I see good and bad from this article
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The good: --If there is a wiretap, they are only getting your conversation, and not ever piece of data your computer spits out. It looks like they would need a different warrant for that too.
--The tap would be located not at your ISP, but at your VOIP provider. This helps guarantee privacy for the people not specified in the warrant.
--This places VOIP on more of an equal footing as traditional phone services. If they are legally the same for what they have to provide the cops, they could then argue they are the same legally when it comes to their protection as common carriers.
The bad: --The VOIP companies would have to re-wire their networks so that all conversations go through a tappable trunk line. That, or they would have to set up infrastructure to siphon off individuals phone calls to a 3rd location (which is what I would prefer. Let the VOIP provider pull a copy of the conversation off the trunk line instead of the cops). This means more $ needed in development and implementation. --Requlation may (ok, probably will) stifle innovation. By regulating things like how a wiretap is to be done, it will be harder for open source and closed source products to work in multiple countries. This then leads to problems with interoperability between national networks.
This sounds like it was created to stream movies designed for a comptuer screen onto a TV set. Can you imagine trying to play a 640x480 movie on a 60 inch plasma TV? Talk about looking like shit.
They also didn't say how the media gets from the comptuer to the DVD player? Is there software I have to install? Is there a *NIX version? A Mac version? Do I have to pay for seperate licenses for each installation?
I'm not going to hold my breath on this one.
and the citizens will have to ditch the attitude that the gov't is out to get them.
On the contrary, this attitude should never get weaker, but stronger. Everyone knows the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly", and this is true with regards to the gov't as well. As citizens, we cannot afford to give the gov't any more power then they are required to have in order to do thei job we hired them to do. When they start taking power just to do a job they think they should do to be re-elected, then they have too much power.
It is kind of strange that they would make it hard for non-Windows admins to read this. You would think they would want non-customers to read this, even if for the market exposure.... hmmmmm. I guess they *can* release something w/o their marketing dept. rewriting it.
Nope. Like most things from MS, the power users and admins will realize that they need more protectin then what is standard. They will then tell their family/friends, and the market will continue like it was.
FTA: "Microsoft heaped scorn on the Commerce Department's decision to abandon Office for the software alternative."
From other places "We'll sue our customers so that they have no money to buy our products"
"We'll charge everyone a licence fee for OSS that we don't own"
Evidently the economy has become an exercise in how much abuse consumers will take. I wonder how long it will take before consumers sit up and go "WTF Mate?"
I've had a similar situation. I got a phone call one day from Shaw asking me to explain my useage . I also got an email. From their TOS I got the following line: "The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each business service package are the following: SOHO - 50 GigaByte; Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and upload). The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 300 MegaByte/month for Professional and 500 MegaByte/month for Business hosting packages. Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications".
Basically, they are saying that there are no bandwidth limits on residential services. The only way they noticed me was when they did service on my local router and saw that I was doing huge transfers. Shaw is pretty cool about those kind of things. When I called them the person said to just make sure I wasn't streaming audio or running P2P all the time.
How do you know it wasn't used? IIRC, it was used in 9/11 as a means of communication for people. HAM during emergencies is not designed for everyone to use to make a phone call. Instead, it is used for emergency personell to communicate where they normally wouldn't be able to. For example, if the phones are out between HQ and a staging area, then HAM would step in and provide communications between the two. Plus, if you consider the amount of radio traffic that would have been going on at a single point in time, if there was need for an emergency communication, HAM could be used instead of waiting for the average cop to get off the radio. Basically, bandwidth is added when necessary.
There are also many HAMs in Texas, and all over tornado alley, that are used for weather spotting. These guys are driving where there are no cell phone towers (or the towers have been damaged), and need to communicate back to the weather center. This is a system that is used every year by many people, and many lives are saved b/c of the work they do.
Re. your comment about turning off the broadband.... When do you think they will practice their skills? The radio operators have to practice calmly so that where there is an emergency, they can still operate. There are a lot of shorthand codes that they have to know so that they can give lots of information in a short amount of time. If they can't practice, how will they know what frequency to use? Who is going to be in charge? How do they organize themselves?
Basically, you're full of shit, and shouldn't talk. Just b/c there is stuff going on behind the scenes that you don't know about doesnt' mean that you can spout off. Do your research first.
