Yeah, but we all know that they had 2 years prior knowledge that Apple was going to make a phone At which point a Cisco subsidiary had an iPhone product for the preceeding THREE years. What's your argument again?
"I was attempting to download garbage files as I find that garbage files are the perfect source of entropy for random number generation. So far, I've managed to develop an algorithm using BitTorrent and MPAA junk torrents that generates random numbers more randomly than most game developers."
I suggest you consult your country's ACTUAL Copyright Law. Any third-rate country has online access to it's laws, so you should be able to have a read of it. Here in New Zealand, we also pay a tariff on any "Audio CDR" discs, and definitely on VHS (not DVD, or regular CDRs). Unfortunately for the **AA, our law seems to consider it a violation ONLY if you possess pirated content for commercial use. I think it's a mistake.
Do you spoof your MAC? They have that too.
LK No they don't. Every single router on the path between your computer and the remote computer changes the MAC address on the packet. Research TCP/IP before making that sort of statement.
On... BitTorrent... BitTorrent doesn't "share" anything you don't explicitly ask it to share, and it will only share it with trackers you explicitly told it to. AFAIK, they can't just ask your client itself what files it has, and they can't just go to a tracker asking for a SPECIFIC seed. (I invite any corrections to mistakes I may have made in this post)
If gmail is hosting your domain, you already have a "catch all to one mailbox" option available to you - GMail uses the little understood "+" specifier in email addresses. Just use an email of the format whatever+mailboxname@domainname.com - this will still go to your inbox without you needing to run a catch-all. And if they do share it, just create a filter for all emails to nastyspamsharer+mailboxname@domainname.com to go straight to/dev/null.
* Windows Media Player * Windows Movie Maker (removable, AFTER setup has completed) * CD burning wizard * Zip files wizard * Outlook Express * MSN (removable, AFTER setup has completed) * Windows Messenger (removable, AFTER setup has completed)
I can already the giant wooshing sound of lawyers descending on this poor thing for defamation. Perhaps they're hosting with HavenCo in Sealand, where defamation is legal;)
Unfortunately MSFT will rig the game at every level. If the school opts for the change they'll pressure the school board. If the board balks they'll get state lawmakers to somehow tie school funding to their choice of OS or a particular piece of software that only runs on Windows. If that failed they'd go to Congress What are you talking about? The UK doesn't HAVE a Congress. They also don't have States.
If it's your broadband connection that's the "choke point", such as you viewing an IPTV program while downloading something with BitTorrent, your router can't do anything to ensure those two data streams are prioritized correctly. Not entirely true. If your router delays sending ACKs to packet senders (in other words not telling the sender that they have the packets OK) then the sender will slow down sending (or cease entirely until it gets more ACKs). It's one of the features of the TCP/IP beast. All your router needs to do is decide what to ACK and what to queue.
I do like your idea of Multi-cast though. It wouldn't really be all that useful for VoIP and the like, but it would be a godsend for streaming media (TV, Radio, all that).
I should also point out that you're wasting your breath talking to me about IPTV and CATV, neither option is available in this country.
Actually, you can. Different market, would pass the "not confusingly similar" test.
Besides, it doesn't matter whether "everyone associates iWhatever with Apple", the fact remains that Cisco's trademark dates back to LONG BEFORE APPLE CONSIDERED USING IT.
Absolutely not. Cisco is simply too large. It would require pretty much everything Apple has to acquire Cisco, and bankrupting yourself to buy another company is beyond idiotic.
And if they fail to sue Apple for trademark infringement, then Cisco loses the trademark by default due to failure to enforce. Quite ingenious on Apple's part, wouldn't you say? They are legally obliged to take enforcement action after Apple infringes it, or they lose it. That's the law.
Really? The way I see it, InfoGear (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cisco Systems) released an iPhone range in 1996 (two years before Apple iAnything, apparently) - sure it's not that well known, but it exists. Early 2005, Linksys (another wholly owned subsidiary of Cisco Systems) releases a new iPhone range (can't be arsed coming up with a new name. I mean, seriously, we've got one trademarked RIGHT THERE!) which doesn't take off. So, late 2005, they release YET ANOTHER one. As a result, everyone assumes that Cisco is simply using it to extort Apple. Get a grip. Your precious Apple CAN do wrong. Microsoft doesn't (yet) have a monopoly on that.
Even if Apple loses/doesn't get the right to the name iPhone, Cisco stands to lose big.
