PPS. In case it wasn't obvious, the linked article contains information concerning a premise based VOIP setup, it was provided to show that it is in fact possible to transmit data (as opposed to voice) over VOIP. I wasn't implying that is how the Telco's do it themselves.
The majority of many telco's backbones are already converted to packet switched (IP) networks vs circuit switched (POTS) networks. Packet switching has a huge cost saving vs circuit switching. And yes, it works with any sort of data that is already being sent over the lines. We aren't talking Skype or SIP here, we are talking lower level type of hardware/interfacing.
What the real question is (the one the FCC is asking), what sort of measures should be taken to ensure that as the network goes full IP (and potentially to full VOIP) the quality of service isn't degraded. Do they need to demand a certain level of latency, lack of jitter, vocal quality (i.e. mandate a specific codec or bit rate).
VOIP at the same level of quality as what we consider POTS to have is quite doable, the reason it isn't done is that part of the cost savings in VOIP is the 'doing more with less' mantra it's currently being implemented under by most people. But is it necessary to mandate that quality and if so, how?
PS For specific information concerning your actual concern, you can start by reading this article.
No offense, Bubba. But touting that your company is responsible for the equipment in air traffic control (a field which is rather notorious for it's failure to 'keep up with the times' to the point where it's starting to not be able to keep up with the load) while posting with a nick such as yours, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument. Instead, it just makes a rather perverse bit of sense that someone from that industry would still be using dialup.
Except that in many places, you really are already on a VOIP network, you just have POTS on the last mile.
Plus, this isn't a plan to force the networks to go to VOIP, they are already pushing for that on their own due to the lowered costs of running them. This is the "how do we let them do this without letting them screw the customer over by removing services or reducing quality of service" plan.
Actually that's the perfect demo, just not one that is conducive to EA/DICE making alot of money and building a player base.
To be honest though, I d/led the game over the holiday and gave up trying to play it after about two hours of trying to find a server I could play on.
Oh, I could get connected to any number of servers, but each one I'd hit had one or two other players and thus was permanently in 'pre-play' phase and would reboot the map every 30-45 seconds when one of the other players would leave and drop us back below the required player limit.
I understand how people feel, it's like getting invested in a Joss Whedon/FOX project (or really any Sci-Fi FOX show since X-Files). Do you really want to invest your time and emotion towards something that is doomed to be canceled in a year?
Similarly, people got invested into BF:H thinking it'd live up to it's promises. Now no one 'owes' them anything in the contractual sense, but a good deal of the effort and interest of the player base was only put forward into this game under the understanding that the game would not be changed to a 'pay to play' model. And without that investment, BF:H would never have gotten enough of a player base to even last this long. So pulling a switchero is a betrayal in a real sense, regardless of what's owed to whom.
However, on the other hand, EA has a similar reputation as FOX does, and anyone who went into this wide-eyed and dreaming of a bold new world where the game was never going to slide this direction either wasn't paying attention or is new enough to the gaming scene that they legitimately own the title n00b. You don't put your faith in EA. They aren't your friends.
If you read the whole section, it's a list of examples of what they consider to be violations of Section 1. Someone just got diarrhea of the fingers and started listing all the ways to misbehave online. They even include flaming.
The takeaway is Verizon is attempting to say that if you act out in any manner whatsoever, do anything they don't like, or just get on the wrong side of one of their IT folk, your service is dead. Overbroad is an understatement. This is them writing a blank check to themselves to allow them to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon policies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon or other users, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP").
Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to: (a) access without permission or right the accounts or computer systems of others, to spoof the URL, DNS or IP addresses of Verizon or any other entity, or to penetrate the security measures of Verizon or any other person's computer system, or to attempt any of the foregoing; (b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information, or engage in other similar activities, including without limitation, "spamming", "flaming" or denial of service attacks; (c) intercept, interfere with or redirect email or other transmissions sent by or to others; (d) introduce viruses, worms, harmful code or Trojan horses on the Internet; (e) post off-topic information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites; (f) engage in conduct that is defamatory, fraudulent, obscene or deceptive; (g) violate Verizon's or any third party's copyright, trademark, proprietary or other intellectual property rights; (h) engage in any conduct harmful to the Verizon network, the Internet generally or other Internet users; (i) generate excessive amounts of email or other Internet traffic; (j) use the Service to violate any rule, policy or guideline of Verizon; (k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images containing child pornography or in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit, cruel or racist in nature or which espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism; or (l) use the Service in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria or any other E:1 Country as designated by the Department of Commerce.
