There has been no firmware update for the ADP1, but one is supposedly in the works. In all likelihood, all that's needed to access paid apps is an updated Android Market application. The holiday bonus firmware quite probably has an updated market app, and thus works.
If that's true, this article is completely alarmist. I won't believe the ADP1 can't access paid apps until I hear it from Google itself.
Disguising traffic is quite easy to do in many cases. For example, many Bittorrent clients support the notion of "HTTP seeding". This uses the protocol traditionally associated with the web for bulk file transfer. This bittorrent traffic does not have the same requirements as your web browsing, despite using the same protocol!
You're right that you might want both low latency and high bandwidth. In that case, you would (as you said) have to pay a premium for it. No matter what price point you choose, though, you probably still want to make a distinction between bittorrent and VOIP. Their requirements are worlds apart.
So my point is that even if the ISP can determine the protocol, that doesn't necessarily correspond to what the applications communicating need. Moreover, if it's encrypted traffic, the ISP likely can't even determine the protocol. So having the application on the customer's computer tag the traffic with its requirements is the only way you can get even close to optimal (and neutral) traffic shaping.
You are conflating "type" and "protocol", and that makes you almost as wrong as the guy you were responding to. Big Bad Telecom could invent a proprietary protocol for their data. If you can implement that protocol, your packets get its respective priority. But you can't. Or, you could invent a protocol that has the same traffic requirements as VOIP. Good luck getting the ISPs to prioritize it accordingly.
Since there is a tradeoff to be made is between bandwidth and latency, what you really want is the ability to chose which is most important to your traffic (ala QoS). I would argue that it's not a neutral net unless the priorities are decided by the parties who are communicating.
As you know, VOIP requires low-bandwidth and low-latency. Customers who use it would want strong latency guarantees, at the expense of bandwith guarantees. On the other end, bittorrent requires high-bandwith and high-latency. Your latency guarantees could be much laxer with a higher bandwidth guarantee. That is not the same as "lowest" priority or "bottom of the pile", it's strictly a tradeoff.
This doesn't preclude you from distributing them in a stuffit or whatnot. You will just have to distribute them (or offer to) in another format as well to fulfill your license obligations.
You're always going to need that double login, else it will not be secure from the admin. The first login is easily bypassed by the administrator. The second is not. You can't eliminate the first, since its not under your control. The second is under you control, but eliminating it also eliminates your added security. The 2-login problem is not solvable without integrating the encryption in with the OS's authentication, like with Windows XP. I don't see it happening too soon.
Yes, C is not an object oriented language. GTK, however, certainly is object oriented. I find the notion that Qt is better because its built on C++ which has language support for OOP to be absurd.
I have never even tried one, because I dismissed them as a waste of valuable time. If they are designed so that no T&E is needed then great. I still think they're a waste of time, but at least you don't have to guess.
Heck, I'm sure many would be willing to build a distro for them. Just set up an organization over which Adobe has veto power to build a distro at low- to no-cost. Adobe would still have to port it themselves, but they could let the volunteers on the project worry about deployment.
PEAR, Creole, Propel, the one that Zend is developing... Why does PHP need so many? Were they just too late delivering something that virtually everybody needs so we ended up with tons of incompatible solutions?
The convention makes things easier to read. Classes are capitalized, methods are not. The second words and on are capitalized because otherwise it would be difficult to read them. They are also shorter and avoid superfluous underscores. They actually did think about these conventions then stick to them, unlike in PHP. The end result is that code is much more readable.
Servlets more 'heavyweight' then PHP? I call FUD. CGI is notoriously inefficient; Servlets skip it entirely. Am I right that CGI is still the standard setup for PHP? I believe there may be some alternatives, but considering default settings I've always heard that servlets are far more efficient.
Hmm? Whats the equivalent of interfaces & dynamic binding which allows drop-in replacement of chunks of an application (even at runtime) in, say, C, which predates OOP? I don't understand people who say 'objects have failed' or 'objects aren't any more reusable.' While they may not be more reusable per se, they are easier to make reusable. As someone who has found objects a quite useful way to structure code, I question your assertions. If you could cite some features in pre-OOP languages that are analagous to these features, I would better be able to see your point.