I remember an earlier posting on/. about this. IIRC, ARRL had done some tests where BPL was being used. Using their radio equipment, they were able to prove the huge amounts of interference being generated.
BPL is not a good idea. HAM has been used for years to save lives, and we should not phase it out just to give high-speed internet to rural areas. IMHO, lives > internet access, but maybe that's just me.
I guess it also depends on what kind of sites you browse. Personally, most of my browsing is on dynamic sites, so caching has very little of a speed increase for me. It's their baby, and they'll make their priorities what they want them to be.
Besides, you can always make your own browser.:)
so basically.....I'm not paying enough attention to their updates. *grin* Thanks for setting me straight (though I realize I could have looked this up).
Maybe I'm way off as I've not looked at this in a while, but I thought Firebird was the standalone browser, while Mozilla was a package of browser + chat+ email. Like Netscape Navigator was part of Netscape Communicator, but could also stand alone.
I like patches and updates to Mozilla. I don't like that there is a new 1.X version out every other week. Maybe I just develop software differently, but unless I do a change to what I consider central code, I update by.X.X's. Are they really updating major stuff that often?
Or am I just not paying enough attention to their updates and how often they occur?
I don't know. I want Mozilla to succeed, but to see just drastic changes that often makes me nervous.
Some of the companies that make radar detectors also make the radars cops use. There is no conflict of interest there.
Personally I don't see a huge problem. Oil companies are doing research on non-oil fuels. Companies all the time play both ends against the middle, and end up winning. Now, if they start playing too heavy on one side, then the balance goes and they start to lose money. I say give them time before we judge them.
You just can't quickly record mathematical symbols or graphical diagrams with a computer
One way I've gotten around that is by combining the two. I type my notes in a notebook, and if there is a symbol, I have a pad of paper next to it. I enter a footnote on the computer, and quickly draw the diagram on the pad of paper.
Reason I do that is because I can type faster then I can write.
It's no wonder dealing with the feds takes for ever, they're always in the middle of a server reboot.
Someone want to tell them that server uptime is supposed to be greater then on-hold queue time?
But won't this chips have to be de-activated when you leave the store? I think they'll have to, and here is why.
1) I go into Walmart, and purchase a pair of shoes
2) I walk to the teller and pay for my shoes. The teller used a RFID scanner to see what I want to purchase.
3) I walk out to my car, put my bags in the truck, put my new shoes on (I'm very proud of them) and get in.
4) I realize I forgot to buy socks.
5) I walk back into Walmart (still wearing my new shoes) and pick up socks.
6) I go to a different cashier to pay for my socks.
Anyone noticed the problem? If the RFID has not been destroyed, the cashier will try to charge me again. Naturally I'll refuse. Walmart will think I'm stealing, and call the cops. The receipt is in the car so I can't prove that I've already bought the shoes (ask any store security, they will not let you go back to your car), so I have to wait for the cops to show up.
Do you think I'm going to go back to Walmart after that? Hell no. They called the cops on me and called me a thief. F$ck them.
That is why I think RFID's will be destroyed as they leave the store.
1) How well will this work with other authtication techniques? (ie. if other postal systems start this, will there be interoperability? If so, who coordinates this?)
2) How good is the procedure to replace a lost/stolen certificate?
3) What good is this for people not in the US?
4) If someone lives in the US, gets one of these, and then moves, can it still be updated/replaced?
5) I forget the other question.
Granted, I only skimmed the article, so I may have missed the answers, but still....
But considering that a link is considered enough, then it really is cheap. Log onto the server, and add the following to the footer of the article/comment/whatever.
**
As per legal requirements, I am required to post a link to XXXX's reply to my comment.
Lets say I buy a DVD. Said DVD does not work on my computer (which is where I watch most of my movies b/c my computer screen is bigger then my TV). I can't return it to the store b/c they will only exchange it for another copy of the same DVD. I can't return it to the distributor b/c they say take it back to the store.
Where does that leave me? I've just spent $25 on a movie that I can't watch. I can't return it. Hell, chances are the license I had to agree to won't allow me to sell it. So here's the problem....
