It's called T.38, newer phone adapters support it. The problem is that many VoIP providers are still using old TDM to RTP gateways that don't implement T.38 at all, or don't do it reliably. Only newer firmware from Cisco, Metaswitch, Sonus handles T.38 reliably.
you should try a recent version (like the 4.6-current snapshots) compatibility with most PC hardware is very good these days, even better than the 4.5 release
3d X acceleration (for slightly older cards) is out-of-the-box as well
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. MSN is not a laughing stock of anything. It serves the purpose that Microsoft had perfectly well. They want to start a division that can eventually compete by itself but they do it slowly and without concern for real profits. That's obviously what pisses you off, the fact that they can afford to play without regard to normal business concerns.
The idea that Google's "search technology" is unavailable to Microsoft is a continuation of the same stupidity. While google may be the leader, this isn't rocket science. Microsoft is not far behind them, and there's no reason to think that Google's innovation will be worth jack shit in 10 years. These are all commodity resources and ultimately anyone playing in this space will slowly get reduced to razor thin profits as the competition fleshes out. As that happens, new companies may be completely blocked out of this space unless they are amazingly good at what they do. Hell, they already are blocked out.
Google only has to be only slightly more imaginative than Microsoft to be the leader today, it isn't tough. That doesn't mean that Google is far ahead. I think the idea that Microsoft is suffering major setbacks is simply wrong. Those slight leadership advantages that Google has today are going to disappear as Microsoft and Yahoo reach parity with Google. It will happen whether or not they buy Yahoo. Microsoft may be worried that they will lose office+windows revenue too quickly to catch up without Yahoo. But they are still obviously in the clear for some years to go.
Google rose up very quickly, they shot up fast. Is it hard to imagine they could fall back down just as fast? They over-charge for advertising. They over-charge BIG time. There is PLENTY of room for Microsoft or someone else to take this revenue away from them. NO company who over-charges like Google does can sustain the model long term. As much as Google looks good now, you just wait.....
In the US, case law will back up the notion that reading email that is stored (spooled) on a hard disk is NOT wire tapping and does NOT follow the same laws. Even your ISP can read your email with impunity. You have no privacy. Haven't you been reading slashdot?
Most states have laws which allow state district attorneys to sign a warrant to obtain phone or internet records. A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE IS NOT NECESSARY. There is also a federal version of this law for our attorney friends in federal offices. This whole idea that the information is legally protected is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. NO ISP OR PHONE COMPANY REQUIRES A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE TO OBTAIN RECORDS.
Any Telco/ISP that receives a DA-signed warrant will either 1. comply or 2. get owners/officers dragged into court, and into jail if they refuse to comply.
I know this because I brought such a case to the Oregon ACLU, who was very interested. So intersted that within 12 hours of my detailed e-mail, they asked their lawyers to look at it. The lawyers pointed out the Oregon and federal laws to me, and explained that other states had equivalent statutes. Game over.
The basic case was this: Somebody with a laptop lojack-type tracking software installed had their laptop stolen. The company who managed the tracking software had pinpointed it to an IP address on my network. A Portland, OR police detective then sent an affidavit signed by a Portland DA to get the identity of the user behind this IP address. I refused to give him the information, thinking that there was legal protection for my network user. The detective threatened to drag me into court and so I contacted the ACLU. The ACLU's contact page said I should wait up to 36 days to get a reply. This was around 8 PM. At 8:30 AM the next morning, the office of the director called me back with a keen interest in the case. Cool, eh?
hen, their lawyers got involved. They informed me of the multitude of laws which make this perfectly legitimate activity. This was not the answer I expected (and apparently not the answer that the Oregon ACLU director's office expected, either, because they completely lost interest.) They also told me that the threats to force us to appear in court over the matter were no joking matter.
In the end, we never heard from the customer that we outed, or at least they still pay their bill. So, it may have worked out ok for everyone. Anyways, the guys who are out there selling anyone's phone records for the asking are doing the same thing with the carriers - pretending to be district attorneys, not judges.