Do you realize that the phrase "Speech to whom?" is also a sequence of ones and zeros on your computer? That doesn't make it not speech; it's just encoded in ASCII. Most source code is also encoded in ASCII. Binaries are probably not speech, but source code is arguably similar to the written word. It is a language that humans can use to communicate, after all.
If you didn't get it at Uni, and other sources' (eg, Wikipedia) definitions don't make sense to you either, then I certainly will not be able to explain it to you. In the case of my post, I just used it to demonstrate that sudoku is not solvable completely through logic; trial and error is necessary.
So your argument is that because the spammers are systematically violating the protections you have built, they are guilty for a crime comparible to systematically trespassing on your property and annoying you.
I see your point, but I would still prefer things if people would just fix the protection rather than charge the spammers for evading it. Especially if its so weak that it lets through tens of spam for each user per day (enough to annoy you to the point that you want the violator jailed).
If you look carefully, you'll see that both of these cases are caused by incompetent IT staff unloading their problems on their users. They are paid to deal with these issues. Ideally, the other employees shouldn't have to deal with them. The cost of spam has been exaggerated in these cases because the people who are already paid to take care of it didn't. They should have had a filtering system. If they did, it quite frankly sucks for letting through so many spam per day. My ISP filters out all mail from residential links and has a fairly extensive blacklist compiled from multiple sources. I get maybe 2 spam per day through that filter, and 95% of them are marked by Thunderbird and sent to the spam folder. My email address is plastered all over the internet in mailing list archives and other miscellenious web sites. My ISP is quite proud of this system. Is it really _that_ bad everywhere else?
Spam has always been a technical issue. It has become enough a problem that some people have made it a legal one too, while I would have rather it stayed purely technical. That is all I'm saying.
My intent was never to troll. I have a feeling you realize this (witty comment about how AC is comparable to high userid here).
By your logic, telemarketers, businesses sending unsolicited postal mail adverstisements, Jehova's witnesses, and any random person who manages to waste a few minutes of your time should be jailed. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Yes. The legality issue, while relevant, is not the primary issue I have been debating. Only once did I ever touch upon legal issues, and that time I happened to be blatantly incorrect. I am not afraid to admit it. At issue is whether the punishment is justified for the crime. The ISPs you mention have every right to complain. Individuals, (at least ones who can be bothered to have a filter set up) however, are mostly unscathed by the legions of spammers and therefore shouldn't complain nearly as loudly as they do. In my opinion, they are _completely_ unjustified in saying that spammers should be sent to prison.
Think about it. Every slashdotter thinks that even a few thousand dollar fine is too harsh for P2P-enabled copyright enfringement. Yet sending email deserves a prison sentence? How can you even argue that this is consistent? Are you friggin kidding me?
I have not. Perhaps my generalization was too broad. Mail admins are certainly not the majority; they can complain much more loudly before I will accuse them of overreacting. For the majority of individuals, I maintain my point that it's a worn-out excuse.
Well, since this excuse is inapplicable to any spammer who uses any filter evasion technqiue (no matter how trivial), I assume that you support the punishment of such spammers as if they had broken-and-entered onto an equivalent number of houses.
(Or that you're a hypocrite. Whichever.)
No. Filter-evasion is not breaking and entering. This is the same irrationality that spam always seems to cause. You intended to filter them, but you failed. Your system is inadequate. Why not fix it?
I am not a defender of spammers.
[BILL COSBY] Riiiiiiight. [/BILL COSBY]
You can not shame me into thinking irrationally. I never understand why spam makes people so crazy. I am attacking the craziness rather than defending the spammers. Why can't people maintain a rational level of thought at all time? Annoying and deceitful email -> jail the author? It doesn't follow.
I fail to see your point. Air pollution's negative effects on a certain area are not changed by the quantity of air polution in other areas. This is identical to the spam issue. I argue that density is the variable, while you argue that the summation of all cases is.
