His assertion was that if Apache were a company then they would be susceptible to monopoly rules like Microsoft should be.
But monopoloies aren't illegal. Microsoft's problem is that they used anticompetitive behavior in order to gain and maintain their monopoly. There are no magic "rule changes" that happen when you become a monopoly, but any anticompetitive behavior will be more likely to be noticed & then the rules might change if they are found to have done something wrong.
At any rate, I don't think the Apache web server would be so popular today if it wasn't open source.
I think you're looking for things to complain about.
You don't have the issue that you have to replace your phone every few years because the technology, service plans, and network differences have made you obsolete?
No. Cingular and AT&T have used GSM here since 2002. T-Mobile also entered this market in 2002. Phones from 2002 still work, but I upgrade regularly. That doesn't stop people from using old phones. If people have no interest in using GPRS/EDGE based services, they don't need to upgrade. But GPRS-based services still work on phones that are 4 years old. Assuming they haven't been abused and the battery still works, GSM phones from five years ago should still work.
However, with upgrades allowed every 2 years, why not get a new phone?
You don't have the problem that your service provider is soaking you for every little service above and beyond "voice call time"?
No. I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data. I never use 411. Of the 3 other lines, two of them never use more than 20 text messages a month. I download my own ringtones and games via BT/USB.
You don't have the problem that you have to worry about whether your network covers an area instead of Sprint Nextel, Celluar One, or Verizon? (I remember when you used to be able to at least roam! Good luck on getting that to work right these days.)
No. Coverage is decent enough. If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed. I haven't been on a carrier other than Cingular since they combined AT&T and Cingular's networks at the beginning of this year.
While ubiquitous GSM has been slowly making it easier to switch services on a whim, it's far from practicable.
I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina. I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.
Now imagine that you have a phone that can work anywhere there's a network. It doesn't matter who's it is, as long as it's an Internet network. And not only does your phone work, but it can also do Internet, Instant Messanging, Games Downloading, etc. without all those silly fees that today's carriers charge you. In fact, you never even sign up with a carrier. You just purchase your device, assign it a dynamic DNS name, and turn it on. THAT is freedom, and THAT is what everyone should have. Good luck on getting that from Cingular. (Who I'll agree is the best of of the cell carriers ATM.)
Doesn't sound realisitc. Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them. That's barely practical with wired interweb connections right now (Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed). There are some SIP providers that provide calls on their own "network"/numbering plan, and offer PSTN connectivity and are relatively open, but many are unreliable (and, since they're not P2P at all, are funded only via PSTN connectivity charges or donations). Most other VoIP players provide wholesale connectivity or service designed to emulate regular phone company service.
An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.
Not that this isn't without its advantages. I don't know about anyone else, but my cell phone never truly feels like it's "mine". Its linkage with my phone carrier makes it feel more like a device I've rented. Especially when carriers like Verizon go out of their way to disable features like the USB connectivity on the Razrs. Sure, in theory you can pop in a new SIM card. But because of network differences and technology changes, it usually ends up being easier to get a new phone and throw your old one in a landfill. What a waste.
I use Cingular and don't have these problems. I can switch phones with my SIM card whenever I want. I can upload whatever I want via Bluetooth or USB, be it games, pictures, ringtones, etc. I am able to do this on Motorola, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and probably any other manufacturer's phones (but those are all I've used recently).
Should I decide I want a new phone, I can get a boring phone for $150-250 (Razr V3, Sony Ericsson T637 or Z520a), a reasonably advanced phone unlocked online for $300-400 (Razr V3i, Sony Ericsson W600i, Nokia 6680) or a really fancy phone for $500-700. Of course, I usually wait for my carrier's upgrade eligibility so I don't have to pay that much, but the option's always there. As for carrier phones being locked, the only other competition is T-Mobile (which is inferior in my area), so I'm not going to switch. If I were going to (or if I were going to sell my phone), Cingular will unlock the phone for free with a little hassle (mainly finding someone one the phone that knows what 'unlocking' means and how to get it done).