I think AT&T or Verizon had a published rate of $1500/month (per wiretap).... Big money, but of course they have to spend big money to bring their old networks up to compliance to support the wiretapping...
nice try. the current interpretation of this law in the courts makes it completely ineffective. price fixing happens on a wide scale with a wide range of consumer and commercial goods. many distributors sign contracts that they will not sell items under a certain amount, and if they break the contract, they are unable to sell the item at all. this is very, very common and many distributors are scared to violate their contracts. every big manufacturer does this sort of thing, and it has been legal for years and years. there was a court decision from the 30s that made certain versions of this "illegal" but there was a recent supreme court decision that overturned the previous decision just this year. so it's weaker than ever.......
No, OpenBSD still can't get the specs. It's very odd that Sun open-sources their CPU design, yet they still keep the rest of the chips so proprietary that you can't even get software documentation to program them. OpenBSD (and everyone else) still can't get basic specs to anything beyond the CPU itself. All support of newer Sun systems is done by reverse engineering OpenSolaris and Linux code.
A firewall company who uses openbsd doesn't have to relicense it to use it in their own product. They only need to offer attribution to the original authors of the code. All these companies do is offer a more user-friendly interface, and while it is certainly poor taste not to contribute back to the project, they aren't really doing anything fascinating or worthy of integration back into openbsd. The few that do work worth of integration back into the system often do contribute at least money to the project but rarely code. The code submissions are generally not easy to integrate because they are tailored towards the companies needs and not the openbsd design or style goals. Yes more companies that use openbsd should contribute more money back to the project. Other than money to keep the project going and help it move faster, most have nothing else of interest. It would be easy to put them out of business just by offering more user-friendly packages of openbsd with more easy to use front ends and more VPN clients and such. The ones who really add value and actually do something wouldn't have much to worry about but the rest could easily get replaced if a free project was well known and well marketed enough to reach the consultants and the IT workers who are buying these other products.
If all these companies serve to do is to put OpenBSD into the hands of people to use it more easily, and the people know it's OpenBSD underneath, that's just slightly better than nothing.
when opencvs was started, subversion was not ready to replace it
and the drive to keep it going was partially fueled by the desire to have a home grown system that the developers understand, can easily modify, and that is completely compatible with the current cvs tree
They didn't show it very well in the cartoon, but the linux pengiun "stealing" the documentation is analogous to signing an NDA, as nobody else gets to see the documentation (the whole point of the NDA)
And then for signing the NDA, he gets "stabbed" by the real thieves and he "dies" (what happens to devices when there's no documentation)
What's so surprising here? This is the same country that regularly executes gay teenagers guilty of anal sex. They neighbor countries where it's basically legal to beat and rape a woman in the street for being Christian. Talk about harsh.......
First, Dan Berninger, who produced the research, also helped to originally secure funding for Min-X back in the late 90s. That's what became Vonage. He's not just John Q. Public to Vonage. You would probably find that he's a significant stockholder or perhaps beholden to other significant stockholders. Second, you fail to acknowledge that Vonage successfully defended themselves on many other claims, probably with his assistance already.
And, besides, it's just hard work. Verizon's lawsuit named hundreds of claims across seven patents, by the time they got to court it was only 41 claims across 5 patents, and at the end of the case, Vonage lost on only 6 claims across 3 patents. So, Vonage has to try and get more legal stop-gap measures in place until every last patent can be laughed out. Frankly, the remaining patents read like 1980s Internet RFCs (things like like "name resolution") with the phrase "telephone" scattered throughout.
Hey, look on the bright side...At least this isn't a story about Microsoft launching some of their many thousands of patents at free software authors, integrators and distributors to disrupt them as Microsoft slowly becomes useless, obsolete and convulsing in the throes of death.
