Actually, naming it "Worlds's worst article" wouldn't be entirely incorrect. It's filled with misinformation and off-the-wall comments. WFT is a "doughnut-munching controller?", why is reflected sunlight "stronger than normal due to the autumn equinox?" (huh???), is "squeaky bum time" really a Soviet idiom?, do programs have emotions, and close "down in a huff?". I know Brits and Americans differ over milliard/billion/trillion," but what's a "bilion," and did the author mean to claim that Airbus spent $6,000,000,000,000 fixing a problem?
Comcast isn't a backbone provider. It's a retail ISP, and the vast majority of it's customers are home consumers. Since it's customers pull more data than they push, Comcast must expect to receive more data from its peers than it delivers. That's simple common sense.
It's Comcast's customers who are requesting Netflix streams, and it's Comcast's customers who are paying to receive them. Asking Level 3 for payment to deliver is undeniably double dipping - to deny traffic from Netflix via Level 3 is simply to deny the service their own customers have paid and contracted for.
Level 3 pulled something similar a few years ago with Cogent, but that was very different. Both were backbone providers, and Cogent was effectively using Level 3 as a transit network, and thereby transferring costs onto Level 3.
"Uploading costs money, downloading doesn't. It's why most broadband service is structured with low upstream bandwidth."
Huh? The asymmetry to users is because of the way subscriber connections tend to be engineered (like DOCSIS cable modems and DSL) - they're built on the assumption that a "home" user sends small requests and gets large responses, and so that's the way they balance the available broadband bandwidth between send/receive. At the peering level, all the connections are symmetrical - there's no difference in cost.
"Aren't Comcast's customers, the one's who are streaming Netflix, already paying for that bandwidth that they're using? This sounds like Comcast wanting to double-dip."
zactly. Unless Level3 is somehow using Comcast as a transit network, in which case Level3 needs more peers, and Comcast has a right to bitch. But, I doubt very much that's the case.
You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, the article. He was buying (heavily subsidized) pre-paid phones, then modifying them so they could be used on other carriers. No theft mentioned in the article at all. The carriers (TracFone, in this case) don't like that, because it costs them the money they spent subsidizing the price of the phone, which they hoped to make back on service.
You might notice that the wording was slightly changed in the most recent version of the exclusion, it now applies to "used" phones, and must be done by "the owner," which changes the rules, and makes what he was doing illegal now. The government clearly recognized that the exclusion covered his actions, and consequently changed it.
I'll just add to this, since many posts show that people are confusing the action at issue here with what's allowed by the most recent LoC findings. As I referenced, there was an exemption going back to 1996 for "jailbreaking" in order to move a phone to a different network. The more recent exemption (for "jailbreaking" in order to run other software) was added this past July. It doesn't appear to apply to this case at all (it is neither appropos or timely). This is from the current finding:
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
In the same way that regulatory agencies make regulations (regulatory "law"), Congress has also transferred authority (unconstitutionally in both cases, IMHO) to the LoC with regard to exceptions to the DMCA. They're doing more than interpretation, they're effectively changing the law. See Section 1201(a)(1) title 17, United States Code. Seems the exceptions only go for 3 years, and begin when the determination is made.
Following the links in the article, "Majed... was arrested by FBI agents on November 22, 2009." If one goes back to the determination in effect at that time, from 2006 (These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, the 3 year term was later extended), one finds this exemption:
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
That sure sounds like exactly what he was doing.
Here's the section of the DMCA which grants authority to the LoC:
The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.
(Although, I suppose many Slashdotters sit in their car in the driveway for a change of scenery from the basement in their parents house, so maybe the article is apropos)
"Android has a security vulnerability? A security hole in the browser lets a malicious website infect the phone?"
That's not what the summary said - it said there's one "security hole" (the user explicitly giving a browser rights to install apps) which can only be exploited "if they have found another browser hole." (my emphasis)
The Linux "login" command has the same sort of hole, because if you can only find that other hole which allows you to get root, you can do anything. One can fix that by making it so root doesn't have the privileges to do anything.:-)
And, from the summary: "Note that the "old guard" are still firmly in the lead on these measures of scientific prowess, but the growth rate is higher in the newcomer states."
So what? Increasing a baseline of 10 by 1 is 10% growth. Increasing a baseline of 1000 by 10 is 1% growth. Even if the metric is valid, which would you take?
"When most technical people say OS, they mean the program that controls access to the hardware and provides system services- the kernel."
So, for example, Linux is an OS when running on bare hardware, but if you're using it in a virtual machine on a Windows host, you're really running Windows as an OS? OK, if you says so.
after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.
"an inverter which operates at 0.0005 Ghz is less interesting. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing this replace electronics anytime soon."
As you alluded to, there are billions of microcontrollers out there running at less than 0.5 MHz. Heck, the good ol' Mostek 6502 ran at 1 MHz, and started an industry (KIM-1, Commodore PET, Apple ][, etc.) This is still in the research stage, but even at the current speeds, useful processors could be built (but apparently not last very long), especially since this would open new markets where traditional semiconductor gates won't function.
But, even short of a full processor, there could be uses for logical applications (gate arrays).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, naming it "Worlds's worst article" wouldn't be entirely incorrect. It's filled with misinformation and off-the-wall comments. WFT is a "doughnut-munching controller?", why is reflected sunlight "stronger than normal due to the autumn equinox?" (huh???), is "squeaky bum time" really a Soviet idiom?, do programs have emotions, and close "down in a huff?". I know Brits and Americans differ over milliard/billion/trillion," but what's a "bilion," and did the author mean to claim that Airbus spent $6,000,000,000,000 fixing a problem?