I suppose this is probably a point of view issue. I believe spam should be evaluated by the individual by its effects on the individual, while you argue that it should be evaluated by the individual by its effects on everyone. According to my view, you shouldn't complain about spam because other people are getting it. Certainly when dealing with government and law distribution must be taken into account in order to evaluate at which level of government action is needed to deal with the problem, but this is tangent to my original point (which may not have been clear.)
Contrary to your "opinion," sending you data through a communications channel you have left open (graciously accepting spam, even) is not theft in any definition of the word.
Yes, spammers are dishonest, they often commit fraud, and they waste everyone's time. I am not a defender of spammers. However, I find the reasons people give for their hatred of spammers very irritating because they are too often blatantly wrong or blown way out of proportion. Fraud, in particular, is a good reason to throw someone in jail. That they wasted your time is certainly not a good reason.
You have made that communications channel available to the spammer. You are practically asking them to send mail to you. People like you find it convenient to ignore the technical realities of the email system. Since you A) want to participate in the email system and B) don't want to receive mail from spammers you find that your only solution is to look to the law for help. I'm sure eventually the world will come to terms with spam, just like they have with snail mail. Oh no! Wegmans is STEALING YOUR TIME and EFFORT by making you pick their ads out of your mailbox and recylce them! I'm sure that's not your reaction to junk snail mail. Why is it with email?
There are no "word games". He made a contradictory statement, and I pointed it out.
The word game was you attempting to disprove him with your interpretation of his post, when it could be validly interpreted in other ways which have no contradictions. Like me, it is quite likely that he makes no distinction between receiving and seeing email in when the technical matters are irrelevant to the point being made. Asserting that technically he receives all of the spam and that its canned before he sees it does not discredit the point of his post and therefore is totally moot.
Yes, and he's wrong. That's why I posted.
Oh please. And you know his situation better than he does? See above.
Then you've obviously been living under a rock for the past few years. Many states have made spamming illegal, and there is a federal law (CAN-SPAM) regulating it.
I concede my ignorance on this legislation. Now that you bring it up, it sounds vaguely familiar. I suppose I liken to the belief that if you make a communications channel available to others, whatever you receive through it is your responsibility and not your federal or state government's.
Actually, LOTS of people complain about junk mail. But as you've been living under a rock, I'll forgive you for not knowing that.
Really? Do they also think that people who send it should be thrown in jail? Because that seems to be the attitude of many towards spammers. I think not, and that was precisely my point. Sure, some people complain, but not nearly as loudly.
Yes, and junk mail it also costs money to send rather than receive. Email is the other way around.
This is just a worn-out excuse. I have never heard of any individual who was actually damaged financially by spam. Unless you have dialup, it makes no significant difference whatsoever. The spam messages I receive are so pitifully small that it would take hundreds of them per second to make any significant dent in my bandwidth. Do they send you several page emails complete with 10 meg uncompressed photograph attachments? If so, then I would have a much easier time seeing your point.
The real cost that spam causes individuals is time, not bandwidth. And if you spend some of that time setting up a filtering system, less time will be wasted reading and deleting spam. Further, the USPS is a government agency so you indirectly pay to receive snail mail through taxes. Yes, it's mostly self-sufficient, so the cost to you is very small, but the cost to receive spam is also very small.
You might disagree by principle that you should 'pay' for spam that you don't want, and I do too. I also disagree by principle that others should be able to pay the USPS to deliver junk mail to me. The difference between us is that instead of supporting some crazy crusade to hunt spammers down and destroy their livelihood, I have realized that its really not a big deal and that with a little effort can be effectively filtered. Comeon, they just sent you some unsolicited email messages! Spam is an inconveience at best. You, like many others, wildly overreact to it.
If my original post seemed rude to you, I apologise. Your post seemed rude to me; you were trying to refute the parent's assertion that spam is no big deal to him by claiming that he in fact does "get lots of spam" and implied that it somehow hurts him even though he doesn't see it. Yes, it does affect him, but he already implied that the effect was so little it didn't bother him. Thus, you seemed to be avoiding his point.