Ok. So, there's a really sad part to this as well. Every person out of the non-technical population that I've discussed the Verizon lawsuit has stated some variation of an accusation again Vonage for stealing. The simple fact that they were found guilty of "patent infringement" has convinced people that Vonage simply "stole" some "technology" from Verizon. Nobody in the general population that I've talked to has any understanding of how vague and general the patents are, how this type of activity is better known as a "corporate grunge match" and how the patents have no bearing on reality. They don't quite get it. Then I explain that every large tech corporation hires researchers and inventors and of course regular employees to file patents all year long on anything significant they can think of, just to sue a competitor in the future in a game that looks exactly like this, or to protect against a lawsuit from another competitor with similar infringement claims. They still don't seem to get it. Then I explain that this could mean that ALL independent internet phone providers could face a similar legal death match, resulting in the potential loss of flat-rate long-distance phone service. And then I get a really glazed over look, and I give up.
Many of the ASICs ARE pirated. Guess who manufactures the real stuff? Guess who has all the designs? Their friends start the pirate runs before they are even finished with the legit runs for Cisco.
As a CLEC, GNAPS _should_ be able to use the loophole for now and forever. CIC 0110 is a loophole built into the phone system by the phone companies for their own use, so there's no reason a CLEC can't get unbundled free minutes. It's kind of like when you used to be able to dial 10-110-01-NPA-NXX-XXXX and call for free from any payphone in Dearborn, MI. I remember for like 6 or 8 months, before 4 digit CICs, 10-110 gave you free calls from home phones and payphones. I used to dialup into speedway.net for free from home back when they existed..
GNAPS and others are using a loophole of sorts to provide free 800#s within LATA boundaries. The phone companies finally started to close the loophole, presumably they want to boost their own dialup revenue since they will be the only dialup alternative in the very small towns where it is not financially feasible for a real company to put in dialup modems.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called T.38, newer phone adapters support it. The problem is that many VoIP providers are still using old TDM to RTP gateways that don't implement T.38 at all, or don't do it reliably. Only newer firmware from Cisco, Metaswitch, Sonus handles T.38 reliably.
Clearly it does, or else the judge would have been penalizing Intel for willful damages.
you should try a recent version (like the 4.6-current snapshots)
compatibility with most PC hardware is very good these days, even better than the 4.5 release
3d X acceleration (for slightly older cards) is out-of-the-box as well
Ummm... more demand makes things cheaper? Oh, like oil, right?
Sorry, but this is all total horse shit.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. MSN is not a laughing stock of anything. It serves the purpose that Microsoft had perfectly well. They want to start a division that can eventually compete by itself but they do it slowly and without concern for real profits. That's obviously what pisses you off, the fact that they can afford to play without regard to normal business concerns.
The idea that Google's "search technology" is unavailable to Microsoft is a continuation of the same stupidity. While google may be the leader, this isn't rocket science. Microsoft is not far behind them, and there's no reason to think that Google's innovation will be worth jack shit in 10 years. These are all commodity resources and ultimately anyone playing in this space will slowly get reduced to razor thin profits as the competition fleshes out. As that happens, new companies may be completely blocked out of this space unless they are amazingly good at what they do. Hell, they already are blocked out.
Google only has to be only slightly more imaginative than Microsoft to be the leader today, it isn't tough. That doesn't mean that Google is far ahead. I think the idea that Microsoft is suffering major setbacks is simply wrong. Those slight leadership advantages that Google has today are going to disappear as Microsoft and Yahoo reach parity with Google. It will happen whether or not they buy Yahoo. Microsoft may be worried that they will lose office+windows revenue too quickly to catch up without Yahoo. But they are still obviously in the clear for some years to go.
Google rose up very quickly, they shot up fast. Is it hard to imagine they could fall back down just as fast? They over-charge for advertising. They over-charge BIG time. There is PLENTY of room for Microsoft or someone else to take this revenue away from them. NO company who over-charges like Google does can sustain the model long term. As much as Google looks good now, you just wait.....
This is total bullshit.
In the US, case law will back up the notion that reading email that is stored (spooled) on a hard disk is NOT wire tapping and does NOT follow the same laws. Even your ISP can read your email with impunity. You have no privacy. Haven't you been reading slashdot?