To cover the fanfic requirement:
DOOM: Repercussions of Evil
John Stalvern waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were demons in the base. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Cernel Joson were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway. John was a space marine for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the spaceships and he said to dad "I want to be on the ships daddy." Dad said "No! You will BE KILL BY DEMONS" There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the space station base of the UAC he knew there were demons. "This is Joson" the radio crackered. "You must fight the demons!" So John gotted his palsma rifle and blew up the wall. "HE GOING TO KILL US" said the demons "I will shoot at him" said the cyberdemon and he fired the rocket missiles. John plasmaed at him and tried to blew him up. But then the ceiling fell and they were trapped and not able to kill. "No! I must kill the demons" he shouted The radio said "No, John. You are the demons" And then John was a zombie.
Bugs in colon are not the same thing as bugs in my insides. Geometrically speaking the human form is essentially an oddly formed donuts with a hole down the center to pour food and drink. Yes, that is way over simplifying it, but all the same, what that article is talking about doesn't involve surgery and doesn't involve adding anything 'inside' you.
I take it you aren't used to using Poser or Blender, or any other related 3-d software and thus don't know the joy of: "You STUPID PROGRAM! I just want her to walk down the stairs! Why are her arms doing that! NO! NO! NOO!!!! Stop floating down the stairs and walk! Why is your hair clipping through the wall, why is your hair even moving that way! STOP IT!"
Hollywood's death knell might be sounding. But it's got a few more good decades in it left before we need to morn for it.
In order to grow resistance, you have to leave a few alive and they have to have been left alive due in some part to something in their makeup causing them to be less vulnerable to the 'weapon'.
In other words, something that lived only because it was never touched isn't going to evolve into the superbug.
This eradicates the germs, they aren't being poisoned or having their chemical processes blocked (which is what most antibiotics do), it's ripping the germs apart at the atomic level. You don't develop a resistance to that.
Don't know about you kid, but a doc sticking his hand into my insides is one of those situations where I'm willing to forego the 'benefit' of having my immune system stimulated by germs being introduced in the process and ask him to wash up.
Neither does CoS without the subject's consent. AFAIK CoS isn't kidnapping unwilling people and forcing them to become members, so it's kind of Darwinian in principle
Way to be completely correct and still fail to get the point. GP was attempting to claim that I didn't have rights related to my console because it wasn't 'sold' to me. The point being, it WAS sold to me. There were no strings attached to it at the checkout, it was only after, when I attempt to use certain functions that Microsoft attempts to assert a claim over what I can and can't do.
And this line of thinking is also flawed, in that it assumes that there are no valid class action lawsuits or that the benefit of these suits is marginal.
The reality is there are plentiful examples of both 'good' and 'bad' class actions. And not all class actions are multi-million/billion dollar deals.
When the company I used to work for decided to close shop, it was a class action lawsuit that got me back the earned time off pay that they had attempted to run off with to pay their debts, which was especially important since just before they closed they attempted to institute a death march level of work for us and refused to compensate us for overtime in anything but comp time.
I got back well over 80% of what I was owed, and had I been forced to fight for it all on my own, I wouldn't have even been able to afford to pay the lawyer to tell me how at that point in my life. I'm sure the lawyers made some money as well. But I'm also sure they didn't come away with a new yacht off the settlement.
People bitch about these things mostly because they either never really need one or because the only ones they've been in are those wide sweeping "over a million people represented" setups where of course you aren't going to get your 'due'. In most of those cases, 'proper' compensation to everyone affected by the wrong doing would bankrupt the defendant several times over.
I'm not going to repeat the numerous statements people, including myself, have made in this thread which point out that:
A. EULAs are not laws and have often been found unenforceable, unreasonable, and invalid. B. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Instead I'm just going to suggest that rather than solely cut and pasting a bunch of text, you could have and should have actually attempted to make an actual point of your own.
Avoiding the problem by refusing to participate is certainly a valid option. But wouldn't be nice if you could actually resolve the problem by calling them out on it and forcing a change?
Yes, it's idealistic to expect everyone in this wide world to behave. But what are consumer protection laws for if we can't look to them for protection? It's like paying for health insurance and refusing to go to the doctor because "you are enabling them to charge so much".