The movie was advertised as being a DVD. My player was advertised as a DVD player. DVD is (from what I understand) a fairly open standard. By advertising something as being standards compliant that really isn't, would that not constitant fraud, or at the least deceptive advertising?
If I remember correctly, didn't the owner of the CD trademark/patent threaten to label DRM'd CD's as not being CD's b/c they didnt' conform to the standards? Should that not happen with DVD's?
Vote with you dollars and your voices. If you buy a DVD that is not compatible, either don't buy it, or take it back and bitch loudly. Make sure other customers can hear you. Basically, make an ass of yourself so that the manager has to give you your money back to shut you up.
On one hand, SCO is trying to protect what they see as theirs to protect. On the otherhand, they are ruining their reputation in the marketplace. To suddenly say that all of IBMs sub-licenses are now invalid will do nothing but piss off the owners of those licenses. IANAL, but I don't see how a judge can agree with them. To force every company that uses AIX (and there are quite a few of them) would bring the economy to its knees. If unscheduled downtime costs companies so much money (arguably in the $K's a min), how much will it cost them to suddenly shut down their systems, and converty everything over to non-AIX boxes? As for what I think, I think that SCO will have hundreds of major corporations sue them for terminating their licenese. Imagine if Microsoft suddenly said that all of Dell's sublicenes were invalid. (ok ok, probably apples and oranges, but still) Would every Dell running a Windows OS suddenly be illegal?
I can't see SCO surviving this lawsuit as a company. All they want is to be bought out, and I think that won't happen. If IBM is smart (or feeling vindictive), they will sue SCO until they declare bankrupacy, and then buy the UNIX IP off of them.
Just IMO.
You take estimated demand (lets set it to 100 for now), and then you take sales (lets say 61 for now). The difference, by BSA standards, is piracy. I see a few small problems with their math. Lets say 15% of potential customers use OSS. So now we have 61+15=76. Now, lets add in the number of people who use older versions of the software they have already purchased, say 5%.. 76+5 = 81. Hey, now we're down to 19% piracy. Strangly, I didn't see anything about those numbers in the BSA's whitepaper...
Any ideas why?
Slashdot Mirror
The good:
--If there is a wiretap, they are only getting your conversation, and not ever piece of data your computer spits out. It looks like they would need a different warrant for that too.
--The tap would be located not at your ISP, but at your VOIP provider. This helps guarantee privacy for the people not specified in the warrant.
--This places VOIP on more of an equal footing as traditional phone services. If they are legally the same for what they have to provide the cops, they could then argue they are the same legally when it comes to their protection as common carriers.
The bad:
--The VOIP companies would have to re-wire their networks so that all conversations go through a tappable trunk line. That, or they would have to set up infrastructure to siphon off individuals phone calls to a 3rd location (which is what I would prefer. Let the VOIP provider pull a copy of the conversation off the trunk line instead of the cops). This means more $ needed in development and implementation.
--Requlation may (ok, probably will) stifle innovation. By regulating things like how a wiretap is to be done, it will be harder for open source and closed source products to work in multiple countries. This then leads to problems with interoperability between national networks.
Overall, I don't see this as too alarming.
1)Install the print driver...
2)Remove Windows
3)Post your error messages, and you might get help (but not likely)
4)And last but not least, buy a better video card.
This sounds like it was created to stream movies designed for a comptuer screen onto a TV set. Can you imagine trying to play a 640x480 movie on a 60 inch plasma TV? Talk about looking like shit.
They also didn't say how the media gets from the comptuer to the DVD player? Is there software I have to install? Is there a *NIX version? A Mac version? Do I have to pay for seperate licenses for each installation?
I'm not going to hold my breath on this one.
and the citizens will have to ditch the attitude that the gov't is out to get them.
On the contrary, this attitude should never get weaker, but stronger. Everyone knows the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly", and this is true with regards to the gov't as well. As citizens, we cannot afford to give the gov't any more power then they are required to have in order to do thei job we hired them to do. When they start taking power just to do a job they think they should do to be re-elected, then they have too much power.
It is kind of strange that they would make it hard for non-Windows admins to read this. You would think they would want non-customers to read this, even if for the market exposure.... hmmmmm. I guess they *can* release something w/o their marketing dept. rewriting it.