I like how this poster assumes Apple is in the right here. After seeing some of the underhanded stuff Apple does (yes, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on underhandedness, Bill's still working on cornering THAT market) I fully believe they just assumed they could use the name and if Cisco complained, use it as a smear campaign - "Oh, the big bad Cisco is being so evil not letting us call it the iPhone!" (and knowing that all the iPod/Mac fans will immediately rush to their defence) - and Cisco would back off to protect their image. Hell, it's probably what most of us would do if we had money to burn and we were sure it'd work.
Of course, that doesn't preclude your ISP from using QoS-aware routing that uses your desires in making its prioritization decisions, but unless the entire network path between the content provider and your ISP is QoS-aware, it's going to be less reliable than a dedicated, fully-QoS-aware network connection.
See, therein lies the rub. The entire path will NOT be QoS aware, because one of the core understandings of the internet must be that Bandwidth Providers (backbones) must remain utterly neutral. You say the entire network path between the content provider and your ISP must be QoS-aware, but it would destroy the internet if providers such as Layer3(?) and Savvis were required to do that. That would be putting the control of the entire planet's internet in the hands of about 5 (or however many there are) US-based companies, and that cannot ever be allowed to happen.
Note that I defend Network Neutrality at the ISP end on principle. I defend Neutrality at the backbone provider end because every person in the world has a vested interest in preventing Backbones from having to "prioritize" traffic.
Utter FUD. QoS can be maintained by a router in YOUR house quite effectively. The ISP could technically also implement such, but absolutely no discussion with the content provider is necessary. Here in this country, we have already a rudimentary form of QoS on our infrastructure. Our incumbent telco (who up until about a year ago held a government sanctioned monopoly, so really isn't in tune with customer wants) utilizes QoS to deprioritize P2P traffic (here's an example of what I mean). My own ISP utilizes their own bandwidth chain, and also implements a Layer 7 QoS appliance (the only one to describe their technology, I should note) to ensure "quality of service is maintained for the types of traffic that need it the most" (which means gaming, VoIP, email, web) - and then only during peak times. You'll be pleased to note that they do all this without requiring any sort of contract or agreement with Skype, Blizzard, or any of those "sensitive traffic" providers, so I don't know where you're getting your imaginary big-business-fellating idea from.
I've heard tales of Stagecoach (a UK bus company) doing this to eliminate new competitors - unfortunately I can't confirm whether it's true or not.
It's kind of pointless anyway, since that sort of behaviour in some countries is illegal (around here you'd have our Commerce Commission on your rear end in minutes)
Can I point out to you that Cisco's trademark is from about 1998? First used in commerce 1997-06-06?
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=9 96pnk.2.6
So no, if anything Cisco could sue APPLE for creating a confusing similar mark (not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)
Slashdot Mirror
"I was attempting to download garbage files as I find that garbage files are the perfect source of entropy for random number generation. So far, I've managed to develop an algorithm using BitTorrent and MPAA junk torrents that generates random numbers more randomly than most game developers."
I suggest you consult your country's ACTUAL Copyright Law. Any third-rate country has online access to it's laws, so you should be able to have a read of it. Here in New Zealand, we also pay a tariff on any "Audio CDR" discs, and definitely on VHS (not DVD, or regular CDRs). Unfortunately for the **AA, our law seems to consider it a violation ONLY if you possess pirated content for commercial use. I think it's a mistake.
On... BitTorrent... BitTorrent doesn't "share" anything you don't explicitly ask it to share, and it will only share it with trackers you explicitly told it to. AFAIK, they can't just ask your client itself what files it has, and they can't just go to a tracker asking for a SPECIFIC seed. (I invite any corrections to mistakes I may have made in this post)
If gmail is hosting your domain, you already have a "catch all to one mailbox" option available to you - GMail uses the little understood "+" specifier in email addresses. Just use an email of the format whatever+mailboxname@domainname.com - this will still go to your inbox without you needing to run a catch-all. And if they do share it, just create a filter for all emails to nastyspamsharer+mailboxname@domainname.com to go straight to /dev/null.
Some tweaks to your list:
* Windows Media Player
* Windows Movie Maker (removable, AFTER setup has completed)
* CD burning wizard
* Zip files wizard
* Outlook Express
* MSN (removable, AFTER setup has completed)
* Windows Messenger (removable, AFTER setup has completed)
It's obvious. The site will be hosted in SEALAND!
Oh, you are NOT talking about NTLDR... (250KB)
I do like your idea of Multi-cast though. It wouldn't really be all that useful for VoIP and the like, but it would be a godsend for streaming media (TV, Radio, all that).