Most states have laws which allow state district attorneys to sign a warrant to obtain phone or internet records. A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE IS NOT NECESSARY. There is also a federal version of this law for our attorney friends in federal offices. This whole idea that the information is legally protected is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. NO ISP OR PHONE COMPANY REQUIRES A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE TO OBTAIN RECORDS.
Any Telco/ISP that receives a DA-signed warrant will either 1. comply or 2. get owners/officers dragged into court, and into jail if they refuse to comply.
I know this because I brought such a case to the Oregon ACLU, who was very interested. So intersted that within 12 hours of my detailed e-mail, they asked their lawyers to look at it. The lawyers pointed out the Oregon and federal laws to me, and explained that other states had equivalent statutes. Game over.
The basic case was this: Somebody with a laptop lojack-type tracking software installed had their laptop stolen. The company who managed the tracking software had pinpointed it to an IP address on my network. A Portland, OR police detective then sent an affidavit signed by a Portland DA to get the identity of the user behind this IP address. I refused to give him the information, thinking that there was legal protection for my network user. The detective threatened to drag me into court and so I contacted the ACLU. The ACLU's contact page said I should wait up to 36 days to get a reply. This was around 8 PM. At 8:30 AM the next morning, the office of the director called me back with a keen interest in the case. Cool, eh?
hen, their lawyers got involved. They informed me of the multitude of laws which make this perfectly legitimate activity. This was not the answer I expected (and apparently not the answer that the Oregon ACLU director's office expected, either, because they completely lost interest.) They also told me that the threats to force us to appear in court over the matter were no joking matter.
In the end, we never heard from the customer that we outed, or at least they still pay their bill. So, it may have worked out ok for everyone. Anyways, the guys who are out there selling anyone's phone records for the asking are doing the same thing with the carriers - pretending to be district attorneys, not judges.
I think AT&T or Verizon had a published rate of $1500/month (per wiretap).... Big money, but of course they have to spend big money to bring their old networks up to compliance to support the wiretapping...
nice try. the current interpretation of this law in the courts makes it completely ineffective. price fixing happens on a wide scale with a wide range of consumer and commercial goods. many distributors sign contracts that they will not sell items under a certain amount, and if they break the contract, they are unable to sell the item at all. this is very, very common and many distributors are scared to violate their contracts. every big manufacturer does this sort of thing, and it has been legal for years and years. there was a court decision from the 30s that made certain versions of this "illegal" but there was a recent supreme court decision that overturned the previous decision just this year. so it's weaker than ever.......
No, OpenBSD still can't get the specs. It's very odd that Sun open-sources their CPU design, yet they still keep the rest of the chips so proprietary that you can't even get software documentation to program them. OpenBSD (and everyone else) still can't get basic specs to anything beyond the CPU itself. All support of newer Sun systems is done by reverse engineering OpenSolaris and Linux code.
If cell companies DID use a UPS to backup their equipment, I'd be very worried. Luckily, they use high grade rectifiers and large battery packs.
A firewall company who uses openbsd doesn't have to relicense it to use it in their own product. They only need to offer attribution to the original authors of the code. All these companies do is offer a more user-friendly interface, and while it is certainly poor taste not to contribute back to the project, they aren't really doing anything fascinating or worthy of integration back into openbsd. The few that do work worth of integration back into the system often do contribute at least money to the project but rarely code. The code submissions are generally not easy to integrate because they are tailored towards the companies needs and not the openbsd design or style goals. Yes more companies that use openbsd should contribute more money back to the project. Other than money to keep the project going and help it move faster, most have nothing else of interest. It would be easy to put them out of business just by offering more user-friendly packages of openbsd with more easy to use front ends and more VPN clients and such. The ones who really add value and actually do something wouldn't have much to worry about but the rest could easily get replaced if a free project was well known and well marketed enough to reach the consultants and the IT workers who are buying these other products.
