to use it, it doesn't mean that the tool isn't there for you to use.
Please check the below link, it's to an older news article, but it makes a point to remind people that the On-Star in-car mic's are either always on or can be easily tapped. The back story (that I've heard, just can't find justification) is that in Arizona, the FBI recorded the conversations of a mobster over the On-Star system in his new caddie...
I =473
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&R
(yeah, yeah, no HTML skills...)
Beyond that, it is an op-in option... there are plenty of car manufacturers. On the other hand, if I were to buy anything not GM, Ford, or Chrysler made, I would end up having to tow it somewhere (over 50 miles) to get it looked at under warranty...
My High School had a few copies of SimCity 3000 (or some such version). We were required to play for our government and economics class.
For world history, we were expected to play Risk (both the board and computer versions were available, until someone figured out how to cheat on the PC).
I also had a teacher who was a huge chess-hound. He let pretty much anyone play chess while he was 'guarding' the study hall or even PE if you wished.
please, provide me with directions to this file... as I would like to view it... especially on one of my boss's machines...
No, it is regulating how they work, not how they are made. They require that devices do not interfere with other devices (except for special cases).
Just the same as driving fast, having sex, using caffine or tabacco, and gambling are addictive...
As long as you have the choice to stand your dumb ass up and leave, leave it the hell alone. When did it become OK to have no self control?
I care because it eats up time and money that could otherwise help to lessen the work load of the US court system...
Currently, the US civil courts are clogged with crap-tastic lawsuits like this one, meaning that lawsuits of actual importance are not getting handled or have been delayed to some point in the future. This means that people with real problems and non-frivolous suits have to wait longer and longer to get what is legally and morally owed to them. I am not talking about the fat guys suing Mc Donald's or the Asshats suing Budweiser because they we hit by a drunk driver, I'm talking about true and absolute gross negligence, blatant and purposeful misguidance, and of course that ever so -wonderful- and oh so -important- SCO lawsuit...
The contention is that the store sold the game to the kid even though it was rated M and that they knew what the game could do to children.
One of my previous professors has his Juris Doc. and we (a class of mine) asking him about the legal basis for some of these suits. He fully agreed that if someone could prove that the video game caused the problem, the manufacturer/designer, publisher, and provider (store) are all liable for it. When we suggested that the kid's parents should have supervised the child a bit more, maybe actually spent time with them, and basically do what a real parent is supposed to, he agreed but also said that there was little legal precident for it as most of these cases have been settled and not too many get to court. Beyond that, when I mentioned that there was a self imposed rating system for most all video games to help parents to select appropriate titles for their children, he said that they (the labels) could help to estabolish culpability because the producers realize that it is mature content that should not be sold to children.
BTW IANAL and I surely don't understand this stuff as much as I wish I could.
Since McAfee does it, Symantec may as well, can anyone give me verification of whether they do or not?
I do live in rural Nebraska, so things are a bit tighter here. I also have some people who bitch about the $25/hour, untill I mention that the other option (a local store) charges $79/hour. I have been thinking of raising rates a bit because I am starting to value my time a bit more preciously.
I would suggest that you charge whatever it would take for you to go back to work once you get home and take your shoes off... that is how I set my rates.
I especially like the ones where it takes me four hours to clean off adware/malware/viruses, But I do take the time to educate the users about good surfing behaviors, even had a guy ask how to surf pr0n safely (that was a long and very akward conversation). I also try to tell people what I'm doing as well as why I'm doing it (what this program does, why I'm using it as opposed to the one that their third-cousin's-second-grade-teacher suggested - no really, I'm not kidding)
Good use of Spyware Blaster and Spybot helps to keep the "it still isn't fixed, and I want you to come and fix it for free this time, again" calls down to a minimum (only had one terrible customer)