Instead of having to negotiate rights-of-way with a million property owners (and the risk of not achieving end-to-end connectivity due to one in thd middle, who won't sell), common carriers are allowed to use public rights-of-way. In exchange, they put themselves under regulation for the public good, and give up some rights they might have if they truly owned (or leased) all of their infrastructure. Same thing applies to wireless providers, with the public airwaves.
Verizon - you want to claim you're not a common carrier subject to public regulation? Fine. I'll lease a right-of-way across my property for the sum of my monthly bill +$100. I suspect everyone else might offer something similar.
Was it foolish to think that if I fed 220V electricity into the dryer socket, the distribution panel would have an integrated transformer for the 110V lines?
Was the idea that one would feed 110V through the dryer socket?
Seems to me, if the original AC claim of backfeeding is accurate, this is something I'd like to know before the big power outage. But y'know, I'm stupid that way.
Don't underestimate yourself. You're stupid in many more ways.
"Knowing what time electricity spikes and ebbs and where it's used can help the power companies schedule generation and transmission in advance when rates are stable instead of the real-time market."
That information can be collected at the substation level or above. How does knowing the patterns of individual homes help?
"Google is using technology covered in the standards, which require FRAND licenses, and which they have not acquired."
Just because Google doesn't license WiFi patents directly from Nokia doesn't mean they don't have legitimate licenses. It's not uncommon for chipset vendors to license patented technologies for use in their silicon, freeing those who use those chipsets from having to negotiate a separate license.
I'm not claiming that's the case here, but even if Nokia's claim that Google hasn't directly licensed the patents is true, it doesn't mean that Google doesn't have a right to use the technology, or that they're not paying Nokia (indirectly).
Are you deliberately ignoring context (sidereal motion), or do you have a problem with the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, and therefore rotates at different rates relative to the sun and stars? Most of us have post-Copernican beliefs.
(BTW, you've made a ridiculous error - it's "you're," not "your.")
What EULA? There is no EULA. The user isn't making copies of anything. If the argument is that the firmware is copied from flash to RAM, that's fair use - a normal, expected, required part of operation, which the product would be worthless (and therefore unable to fit it's claimed purpose) without.
I would suspect that many slashdotters have PCs which run 24/7 to provide other services - file/media sharing, email, web server, etc. Running iptables in addition adds little to the power consumption, almost certainly less than running an additional consumer NAT gateway in addition.
"Whoever...knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer...the term 'damage' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;..shall be punished..." - 18 USC 1030 (a "protected computer" includes any involved in interstate commerce - ever used eBay or Amazon?)
Before someone says that users somehow agreed to upgrades, think again. User buys AP/router which has auto-upgrade on by default. Plugs it in and uses it. Upgrade gets automatically applied without authorization, impairing the availability of the system (the article describes how features are removed). Cisco is in criminal violation of federal law.
The described tracking of browsing behavior is another crime - a violation of the ECPA.
You have a rather naive view of the law. Judges have to decide matters of both law and fact. You're saying that they should be knowledgeable about matters of law, but not about matters of fact. You're saying that judges should depend on attorneys informing them about matters of fact.
Nonsense. Why can't the litigators be responsible for educating them about both law and fact? Conversely, why should they not be educated on matters of both law and fact?
Attorneys do, in fact, brief the court about matters of both law and fact. Judges are best able to weigh the relative merits of those arguments if they are knowledgeable about them.
You still haven't explained how knowledge of a subject matter makes a judge "pre-biased."
"Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions."
Absolutely correct, especially with regard to a legal education. Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system.
Actually, neither has a CLI. I was allowing the parent a bit of leeway on his attempt at a refutation. That link doesn't truly have a CLI doesn't change the fact that Google doesn't, either. Yes, the main search at Google can be triggered using a browser with what appears to be text entry, but the interface is much deeper than that. And that apparent text entry? When you type "cli" into the Google search box, your browser sends it to Google as an encrypted, complex, HTTPS post, encapsulated in multiple layers of network protocols, not a text command. That's a "CLI" only in the same sense that any particular stream of serial bits might be considered so. Putting an application (browser) which provides a translation layer in front of Google doesn't make Google a CLI. "telnet google.com 443", try to get something useful, then try to claim it's a CLI.
"$ google --type=images --keywords="cats" --image-size=medium --safesearch=off"
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Seriously,/.? I wanted to post an ASCII image of a cat, which is what a CLI version of Google would have to return, but was denied. This will have to do instead.
"The difference between the Google search box and a bash command line is, one is interpreted as a search command, the other as a unix executable."
No. The difference is that one needs a GUI, a network connection, multiple layers of complex protocols, and a fairly intelligent device, while the other works perfectly fine from a dumb, serial ASCII terminal. If it can't be done on a Teletype KSR-33, it's not a CLI.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of having to negotiate rights-of-way with a million property owners (and the risk of not achieving end-to-end connectivity due to one in thd middle, who won't sell), common carriers are allowed to use public rights-of-way. In exchange, they put themselves under regulation for the public good, and give up some rights they might have if they truly owned (or leased) all of their infrastructure. Same thing applies to wireless providers, with the public airwaves.
Verizon - you want to claim you're not a common carrier subject to public regulation? Fine. I'll lease a right-of-way across my property for the sum of my monthly bill +$100. I suspect everyone else might offer something similar.
