if post-purchase, unilateral, unnegotiable terms are enforceable, simple print out something like
The copyright/patent holder grants to the bearer full and unlimited rights, including rights to use, copy, distribute, modify, reverse engineer, and disassemble this product. This agreement supercedes any and all others, implicit or explicit. By clicking on the button, you accept these terms.
...then hold that paper over the top of whatever license terms are displayed on the screen and click the button. Problem solved.
what he's saying.
email is a text medium, like it or not.
It a medium of communications, and text is the only content which can be assumed to be usable by any recipient. Sending anything other than plain old text, unless there is prior agreement between both sender and receiver, is a hinderance to communications.
You still need to distribute power to wherever it's needed to both power the device you're controlling and power the wireless equipment, you're only removing a piece of control cable and replacing it with the electronics necessary to implement wireless connectivity in a reliable, redundant manner. Seems that would increase power requirements, what power consumer is being removed? Or are they planning on putting heavy batteries at each control site?
You could pick up the same weight savings (if any) by simply passing RF over the power cables (ala X-10, but made robust), and have more secure/robust communications than with wireless.
"Neither of those will tell you which way you're pointing."
That's what gyroscopes are for.
While compasses and sextants may always be useful as simple backups to complex electro/mechanical systems, they have their own failure modes - local magnetic anomalies, overcast weather, etc. For reliable navigation, it will always be necessary to have multiple systems which don't share common dependencies.
only if they want it free (as in beer) need they write it themselves.
They are of course also free (as in speech) to pay someone else to do it for them. They do not have any right to demand that others do it, or pay to have it done, for them.
Get busy, and stop expecting others to take care of you. Do you want to be treated equally, or do you want to be subject to discrimination (such as having code written by others specific to your needs)? You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.
I pay for actual usage of Internet service, $x per month, which is logically no different than $x per minute for telephone service. It's just chunks of time.
The real problem with tiered pricing, for me, is that the ISP infrastructure, by and large, makes use of easements through public property which have been granted based on their providing a public utility service. As soon as they decide they can charge premiums, and are therefore no longer behaving as an equal access public utility, I'm gonna decide that they can pay me a monthly fee for the cables they have running across my property (it's a cable ISP, and they only have easements for "cable TV," and NOT for data or internet services).
and if someone really want to slow their servers down by running multiples on one processer, they can just buy a bunch of $20 486's on eBay instead, and get better reliability (a h/w failure only takes down 1 server instead of many).
What's the difference between having a virus/worm/rootkit/zombie infection on a virtual server vs. a real one? You still need to rebuild/restore to recover.
I suppose it's useful for an individual who wants to run multiple OSes, and easily/quickly switch between them, but that's a very small Slashdot/geek thing (which is of course why the article appears here).
Under the guise of preventing spam, most US ISPs have decided that running your own e-mail server must be banned, unless you pay extra for a commercial account. They enforce this by blocking SMTP connections except to their own servers, which they do not provide SLA or privacy guarantees on.
he didn't intend, or didn't know that the offense would injure the owner of that trade secret. It's not clear that Apple has suffered any injury (although they'll no doubt claim they have), but that is for the court to decide.
What he did is not a crime at this time, as that has yet to be proven. You are not a court, and you are not able to pronounce judgement.
is that Dell is responsible for what goes into Dell computers?
If they wanted 802.11 and 64 bit extensions and PCI Express support, but chose to push Intel for those technologies, I suppose that supports their premise - they're not a lapdog, they're a dog that pulls on the leash.
The law says "The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the
requirements of this subsection." The FCC is strictly limited to implementing the law, it does not have authority to change it, even under our current unconstitutional government
Congress, which only has powers given by the Constitution, does not have any power to delegate legislative authority to other bodies (especially not unelected ones). We fought and won a war over that principle.
I fully understand that this and many other Constitutional limitations are effectively ignored, but that does not change the facts (nor does a Supreme Court ruling which concludes that "black is white"). The Constitution itself is quite clear that legislative power may not reside anywhere except Congress itself - "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." It gives no power to delegate those powers, and of course the regulatory situation runs headsquare into the always ignored 10th Amendment.
"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine"
A "telephone facsimile machine" is defined in Sec.227(a)(2)(B) as:
"equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper."
The term "established business relationship" is by law only applicable to a "telephone solicitation," which is clearly defined in the law as different than a fax. Furthermore, the FCC is by law specifically allowed to exempt by law only two specific sections, neither of which pertain to faxes.
If you do ARP spoofing, the switch will merely update its FDB to indicate the MAC moved to a different port, and will stop forwarding to the port of the real host. You cannot use ARP spoofing to cause the same packets to appear on bothports on a properly implemented switch, a packet will be sent to one or the other. Therefore:
1. As soon as you start doing ARP spoofing, packets bound for the real VoIP client will go to the sniffer and not the client, causing severe voice quality problems and notifying the user of a network issue.
2. As soon as the real host sends another packet, it will again start receiving packets, and the sniffer will not, making it impossible to capture a full stream.