If all these companies serve to do is to put OpenBSD into the hands of people to use it more easily, and the people know it's OpenBSD underneath, that's just slightly better than nothing.
when opencvs was started, subversion was not ready to replace it
and the drive to keep it going was partially fueled by the desire to have a home grown system that the developers understand, can easily modify, and that is completely compatible with the current cvs tree
check out steven levy's 1984 book 'hackers'
git is a piece of shit, pure and simple.
They didn't show it very well in the cartoon, but the linux pengiun "stealing" the documentation is analogous to signing an NDA, as nobody else gets to see the documentation (the whole point of the NDA)
And then for signing the NDA, he gets "stabbed" by the real thieves and he "dies" (what happens to devices when there's no documentation)
What's so surprising here? This is the same country that regularly executes gay teenagers guilty of anal sex. They neighbor countries where it's basically legal to beat and rape a woman in the street for being Christian. Talk about harsh.......
First, Dan Berninger, who produced the research, also helped to originally secure funding for Min-X back in the late 90s. That's what became Vonage. He's not just John Q. Public to Vonage. You would probably find that he's a significant stockholder or perhaps beholden to other significant stockholders. Second, you fail to acknowledge that Vonage successfully defended themselves on many other claims, probably with his assistance already.
And, besides, it's just hard work. Verizon's lawsuit named hundreds of claims across seven patents, by the time they got to court it was only 41 claims across 5 patents, and at the end of the case, Vonage lost on only 6 claims across 3 patents. So, Vonage has to try and get more legal stop-gap measures in place until every last patent can be laughed out. Frankly, the remaining patents read like 1980s Internet RFCs (things like like "name resolution") with the phrase "telephone" scattered throughout.
Hey, look on the bright side...At least this isn't a story about Microsoft launching some of their many thousands of patents at free software authors, integrators and distributors to disrupt them as Microsoft slowly becomes useless, obsolete and convulsing in the throes of death.
Ok. So, there's a really sad part to this as well. Every person out of the non-technical population that I've discussed the Verizon lawsuit has stated some variation of an accusation again Vonage for stealing. The simple fact that they were found guilty of "patent infringement" has convinced people that Vonage simply "stole" some "technology" from Verizon. Nobody in the general population that I've talked to has any understanding of how vague and general the patents are, how this type of activity is better known as a "corporate grunge match" and how the patents have no bearing on reality. They don't quite get it. Then I explain that every large tech corporation hires researchers and inventors and of course regular employees to file patents all year long on anything significant they can think of, just to sue a competitor in the future in a game that looks exactly like this, or to protect against a lawsuit from another competitor with similar infringement claims. They still don't seem to get it. Then I explain that this could mean that ALL independent internet phone providers could face a similar legal death match, resulting in the potential loss of flat-rate long-distance phone service. And then I get a really glazed over look, and I give up.
Our state law nullifies these sorts of contracts, even if you've signed them.
Many of the ASICs ARE pirated. Guess who manufactures the real stuff? Guess who has all the designs? Their friends start the pirate runs before they are even finished with the legit runs for Cisco.
With a core 2 chip, sure. It has the 64 bit mode, but the 'core' that apple shipped in the first intel macs did not have a 64 bit mode.
see you in hell!
Just because it's PPP does not make it into a phone call by any stretch of the imagination.
As a CLEC, GNAPS _should_ be able to use the loophole for now and forever. CIC 0110 is a loophole built into the phone system by the phone companies for their own use, so there's no reason a CLEC can't get unbundled free minutes. It's kind of like when you used to be able to dial 10-110-01-NPA-NXX-XXXX and call for free from any payphone in Dearborn, MI. I remember for like 6 or 8 months, before 4 digit CICs, 10-110 gave you free calls from home phones and payphones. I used to dialup into speedway.net for free from home back when they existed..
GNAPS and others are using a loophole of sorts to provide free 800#s within LATA boundaries. The phone companies finally started to close the loophole, presumably they want to boost their own dialup revenue since they will be the only dialup alternative in the very small towns where it is not financially feasible for a real company to put in dialup modems.