Slashdot Mirror
There has been no firmware update for the ADP1, but one is supposedly in the works. In all likelihood, all that's needed to access paid apps is an updated Android Market application. The holiday bonus firmware quite probably has an updated market app, and thus works.
If that's true, this article is completely alarmist. I won't believe the ADP1 can't access paid apps until I hear it from Google itself.
Disguising traffic is quite easy to do in many cases. For example, many Bittorrent clients support the notion of "HTTP seeding". This uses the protocol traditionally associated with the web for bulk file transfer. This bittorrent traffic does not have the same requirements as your web browsing, despite using the same protocol!
You're right that you might want both low latency and high bandwidth. In that case, you would (as you said) have to pay a premium for it. No matter what price point you choose, though, you probably still want to make a distinction between bittorrent and VOIP. Their requirements are worlds apart.
So my point is that even if the ISP can determine the protocol, that doesn't necessarily correspond to what the applications communicating need. Moreover, if it's encrypted traffic, the ISP likely can't even determine the protocol. So having the application on the customer's computer tag the traffic with its requirements is the only way you can get even close to optimal (and neutral) traffic shaping.
You are conflating "type" and "protocol", and that makes you almost as wrong as the guy you were responding to. Big Bad Telecom could invent a proprietary protocol for their data. If you can implement that protocol, your packets get its respective priority. But you can't. Or, you could invent a protocol that has the same traffic requirements as VOIP. Good luck getting the ISPs to prioritize it accordingly.
Since there is a tradeoff to be made is between bandwidth and latency, what you really want is the ability to chose which is most important to your traffic (ala QoS). I would argue that it's not a neutral net unless the priorities are decided by the parties who are communicating.
As you know, VOIP requires low-bandwidth and low-latency. Customers who use it would want strong latency guarantees, at the expense of bandwith guarantees. On the other end, bittorrent requires high-bandwith and high-latency. Your latency guarantees could be much laxer with a higher bandwidth guarantee. That is not the same as "lowest" priority or "bottom of the pile", it's strictly a tradeoff.
What's with that guy who asks Stallman if he's familiar with the anime industry?
This doesn't preclude you from distributing them in a stuffit or whatnot. You will just have to distribute them (or offer to) in another format as well to fulfill your license obligations.
You're always going to need that double login, else it will not be secure from the admin. The first login is easily bypassed by the administrator. The second is not. You can't eliminate the first, since its not under your control. The second is under you control, but eliminating it also eliminates your added security. The 2-login problem is not solvable without integrating the encryption in with the OS's authentication, like with Windows XP. I don't see it happening too soon.
Yes, C is not an object oriented language. GTK, however, certainly is object oriented. I find the notion that Qt is better because its built on C++ which has language support for OOP to be absurd.
I have never even tried one, because I dismissed them as a waste of valuable time. If they are designed so that no T&E is needed then great. I still think they're a waste of time, but at least you don't have to guess.
Heck, I'm sure many would be willing to build a distro for them. Just set up an organization over which Adobe has veto power to build a distro at low- to no-cost. Adobe would still have to port it themselves, but they could let the volunteers on the project worry about deployment.
PEAR, Creole, Propel, the one that Zend is developing... Why does PHP need so many? Were they just too late delivering something that virtually everybody needs so we ended up with tons of incompatible solutions?
Why?
The convention makes things easier to read. Classes are capitalized, methods are not. The second words and on are capitalized because otherwise it would be difficult to read them. They are also shorter and avoid superfluous underscores. They actually did think about these conventions then stick to them, unlike in PHP. The end result is that code is much more readable.
Servlets more 'heavyweight' then PHP? I call FUD. CGI is notoriously inefficient; Servlets skip it entirely. Am I right that CGI is still the standard setup for PHP? I believe there may be some alternatives, but considering default settings I've always heard that servlets are far more efficient.
Hmm? Whats the equivalent of interfaces & dynamic binding which allows drop-in replacement of chunks of an application (even at runtime) in, say, C, which predates OOP? I don't understand people who say 'objects have failed' or 'objects aren't any more reusable.' While they may not be more reusable per se, they are easier to make reusable. As someone who has found objects a quite useful way to structure code, I question your assertions. If you could cite some features in pre-OOP languages that are analagous to these features, I would better be able to see your point.