Don't underestimate yourself. You're stupid in many more ways.
"Knowing what time electricity spikes and ebbs and where it's used can help the power companies schedule generation and transmission in advance when rates are stable instead of the real-time market."
That information can be collected at the substation level or above. How does knowing the patterns of individual homes help?
"Google is using technology covered in the standards, which require FRAND licenses, and which they have not acquired."
Just because Google doesn't license WiFi patents directly from Nokia doesn't mean they don't have legitimate licenses. It's not uncommon for chipset vendors to license patented technologies for use in their silicon, freeing those who use those chipsets from having to negotiate a separate license.
I'm not claiming that's the case here, but even if Nokia's claim that Google hasn't directly licensed the patents is true, it doesn't mean that Google doesn't have a right to use the technology, or that they're not paying Nokia (indirectly).
Are you deliberately ignoring context (sidereal motion), or do you have a problem with the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, and therefore rotates at different rates relative to the sun and stars? Most of us have post-Copernican beliefs.
(BTW, you've made a ridiculous error - it's "you're," not "your.")
What EULA? There is no EULA. The user isn't making copies of anything. If the argument is that the firmware is copied from flash to RAM, that's fair use - a normal, expected, required part of operation, which the product would be worthless (and therefore unable to fit it's claimed purpose) without.
does this mean cough drops will get more expensive?
"careening down a mountain highway with nowhere to pull off... turn the damn thing off akin to pulling out the ignition key"
That will work out well when the federally mandated steering wheel lock kicks in.
I would suspect that many slashdotters have PCs which run 24/7 to provide other services - file/media sharing, email, web server, etc. Running iptables in addition adds little to the power consumption, almost certainly less than running an additional consumer NAT gateway in addition.
I hope the US DoJ does see it (they might even prosecute).
"Whoever...knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer...the term 'damage' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;..shall be punished..." - 18 USC 1030 (a "protected computer" includes any involved in interstate commerce - ever used eBay or Amazon?)
Before someone says that users somehow agreed to upgrades, think again. User buys AP/router which has auto-upgrade on by default. Plugs it in and uses it. Upgrade gets automatically applied without authorization, impairing the availability of the system (the article describes how features are removed). Cisco is in criminal violation of federal law.
The described tracking of browsing behavior is another crime - a violation of the ECPA.
"If you aren't running HPUX on a home Itanium server, then you're just using watered down bullshit."
Please stop insulting Larry Ellison. He owns an Hawaiian Island, you don't.
You have a rather naive view of the law. Judges have to decide matters of both law and fact. You're saying that they should be knowledgeable about matters of law, but not about matters of fact. You're saying that judges should depend on attorneys informing them about matters of fact.
Nonsense. Why can't the litigators be responsible for educating them about both law and fact? Conversely, why should they not be educated on matters of both law and fact?
Attorneys do, in fact, brief the court about matters of both law and fact. Judges are best able to weigh the relative merits of those arguments if they are knowledgeable about them.
You still haven't explained how knowledge of a subject matter makes a judge "pre-biased."
Nah. iPhones come from China, so they fall under the interstate commerce clause.
It's an adversarial system. I think sports analogies would work better.
How does knowledge of the subject at hand "pre-bias" a case? For "simple stuff," you're adding a lot of complexity.
So now you saying that judges _should_ be educated. Please try to be consistent.
"Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions."
Absolutely correct, especially with regard to a legal education. Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system.
Actually, neither has a CLI. I was allowing the parent a bit of leeway on his attempt at a refutation. That link doesn't truly have a CLI doesn't change the fact that Google doesn't, either. Yes, the main search at Google can be triggered using a browser with what appears to be text entry, but the interface is much deeper than that. And that apparent text entry? When you type "cli" into the Google search box, your browser sends it to Google as an encrypted, complex, HTTPS post, encapsulated in multiple layers of network protocols, not a text command. That's a "CLI" only in the same sense that any particular stream of serial bits might be considered so. Putting an application (browser) which provides a translation layer in front of Google doesn't make Google a CLI. "telnet google.com 443", try to get something useful, then try to claim it's a CLI.
You don't know the difference between an interface and an application, do you? It's links which has the CLI, not Google.
"Try editing a photo with the command line. Sure, you can do it, but why would you?"
Try editing a text document with (only) a mouse. Sure, you can do it, but why would you?
"A CLI requires a very specific (typically very unforgiving) format"
That "I" in "CLI?" It stands for Interface. You're confusing the interface with the application.
"Microsoft has NEVER had a consistent user interface across their applications."
You're forgetting the days of the "Blue Screen of Death." That was pretty consistent.
Seriously, /.? I wanted to post an ASCII image of a cat, which is what a CLI version of Google would have to return, but was denied. This will have to do instead.
"The difference between the Google search box and a bash command line is, one is interpreted as a search command, the other as a unix executable."
No. The difference is that one needs a GUI, a network connection, multiple layers of complex protocols, and a fairly intelligent device, while the other works perfectly fine from a dumb, serial ASCII terminal. If it can't be done on a Teletype KSR-33, it's not a CLI.
"And browsing through the results pages is very much unlike a CLI."
I use Lynx, you insensitive clod.