Curiously, some of the faster algorithms were eliminated as they were felt to be "too fast to be true."
Not only is the claimed quote ("too fast to be true") nowhere to be found in the linked article, but there isn't even a basis for that claim.
Comcast isn't a backbone provider. It's a retail ISP, and the vast majority of it's customers are home consumers. Since it's customers pull more data than they push, Comcast must expect to receive more data from its peers than it delivers. That's simple common sense.
It's Comcast's customers who are requesting Netflix streams, and it's Comcast's customers who are paying to receive them. Asking Level 3 for payment to deliver is undeniably double dipping - to deny traffic from Netflix via Level 3 is simply to deny the service their own customers have paid and contracted for.
Level 3 pulled something similar a few years ago with Cogent, but that was very different. Both were backbone providers, and Cogent was effectively using Level 3 as a transit network, and thereby transferring costs onto Level 3.
"Uploading costs money, downloading doesn't. It's why most broadband service is structured with low upstream bandwidth."
Huh? The asymmetry to users is because of the way subscriber connections tend to be engineered (like DOCSIS cable modems and DSL) - they're built on the assumption that a "home" user sends small requests and gets large responses, and so that's the way they balance the available broadband bandwidth between send/receive. At the peering level, all the connections are symmetrical - there's no difference in cost.
Your website is aptly named - profound nonsense.
"Aren't Comcast's customers, the one's who are streaming Netflix, already paying for that bandwidth that they're using? This sounds like Comcast wanting to double-dip."
zactly. Unless Level3 is somehow using Comcast as a transit network, in which case Level3 needs more peers, and Comcast has a right to bitch. But, I doubt very much that's the case.
Marketing opportunity!
You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, the article. He was buying (heavily subsidized) pre-paid phones, then modifying them so they could be used on other carriers. No theft mentioned in the article at all. The carriers (TracFone, in this case) don't like that, because it costs them the money they spent subsidizing the price of the phone, which they hoped to make back on service.
You might notice that the wording was slightly changed in the most recent version of the exclusion, it now applies to "used" phones, and must be done by "the owner," which changes the rules, and makes what he was doing illegal now. The government clearly recognized that the exclusion covered his actions, and consequently changed it.
To Faylone: making a profit isn't illegal.
Yeah. The chosen link anchor didn't help, either. It might make you think that kdawson was logged into CmdrTaco's account.
"Google has altered their PageRank algorithm to not give back linking points to bad reviews of websites belonging to online retailers"
Uh, no. Google changed it so that websites of poorly reviewed retailers lose points, not the reviews themselves.
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
Following the links in the article, "Majed... was arrested by FBI agents on November 22, 2009." If one goes back to the determination in effect at that time, from 2006 (These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, the 3 year term was later extended), one finds this exemption:
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
That sure sounds like exactly what he was doing.
Here's the section of the DMCA which grants authority to the LoC:
The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.
they wouldn't be working there long. Also, it makes me wonder why you have reprobates as friends.
Even simpler. The very first line of the abstract says "This document specifies an optional standard..." The whole thing is a "MAY."
just pay attention to the road, and drive?
(Although, I suppose many Slashdotters sit in their car in the driveway for a change of scenery from the basement in their parents house, so maybe the article is apropos)
if we find life on Mars, will we strip-search it before letting it on board?
"Android has a security vulnerability? A security hole in the browser lets a malicious website infect the phone?"
:-)
That's not what the summary said - it said there's one "security hole" (the user explicitly giving a browser rights to install apps) which can only be exploited "if they have found another browser hole." (my emphasis)
The Linux "login" command has the same sort of hole, because if you can only find that other hole which allows you to get root, you can do anything. One can fix that by making it so root doesn't have the privileges to do anything.
And, from the summary: "Note that the "old guard" are still firmly in the lead on these measures of scientific prowess, but the growth rate is higher in the newcomer states."
So what? Increasing a baseline of 10 by 1 is 10% growth. Increasing a baseline of 1000 by 10 is 1% growth. Even if the metric is valid, which would you take?
can you get linux running on 8KB of RAM?
You just need lots of swap space.
1921? Meh. Find a fucking contemporary citation.
"When most technical people say OS, they mean the program that controls access to the hardware and provides system services- the kernel."
So, for example, Linux is an OS when running on bare hardware, but if you're using it in a virtual machine on a Windows host, you're really running Windows as an OS? OK, if you says so.
after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.
...after all, they created the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"but trade secrets don't have any actual protection under law"
They certainly do.
a computer could have beaten me at shogi a long time ago, but it never asked to play.
"an inverter which operates at 0.0005 Ghz is less interesting. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing this replace electronics anytime soon."
As you alluded to, there are billions of microcontrollers out there running at less than 0.5 MHz. Heck, the good ol' Mostek 6502 ran at 1 MHz, and started an industry (KIM-1, Commodore PET, Apple ][, etc.) This is still in the research stage, but even at the current speeds, useful processors could be built (but apparently not last very long), especially since this would open new markets where traditional semiconductor gates won't function.
But, even short of a full processor, there could be uses for logical applications (gate arrays).