Slashdot Mirror
PPS. In case it wasn't obvious, the linked article contains information concerning a premise based VOIP setup, it was provided to show that it is in fact possible to transmit data (as opposed to voice) over VOIP. I wasn't implying that is how the Telco's do it themselves.
The majority of many telco's backbones are already converted to packet switched (IP) networks vs circuit switched (POTS) networks. Packet switching has a huge cost saving vs circuit switching. And yes, it works with any sort of data that is already being sent over the lines. We aren't talking Skype or SIP here, we are talking lower level type of hardware/interfacing.
What the real question is (the one the FCC is asking), what sort of measures should be taken to ensure that as the network goes full IP (and potentially to full VOIP) the quality of service isn't degraded. Do they need to demand a certain level of latency, lack of jitter, vocal quality (i.e. mandate a specific codec or bit rate).
VOIP at the same level of quality as what we consider POTS to have is quite doable, the reason it isn't done is that part of the cost savings in VOIP is the 'doing more with less' mantra it's currently being implemented under by most people. But is it necessary to mandate that quality and if so, how?
PS For specific information concerning your actual concern, you can start by reading this article.
No offense, Bubba. But touting that your company is responsible for the equipment in air traffic control (a field which is rather notorious for it's failure to 'keep up with the times' to the point where it's starting to not be able to keep up with the load) while posting with a nick such as yours, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument. Instead, it just makes a rather perverse bit of sense that someone from that industry would still be using dialup.
Except that in many places, you really are already on a VOIP network, you just have POTS on the last mile.
Plus, this isn't a plan to force the networks to go to VOIP, they are already pushing for that on their own due to the lowered costs of running them. This is the "how do we let them do this without letting them screw the customer over by removing services or reducing quality of service" plan.
Actually that's the perfect demo, just not one that is conducive to EA/DICE making alot of money and building a player base.
To be honest though, I d/led the game over the holiday and gave up trying to play it after about two hours of trying to find a server I could play on.
Oh, I could get connected to any number of servers, but each one I'd hit had one or two other players and thus was permanently in 'pre-play' phase and would reboot the map every 30-45 seconds when one of the other players would leave and drop us back below the required player limit.
I understand how people feel, it's like getting invested in a Joss Whedon/FOX project (or really any Sci-Fi FOX show since X-Files). Do you really want to invest your time and emotion towards something that is doomed to be canceled in a year?
Similarly, people got invested into BF:H thinking it'd live up to it's promises. Now no one 'owes' them anything in the contractual sense, but a good deal of the effort and interest of the player base was only put forward into this game under the understanding that the game would not be changed to a 'pay to play' model. And without that investment, BF:H would never have gotten enough of a player base to even last this long. So pulling a switchero is a betrayal in a real sense, regardless of what's owed to whom.
However, on the other hand, EA has a similar reputation as FOX does, and anyone who went into this wide-eyed and dreaming of a bold new world where the game was never going to slide this direction either wasn't paying attention or is new enough to the gaming scene that they legitimately own the title n00b. You don't put your faith in EA. They aren't your friends.
Till one day one or the other sides gets greedy, and the lady gets her RPG returned to her the old fashion way.
If you read the whole section, it's a list of examples of what they consider to be violations of Section 1. Someone just got diarrhea of the fingers and started listing all the ways to misbehave online. They even include flaming.
The takeaway is Verizon is attempting to say that if you act out in any manner whatsoever, do anything they don't like, or just get on the wrong side of one of their IT folk, your service is dead. Overbroad is an understatement. This is them writing a blank check to themselves to allow them to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
To cover the fanfic requirement:
DOOM: Repercussions of Evil
John Stalvern waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were demons in the base. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Cernel Joson were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
John was a space marine for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the spaceships and he said to dad "I want to be on the ships daddy."
Dad said "No! You will BE KILL BY DEMONS"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the space station base of the UAC he knew there were demons.
"This is Joson" the radio crackered. "You must fight the demons!"
So John gotted his palsma rifle and blew up the wall.
"HE GOING TO KILL US" said the demons
"I will shoot at him" said the cyberdemon and he fired the rocket missiles. John plasmaed at him and tried to blew him up. But then the ceiling fell and they were trapped and not able to kill.