3. If you flood spoofs fast enough, you might receive most of the packets - but since the real user would not, there's not going to be much interesting conversation going on, maybe a few "hello? are you there?" before one end or the other disconnects.
4. If you try to spoof both ends (i.e. the host and the hosts gateway), both ends will experience severe audio degradation. You'll just hear them disconnect.
5. You really have no clue how real networks work, do you?
There might be an opportunity for a man in the middle attack, but that is not what the original post was claiming to do. To do so would require spoofing not only the VoIP host, but spoofing the gateway for all hosts, something which would not produce consistent results and unlikely to succeed without being quickly noticed.
Yes, it's technically a security problem because packets are ending up with the bad guy. Real world, there's not much a bad guy can use it for, except DOS, which they could do even on encrypted communications.
at least not more than a trickle out-of-order, one-side-of-the-conversation packets. It also requires knowledge of the MAC or IP address of the phone. Doing so will also cause very noticible network problems/interruptions beyond severe and immediately noticible sound quality issues with the VoIP conversation in progress.
If you mean broadcast domain, you're wrong, at least in modern switched networks. If you can find someone still running on shared media (hubs) or unencrypted WLAN, then yes, all of the traffic is accessible. Otherwise, that RTP packet isn't going to appear at the switch port you're plugged into unless you have admin access to the switch, in which case there are more serious security issues if you're a bad guy.
If you mean a SPAN (Switched Port ANalyzer, aka "mirror) port, that's a specialized situation and access to a SPAN port by an untrusted user again represents a more serious security threat than just seeing RTP traffic.
which is based on the fact that we don't know of, and don't anticipate, any medium capable of more capacity. Do fiber once, and you're done, for the foreseeable future. Most new PCs come with 1000baseT connections, which is 4x faster than the proposed coax speeds, so while it may be greater than current Internet connection speeds offered individuals by ISPs, that may not be the case for very long.
This move by Verizon is based entirely on short term financials, but at some point fiber will be needed to keep up with other network technologies. Verizon's move is reminiscent of the proverbial "640K should be enough for everyone" uttered by billg - while true contemporaneously, it didn't take long before the shortsightedness became very apparent.
Like you, Verizon is looking backwards, not forwards.
Given that the numbers are correct ( 301,000 CDs and 3.4 million downloads vs. 154,000 CDs and 5.3 million downloads) it's hard to draw any conclusion.
If one takes the difference in downloads (1.9 million) and divides it by a typical CD cost ($15), one gets ~127,000. That's almost enough to make up for the difference in actual CD sales (it leaves a delta of ~20K CDs), with no marginal cost of goods for the record labels to bear.
It all seems like a wash to me, and of course only has any hint of significance if the two albums/artists can be considered equally in demand, a tenuous assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
The copyright/patent holder grants to the bearer full and unlimited rights, including rights to use, copy, distribute, modify, reverse engineer, and disassemble this product. This agreement supercedes any and all others, implicit or explicit. By clicking on the button, you accept these terms.
...then hold that paper over the top of whatever license terms are displayed on the screen and click the button. Problem solved.
"the 20 MHz frequency band" != "20 megahertz of spectrum, 2155-2175 MHz"
It a medium of communications, and text is the only content which can be assumed to be usable by any recipient. Sending anything other than plain old text, unless there is prior agreement between both sender and receiver, is a hinderance to communications.
http://www.efn.no/html-bad.html
You still need to distribute power to wherever it's needed to both power the device you're controlling and power the wireless equipment, you're only removing a piece of control cable and replacing it with the electronics necessary to implement wireless connectivity in a reliable, redundant manner. Seems that would increase power requirements, what power consumer is being removed? Or are they planning on putting heavy batteries at each control site?
You could pick up the same weight savings (if any) by simply passing RF over the power cables (ala X-10, but made robust), and have more secure/robust communications than with wireless.
This just seems like a dumb idea.
That's what gyroscopes are for.
While compasses and sextants may always be useful as simple backups to complex electro/mechanical systems, they have their own failure modes - local magnetic anomalies, overcast weather, etc. For reliable navigation, it will always be necessary to have multiple systems which don't share common dependencies.
Quick (no Googling), other that OO (which doesn't depend upon making a profit for survival), what other word processors or spreadsheets are available?
They are of course also free (as in speech) to pay someone else to do it for them. They do not have any right to demand that others do it, or pay to have it done, for them.
Get busy, and stop expecting others to take care of you. Do you want to be treated equally, or do you want to be subject to discrimination (such as having code written by others specific to your needs)? You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.
The real problem with tiered pricing, for me, is that the ISP infrastructure, by and large, makes use of easements through public property which have been granted based on their providing a public utility service. As soon as they decide they can charge premiums, and are therefore no longer behaving as an equal access public utility, I'm gonna decide that they can pay me a monthly fee for the cables they have running across my property (it's a cable ISP, and they only have easements for "cable TV," and NOT for data or internet services).