Do you realize that the phrase "Speech to whom?" is also a sequence of ones and zeros on your computer? That doesn't make it not speech; it's just encoded in ASCII. Most source code is also encoded in ASCII. Binaries are probably not speech, but source code is arguably similar to the written word. It is a language that humans can use to communicate, after all.
If you didn't get it at Uni, and other sources' (eg, Wikipedia) definitions don't make sense to you either, then I certainly will not be able to explain it to you. In the case of my post, I just used it to demonstrate that sudoku is not solvable completely through logic; trial and error is necessary.
So your argument is that because the spammers are systematically violating the protections you have built, they are guilty for a crime comparible to systematically trespassing on your property and annoying you.
I see your point, but I would still prefer things if people would just fix the protection rather than charge the spammers for evading it. Especially if its so weak that it lets through tens of spam for each user per day (enough to annoy you to the point that you want the violator jailed).
If you look carefully, you'll see that both of these cases are caused by incompetent IT staff unloading their problems on their users. They are paid to deal with these issues. Ideally, the other employees shouldn't have to deal with them. The cost of spam has been exaggerated in these cases because the people who are already paid to take care of it didn't. They should have had a filtering system. If they did, it quite frankly sucks for letting through so many spam per day. My ISP filters out all mail from residential links and has a fairly extensive blacklist compiled from multiple sources. I get maybe 2 spam per day through that filter, and 95% of them are marked by Thunderbird and sent to the spam folder. My email address is plastered all over the internet in mailing list archives and other miscellenious web sites. My ISP is quite proud of this system. Is it really _that_ bad everywhere else?
Spam has always been a technical issue. It has become enough a problem that some people have made it a legal one too, while I would have rather it stayed purely technical. That is all I'm saying.
My intent was never to troll. I have a feeling you realize this (witty comment about how AC is comparable to high userid here).
By your logic, telemarketers, businesses sending unsolicited postal mail adverstisements, Jehova's witnesses, and any random person who manages to waste a few minutes of your time should be jailed. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Yes. The legality issue, while relevant, is not the primary issue I have been debating. Only once did I ever touch upon legal issues, and that time I happened to be blatantly incorrect. I am not afraid to admit it. At issue is whether the punishment is justified for the crime. The ISPs you mention have every right to complain. Individuals, (at least ones who can be bothered to have a filter set up) however, are mostly unscathed by the legions of spammers and therefore shouldn't complain nearly as loudly as they do. In my opinion, they are _completely_ unjustified in saying that spammers should be sent to prison.
Think about it. Every slashdotter thinks that even a few thousand dollar fine is too harsh for P2P-enabled copyright enfringement. Yet sending email deserves a prison sentence? How can you even argue that this is consistent? Are you friggin kidding me?
I have not. Perhaps my generalization was too broad. Mail admins are certainly not the majority; they can complain much more loudly before I will accuse them of overreacting. For the majority of individuals, I maintain my point that it's a worn-out excuse.
Well, since this excuse is inapplicable to any spammer who uses any filter evasion technqiue (no matter how trivial), I assume that you support the punishment of such spammers as if they had broken-and-entered onto an equivalent number of houses.
(Or that you're a hypocrite. Whichever.)
No. Filter-evasion is not breaking and entering. This is the same irrationality that spam always seems to cause. You intended to filter them, but you failed. Your system is inadequate. Why not fix it?
I am not a defender of spammers.
[BILL COSBY] Riiiiiiight. [/BILL COSBY]
You can not shame me into thinking irrationally. I never understand why spam makes people so crazy. I am attacking the craziness rather than defending the spammers. Why can't people maintain a rational level of thought at all time? Annoying and deceitful email -> jail the author? It doesn't follow.
I fail to see your point. Air pollution's negative effects on a certain area are not changed by the quantity of air polution in other areas. This is identical to the spam issue. I argue that density is the variable, while you argue that the summation of all cases is.