"No! I must kill the demons" he shouted
The radio said "No, John. You are the demons"
And then John was a zombie.
Yes. Yes they do.
So you power the generator by using vat grown muscle, how do you power the muscle?
By feeding it nutrient solution grown in a hydroponics farm.
How you do power the hydroponics farm?
With the electricity from the generator!
Eureka! Perpetual motion...
You are the sort of person who thought Doomsday was a plausible character, aren't you? :-P
Or living, or capable of reproducing independently.
Bugs in colon are not the same thing as bugs in my insides. Geometrically speaking the human form is essentially an oddly formed donuts with a hole down the center to pour food and drink. Yes, that is way over simplifying it, but all the same, what that article is talking about doesn't involve surgery and doesn't involve adding anything 'inside' you.
I take it you aren't used to using Poser or Blender, or any other related 3-d software and thus don't know the joy of: "You STUPID PROGRAM! I just want her to walk down the stairs! Why are her arms doing that! NO! NO! NOO!!!! Stop floating down the stairs and walk! Why is your hair clipping through the wall, why is your hair even moving that way! STOP IT!"
Hollywood's death knell might be sounding. But it's got a few more good decades in it left before we need to morn for it.
True Fact - Chuck Norris actually has a rather weak immune system due to a lack of simulation. Even viruses know not to mess with Chuck.
If it's germ free and not large enough to be visible, does it matter?
In order to grow resistance, you have to leave a few alive and they have to have been left alive due in some part to something in their makeup causing them to be less vulnerable to the 'weapon'.
In other words, something that lived only because it was never touched isn't going to evolve into the superbug.
This eradicates the germs, they aren't being poisoned or having their chemical processes blocked (which is what most antibiotics do), it's ripping the germs apart at the atomic level. You don't develop a resistance to that.
Don't know about you kid, but a doc sticking his hand into my insides is one of those situations where I'm willing to forego the 'benefit' of having my immune system stimulated by germs being introduced in the process and ask him to wash up.
Just set your user agent to the same one Goggle's bot uses. ^_^
Hmm... I don't agree.
Only if you assume a linear scale. Which, if you have any experience with game reviews, you must realize isn't true regardless of the claim.
From experience, game reviews are scored on a logarithmic scale with the baseline. Which ironically also actually fits how many of our senses work.
I see you've watched the tapes of our family game night...
Way to be completely correct and still fail to get the point. GP was attempting to claim that I didn't have rights related to my console because it wasn't 'sold' to me. The point being, it WAS sold to me. There were no strings attached to it at the checkout, it was only after, when I attempt to use certain functions that Microsoft attempts to assert a claim over what I can and can't do.
And this line of thinking is also flawed, in that it assumes that there are no valid class action lawsuits or that the benefit of these suits is marginal.
The reality is there are plentiful examples of both 'good' and 'bad' class actions. And not all class actions are multi-million/billion dollar deals.
When the company I used to work for decided to close shop, it was a class action lawsuit that got me back the earned time off pay that they had attempted to run off with to pay their debts, which was especially important since just before they closed they attempted to institute a death march level of work for us and refused to compensate us for overtime in anything but comp time.
I got back well over 80% of what I was owed, and had I been forced to fight for it all on my own, I wouldn't have even been able to afford to pay the lawyer to tell me how at that point in my life. I'm sure the lawyers made some money as well. But I'm also sure they didn't come away with a new yacht off the settlement.
People bitch about these things mostly because they either never really need one or because the only ones they've been in are those wide sweeping "over a million people represented" setups where of course you aren't going to get your 'due'. In most of those cases, 'proper' compensation to everyone affected by the wrong doing would bankrupt the defendant several times over.
I'm not going to repeat the numerous statements people, including myself, have made in this thread which point out that:
A. EULAs are not laws and have often been found unenforceable, unreasonable, and invalid.
B. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Instead I'm just going to suggest that rather than solely cut and pasting a bunch of text, you could have and should have actually attempted to make an actual point of your own.
Avoiding the problem by refusing to participate is certainly a valid option. But wouldn't be nice if you could actually resolve the problem by calling them out on it and forcing a change?
Yes, it's idealistic to expect everyone in this wide world to behave. But what are consumer protection laws for if we can't look to them for protection? It's like paying for health insurance and refusing to go to the doctor because "you are enabling them to charge so much".