I should also point out that you're wasting your breath talking to me about IPTV and CATV, neither option is available in this country.
Actually, you can. Different market, would pass the "not confusingly similar" test.
Besides, it doesn't matter whether "everyone associates iWhatever with Apple", the fact remains that Cisco's trademark dates back to LONG BEFORE APPLE CONSIDERED USING IT.
Absolutely not. Cisco is simply too large. It would require pretty much everything Apple has to acquire Cisco, and bankrupting yourself to buy another company is beyond idiotic.
Status: Opposition Pending That means they DON'T own it. In fact, I'd guess it means "this trademark is contested"
And if they fail to sue Apple for trademark infringement, then Cisco loses the trademark by default due to failure to enforce. Quite ingenious on Apple's part, wouldn't you say? They are legally obliged to take enforcement action after Apple infringes it, or they lose it. That's the law.
If only Patents worked the same way.
Really? http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/comsol/0100/0100lab s2.htm is proof that one of Cisco's subsidiaries used the iPhone name as recently as 2000. So really, no, only Apple is in the wrong here.
I'd like to direct your attention to this: http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/comsol/0100/0100lab s2.htm
Oh look! A review of an InfoGear iPhone from 2000! Incidentally, Cisco acquired InfoGear that year.
Really? The way I see it, InfoGear (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cisco Systems) released an iPhone range in 1996 (two years before Apple iAnything, apparently) - sure it's not that well known, but it exists. Early 2005, Linksys (another wholly owned subsidiary of Cisco Systems) releases a new iPhone range (can't be arsed coming up with a new name. I mean, seriously, we've got one trademarked RIGHT THERE!) which doesn't take off. So, late 2005, they release YET ANOTHER one. As a result, everyone assumes that Cisco is simply using it to extort Apple. Get a grip. Your precious Apple CAN do wrong. Microsoft doesn't (yet) have a monopoly on that.
I like how this poster assumes Apple is in the right here. After seeing some of the underhanded stuff Apple does (yes, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on underhandedness, Bill's still working on cornering THAT market) I fully believe they just assumed they could use the name and if Cisco complained, use it as a smear campaign - "Oh, the big bad Cisco is being so evil not letting us call it the iPhone!" (and knowing that all the iPod/Mac fans will immediately rush to their defence) - and Cisco would back off to protect their image. Hell, it's probably what most of us would do if we had money to burn and we were sure it'd work.
Actually, they used it in 1996 according to the "First Use In Commerce" in the USPTO entry. The product may even still be on the market (somewhere?)
See, therein lies the rub. The entire path will NOT be QoS aware, because one of the core understandings of the internet must be that Bandwidth Providers (backbones) must remain utterly neutral. You say the entire network path between the content provider and your ISP must be QoS-aware, but it would destroy the internet if providers such as Layer3(?) and Savvis were required to do that. That would be putting the control of the entire planet's internet in the hands of about 5 (or however many there are) US-based companies, and that cannot ever be allowed to happen.
Note that I defend Network Neutrality at the ISP end on principle. I defend Neutrality at the backbone provider end because every person in the world has a vested interest in preventing Backbones from having to "prioritize" traffic.
Utter FUD. QoS can be maintained by a router in YOUR house quite effectively. The ISP could technically also implement such, but absolutely no discussion with the content provider is necessary. Here in this country, we have already a rudimentary form of QoS on our infrastructure. Our incumbent telco (who up until about a year ago held a government sanctioned monopoly, so really isn't in tune with customer wants) utilizes QoS to deprioritize P2P traffic (here's an example of what I mean). My own ISP utilizes their own bandwidth chain, and also implements a Layer 7 QoS appliance (the only one to describe their technology, I should note) to ensure "quality of service is maintained for the types of traffic that need it the most" (which means gaming, VoIP, email, web) - and then only during peak times. You'll be pleased to note that they do all this without requiring any sort of contract or agreement with Skype, Blizzard, or any of those "sensitive traffic" providers, so I don't know where you're getting your imaginary big-business-fellating idea from.
I've heard tales of Stagecoach (a UK bus company) doing this to eliminate new competitors - unfortunately I can't confirm whether it's true or not.
It's kind of pointless anyway, since that sort of behaviour in some countries is illegal (around here you'd have our Commerce Commission on your rear end in minutes)
Can I point out to you that Cisco's trademark is from about 1998? First used in commerce 1997-06-06? http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=9 96pnk.2.6
So no, if anything Cisco could sue APPLE for creating a confusing similar mark (not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)