Nope. Like most things from MS, the power users and admins will realize that they need more protectin then what is standard. They will then tell their family/friends, and the market will continue like it was.
I don't think there are any private companies running this yet. They tourists are going up via the russian space agency, and not a private company.
FTA: "Microsoft heaped scorn on the Commerce Department's decision to abandon Office for the software alternative."
From other places "We'll sue our customers so that they have no money to buy our products"
"We'll charge everyone a licence fee for OSS that we don't own"
Evidently the economy has become an exercise in how much abuse consumers will take. I wonder how long it will take before consumers sit up and go "WTF Mate?"
I've had a similar situation. I got a phone call one day from Shaw asking me to explain my useage . I also got an email. From their TOS I got the following line: "The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each business service package are the following: SOHO - 50 GigaByte; Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and upload). The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 300 MegaByte/month for Professional and 500 MegaByte/month for Business hosting packages. Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications".
Basically, they are saying that there are no bandwidth limits on residential services. The only way they noticed me was when they did service on my local router and saw that I was doing huge transfers. Shaw is pretty cool about those kind of things. When I called them the person said to just make sure I wasn't streaming audio or running P2P all the time.
How do you know it wasn't used? IIRC, it was used in 9/11 as a means of communication for people. HAM during emergencies is not designed for everyone to use to make a phone call. Instead, it is used for emergency personell to communicate where they normally wouldn't be able to. For example, if the phones are out between HQ and a staging area, then HAM would step in and provide communications between the two. Plus, if you consider the amount of radio traffic that would have been going on at a single point in time, if there was need for an emergency communication, HAM could be used instead of waiting for the average cop to get off the radio. Basically, bandwidth is added when necessary.
There are also many HAMs in Texas, and all over tornado alley, that are used for weather spotting. These guys are driving where there are no cell phone towers (or the towers have been damaged), and need to communicate back to the weather center. This is a system that is used every year by many people, and many lives are saved b/c of the work they do.
Re. your comment about turning off the broadband.... When do you think they will practice their skills? The radio operators have to practice calmly so that where there is an emergency, they can still operate. There are a lot of shorthand codes that they have to know so that they can give lots of information in a short amount of time. If they can't practice, how will they know what frequency to use? Who is going to be in charge? How do they organize themselves?
Basically, you're full of shit, and shouldn't talk. Just b/c there is stuff going on behind the scenes that you don't know about doesnt' mean that you can spout off. Do your research first.
I remember an earlier posting on /. about this. IIRC, ARRL had done some tests where BPL was being used. Using their radio equipment, they were able to prove the huge amounts of interference being generated.
BPL is not a good idea. HAM has been used for years to save lives, and we should not phase it out just to give high-speed internet to rural areas. IMHO, lives > internet access, but maybe that's just me.
I guess it also depends on what kind of sites you browse. Personally, most of my browsing is on dynamic sites, so caching has very little of a speed increase for me. It's their baby, and they'll make their priorities what they want them to be. :)
Besides, you can always make your own browser.
so basically.....I'm not paying enough attention to their updates. *grin* Thanks for setting me straight (though I realize I could have looked this up).
Maybe I'm way off as I've not looked at this in a while, but I thought Firebird was the standalone browser, while Mozilla was a package of browser + chat+ email. Like Netscape Navigator was part of Netscape Communicator, but could also stand alone.
I like patches and updates to Mozilla. I don't like that there is a new 1.X version out every other week. Maybe I just develop software differently, but unless I do a change to what I consider central code, I update by .X.X's. Are they really updating major stuff that often?
Or am I just not paying enough attention to their updates and how often they occur?
I don't know. I want Mozilla to succeed, but to see just drastic changes that often makes me nervous.
Some of the companies that make radar detectors also make the radars cops use. There is no conflict of interest there.
Personally I don't see a huge problem. Oil companies are doing research on non-oil fuels. Companies all the time play both ends against the middle, and end up winning. Now, if they start playing too heavy on one side, then the balance goes and they start to lose money. I say give them time before we judge them.
You just can't quickly record mathematical symbols or graphical diagrams with a computer
One way I've gotten around that is by combining the two. I type my notes in a notebook, and if there is a symbol, I have a pad of paper next to it. I enter a footnote on the computer, and quickly draw the diagram on the pad of paper.