I suppose this is probably a point of view issue. I believe spam should be evaluated by the individual by its effects on the individual, while you argue that it should be evaluated by the individual by its effects on everyone. According to my view, you shouldn't complain about spam because other people are getting it. Certainly when dealing with government and law distribution must be taken into account in order to evaluate at which level of government action is needed to deal with the problem, but this is tangent to my original point (which may not have been clear.)
Contrary to your "opinion," sending you data through a communications channel you have left open (graciously accepting spam, even) is not theft in any definition of the word.
Yes, spammers are dishonest, they often commit fraud, and they waste everyone's time. I am not a defender of spammers. However, I find the reasons people give for their hatred of spammers very irritating because they are too often blatantly wrong or blown way out of proportion. Fraud, in particular, is a good reason to throw someone in jail. That they wasted your time is certainly not a good reason.
You have made that communications channel available to the spammer. You are practically asking them to send mail to you. People like you find it convenient to ignore the technical realities of the email system. Since you A) want to participate in the email system and B) don't want to receive mail from spammers you find that your only solution is to look to the law for help. I'm sure eventually the world will come to terms with spam, just like they have with snail mail. Oh no! Wegmans is STEALING YOUR TIME and EFFORT by making you pick their ads out of your mailbox and recylce them! I'm sure that's not your reaction to junk snail mail. Why is it with email?
There are no "word games". He made a contradictory statement, and I pointed it out.
The word game was you attempting to disprove him with your interpretation of his post, when it could be validly interpreted in other ways which have no contradictions. Like me, it is quite likely that he makes no distinction between receiving and seeing email in when the technical matters are irrelevant to the point being made. Asserting that technically he receives all of the spam and that its canned before he sees it does not discredit the point of his post and therefore is totally moot.
Yes, and he's wrong. That's why I posted.
Oh please. And you know his situation better than he does? See above.
Then you've obviously been living under a rock for the past few years. Many states have made spamming illegal, and there is a federal law (CAN-SPAM) regulating it.
I concede my ignorance on this legislation. Now that you bring it up, it sounds vaguely familiar. I suppose I liken to the belief that if you make a communications channel available to others, whatever you receive through it is your responsibility and not your federal or state government's.
Actually, LOTS of people complain about junk mail. But as you've been living under a rock, I'll forgive you for not knowing that.
Really? Do they also think that people who send it should be thrown in jail? Because that seems to be the attitude of many towards spammers. I think not, and that was precisely my point. Sure, some people complain, but not nearly as loudly.
Yes, and junk mail it also costs money to send rather than receive. Email is the other way around.
This is just a worn-out excuse. I have never heard of any individual who was actually damaged financially by spam. Unless you have dialup, it makes no significant difference whatsoever. The spam messages I receive are so pitifully small that it would take hundreds of them per second to make any significant dent in my bandwidth. Do they send you several page emails complete with 10 meg uncompressed photograph attachments? If so, then I would have a much easier time seeing your point.
The real cost that spam causes individuals is time, not bandwidth. And if you spend some of that time setting up a filtering system, less time will be wasted reading and deleting spam. Further, the USPS is a government agency so you indirectly pay to receive snail mail through taxes. Yes, it's mostly self-sufficient, so the cost to you is very small, but the cost to receive spam is also very small.
You might disagree by principle that you should 'pay' for spam that you don't want, and I do too. I also disagree by principle that others should be able to pay the USPS to deliver junk mail to me. The difference between us is that instead of supporting some crazy crusade to hunt spammers down and destroy their livelihood, I have realized that its really not a big deal and that with a little effort can be effectively filtered. Comeon, they just sent you some unsolicited email messages! Spam is an inconveience at best. You, like many others, wildly overreact to it.
If my original post seemed rude to you, I apologise. Your post seemed rude to me; you were trying to refute the parent's assertion that spam is no big deal to him by claiming that he in fact does "get lots of spam" and implied that it somehow hurts him even though he doesn't see it. Yes, it does affect him, but he already implied that the effect was so little it didn't bother him. Thus, you seemed to be avoiding his point.