What's the difference between having a virus/worm/rootkit/zombie infection on a virtual server vs. a real one? You still need to rebuild/restore to recover.
I suppose it's useful for an individual who wants to run multiple OSes, and easily/quickly switch between them, but that's a very small Slashdot/geek thing (which is of course why the article appears here).
PLEASE, Mr. Philips, can I go to the bathroom now?
Under the guise of preventing spam, most US ISPs have decided that running your own e-mail server must be banned, unless you pay extra for a commercial account. They enforce this by blocking SMTP connections except to their own servers, which they do not provide SLA or privacy guarantees on.
What he did is not a crime at this time, as that has yet to be proven. You are not a court, and you are not able to pronounce judgement.
If they wanted 802.11 and 64 bit extensions and PCI Express support, but chose to push Intel for those technologies, I suppose that supports their premise - they're not a lapdog, they're a dog that pulls on the leash.
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/article s/folkloreBlueMoon.html
we've found the proverbial "blue moon?"
Congress, which only has powers given by the Constitution, does not have any power to delegate legislative authority to other bodies (especially not unelected ones). We fought and won a war over that principle.
I fully understand that this and many other Constitutional limitations are effectively ignored, but that does not change the facts (nor does a Supreme Court ruling which concludes that "black is white"). The Constitution itself is quite clear that legislative power may not reside anywhere except Congress itself - "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." It gives no power to delegate those powers, and of course the regulatory situation runs headsquare into the always ignored 10th Amendment.
Interesting reading: https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv18n1/reg1 8n1-readings.html
"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine"
A "telephone facsimile machine" is defined in Sec.227(a)(2)(B) as:
"equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper."
The term "established business relationship" is by law only applicable to a "telephone solicitation," which is clearly defined in the law as different than a fax. Furthermore, the FCC is by law specifically allowed to exempt by law only two specific sections, neither of which pertain to faxes.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?g etdoc+uscview+t45t48+1372+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28 %2847%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w% 2F10%20%28227%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20
If you do ARP spoofing, the switch will merely update its FDB to indicate the MAC moved to a different port, and will stop forwarding to the port of the real host. You cannot use ARP spoofing to cause the same packets to appear on bothports on a properly implemented switch, a packet will be sent to one or the other. Therefore:
1. As soon as you start doing ARP spoofing, packets bound for the real VoIP client will go to the sniffer and not the client, causing severe voice quality problems and notifying the user of a network issue.
2. As soon as the real host sends another packet, it will again start receiving packets, and the sniffer will not, making it impossible to capture a full stream.
3. If you flood spoofs fast enough, you might receive most of the packets - but since the real user would not, there's not going to be much interesting conversation going on, maybe a few "hello? are you there?" before one end or the other disconnects.
4. If you try to spoof both ends (i.e. the host and the hosts gateway), both ends will experience severe audio degradation. You'll just hear them disconnect.
5. You really have no clue how real networks work, do you?
There might be an opportunity for a man in the middle attack, but that is not what the original post was claiming to do. To do so would require spoofing not only the VoIP host, but spoofing the gateway for all hosts, something which would not produce consistent results and unlikely to succeed without being quickly noticed.
Yes, it's technically a security problem because packets are ending up with the bad guy. Real world, there's not much a bad guy can use it for, except DOS, which they could do even on encrypted communications.
at least not more than a trickle out-of-order, one-side-of-the-conversation packets. It also requires knowledge of the MAC or IP address of the phone. Doing so will also cause very noticible network problems/interruptions beyond severe and immediately noticible sound quality issues with the VoIP conversation in progress.
If you mean broadcast domain, you're wrong, at least in modern switched networks. If you can find someone still running on shared media (hubs) or unencrypted WLAN, then yes, all of the traffic is accessible. Otherwise, that RTP packet isn't going to appear at the switch port you're plugged into unless you have admin access to the switch, in which case there are more serious security issues if you're a bad guy.
If you mean a SPAN (Switched Port ANalyzer, aka "mirror) port, that's a specialized situation and access to a SPAN port by an untrusted user again represents a more serious security threat than just seeing RTP traffic.
Name, street address, city, state, country.
Nothing backward, illogical or out of order with that. DNS is simply following a well established convention.
This move by Verizon is based entirely on short term financials, but at some point fiber will be needed to keep up with other network technologies. Verizon's move is reminiscent of the proverbial "640K should be enough for everyone" uttered by billg - while true contemporaneously, it didn't take long before the shortsightedness became very apparent.
Like you, Verizon is looking backwards, not forwards.
270 Mbps on coax - the OP was correct, Whoopty-frickin-doo!
If one takes the difference in downloads (1.9 million) and divides it by a typical CD cost ($15), one gets ~127,000. That's almost enough to make up for the difference in actual CD sales (it leaves a delta of ~20K CDs), with no marginal cost of goods for the record labels to bear.
It all seems like a wash to me, and of course only has any hint of significance if the two albums/artists can be considered equally in demand, a tenuous assumption.