Reason I do that is because I can type faster then I can write.
It's no wonder dealing with the feds takes for ever, they're always in the middle of a server reboot. Someone want to tell them that server uptime is supposed to be greater then on-hold queue time?
But won't this chips have to be de-activated when you leave the store? I think they'll have to, and here is why.
1) I go into Walmart, and purchase a pair of shoes
2) I walk to the teller and pay for my shoes. The teller used a RFID scanner to see what I want to purchase.
3) I walk out to my car, put my bags in the truck, put my new shoes on (I'm very proud of them) and get in.
4) I realize I forgot to buy socks.
5) I walk back into Walmart (still wearing my new shoes) and pick up socks.
6) I go to a different cashier to pay for my socks.
Anyone noticed the problem? If the RFID has not been destroyed, the cashier will try to charge me again. Naturally I'll refuse. Walmart will think I'm stealing, and call the cops. The receipt is in the car so I can't prove that I've already bought the shoes (ask any store security, they will not let you go back to your car), so I have to wait for the cops to show up.
Do you think I'm going to go back to Walmart after that? Hell no. They called the cops on me and called me a thief. F$ck them.
That is why I think RFID's will be destroyed as they leave the store.
1) How well will this work with other authtication techniques? (ie. if other postal systems start this, will there be interoperability? If so, who coordinates this?)
2) How good is the procedure to replace a lost/stolen certificate?
3) What good is this for people not in the US?
4) If someone lives in the US, gets one of these, and then moves, can it still be updated/replaced?
5) I forget the other question.
Granted, I only skimmed the article, so I may have missed the answers, but still....
1) More people who are looking for bugs.
2) Developers get public exposure and accolades for having good code (it's a pride thing)
3) There is no financial reason to not announce bugs.
4) Development cycle has little in the way of time constraints
5)A lot larger latitude in working conditions
**
As per legal requirements, I am required to post a link to XXXX's reply to my comment.
click here
**
Where does that leave me? I've just spent $25 on a movie that I can't watch. I can't return it. Hell, chances are the license I had to agree to won't allow me to sell it. So here's the problem....
The movie was advertised as being a DVD. My player was advertised as a DVD player. DVD is (from what I understand) a fairly open standard. By advertising something as being standards compliant that really isn't, would that not constitant fraud, or at the least deceptive advertising?
If I remember correctly, didn't the owner of the CD trademark/patent threaten to label DRM'd CD's as not being CD's b/c they didnt' conform to the standards? Should that not happen with DVD's?
Vote with you dollars and your voices. If you buy a DVD that is not compatible, either don't buy it, or take it back and bitch loudly. Make sure other customers can hear you. Basically, make an ass of yourself so that the manager has to give you your money back to shut you up.
Yes, I know I'm rambling.
On one hand, SCO is trying to protect what they see as theirs to protect. On the otherhand, they are ruining their reputation in the marketplace. To suddenly say that all of IBMs sub-licenses are now invalid will do nothing but piss off the owners of those licenses. IANAL, but I don't see how a judge can agree with them. To force every company that uses AIX (and there are quite a few of them) would bring the economy to its knees. If unscheduled downtime costs companies so much money (arguably in the $K's a min), how much will it cost them to suddenly shut down their systems, and converty everything over to non-AIX boxes? As for what I think, I think that SCO will have hundreds of major corporations sue them for terminating their licenese. Imagine if Microsoft suddenly said that all of Dell's sublicenes were invalid. (ok ok, probably apples and oranges, but still) Would every Dell running a Windows OS suddenly be illegal? I can't see SCO surviving this lawsuit as a company. All they want is to be bought out, and I think that won't happen. If IBM is smart (or feeling vindictive), they will sue SCO until they declare bankrupacy, and then buy the UNIX IP off of them. Just IMO.
You take estimated demand (lets set it to 100 for now), and then you take sales (lets say 61 for now). The difference, by BSA standards, is piracy. I see a few small problems with their math. Lets say 15% of potential customers use OSS. So now we have 61+15=76. Now, lets add in the number of people who use older versions of the software they have already purchased, say 5%.. 76+5 = 81. Hey, now we're down to 19% piracy. Strangly, I didn't see anything about those numbers in the BSA's whitepaper... Any ideas why?