Perhaps you should use a provider that uses a less restrictive technology?
Laptop HD problems are easily solved by eSATA and PCMCIA or ExpressCard adapters (or Firewire/USB2). Of course, you'll need an additional UPS for the drives.
If you had heat problems, you could get a cheap external cooling solution, but as long as you're able to keep CPU usage down most of the time (so the CPU can clock down), you should be fine.
I wouldn't consider my laptop a "low-end" PC: at 1.66GHz dual-core and 2GB 667MHz DDR2, this system is much faster than the Athlon 64 system it replaced. It has gigabit ethernet, ExpressCard, and PCMCIA, so my connectivity options aren't limited. The only weak point is the hard drive, which could be solved with a fast external drive
Calls are only secure "over-the-air". This keeps people from scanners from hearing your call (as they could with analog) and, as you stated, harder to clone. If the government really wanted to monitor your calls, they'd do it at the switch level, when your call is simply an audio bitstream running over fiber or copper. I think most (all?) cellular carriers have had easy-to-use eavesdropping functionality in place for government use for the last few years.
They can also triangulate your position, especially with the assisted GPS available in CDMA phones.
My school replaced some (Windows 98) systems with Wyse thin clients. I'm not sure how many issues are due to my school's specific configuration/ignorance. If there are any software updates available for the thin clients, I'm sure they aren't installed. The servers run off of Windows 2000 with Citrix MetaFrame. They had three IP addresses in the configuration settings on the terminals.
I don't know how much the devices are supposed to be locked down, but anyone can go in and change the settings. I use them to connect to my remote hosts over RDP. Monitor/network settings will save between reboots, but the server list is cleared after every reboot. While the devices autoconnect to the server upon startup, the login eventually times out, and the session disconnects.
If a lot of people try to connect at once, about half of the systems time out. Since there were three IP addresses in the configuration settings, I assumed that the devices were sticking on one IP address and not trying the rest. This appears to be the case, as picking a different IP address seemed to help.
The printer settings also pose another problem. The same servers/published application is used for terminals in two different parts of the same building. Both rooms have their own laser printers. If you happen to be in the room that doesn't have its printer set as default, you either have to remember what room number you're in and change the printer (something half of the people in there fail to do) or walk down to the other room and get your printout.
I've noticed a few issues that are definitely with the thin clients themselves. Sometimes, they decide that they don't want to work properly anymore -- mostly on RDP connections. The screen will stop updating for a few seconds, then go black. Sometimes, the systray icons will show up, and about 10% of the time, the connection will decide to come back, but otherwise, the connection just stays on that black screen, and any subsequent reconnect attempts time out. The clients have to be rebooted before you can reconnect to any new hosts at this point.
Once again, if there any firmware updates that would fix this issue, they probably aren't applied.
Why not tell them the truth, and if you need to, give them the name and number of someone that would gladly help them. Perhaps you can find someone that could use the money, such as a student...
I find that increasing rates also helps, as previously mentioned.
Win16 is handled by the WoW (Windows on Windows) layer which run within ntvdwm.exe and maps Win16 to Win32 calls - this all comes with a performance penalty (not as much as say Rosetta because that requires and architecture transition).
Okay. A performance penalty that pales in comparison to virtualizing an entire OS, and that isn't noticeable with decent hardware.
What Win32 API have you been using? Have you seen all the "Ex" APIs floating around? Yes - the old ones are still there and work, but Microsoft has deprecated APIs and added many new ones - especially in the kernel - making shipping a single binary for 2003/XP/2000/NT4 more difficult.
The old ones are still there and work. That's the point. The main API still exists, even though it's gone through many changes.
Mac OS X virtualizes an OS 9 system and calls it "Classic". It requires the operating system to be installed in order to do so, takes time to load, and incurs a memory cost.
Windows provides separate subsystems and does not require the older operating systems to be installed in order to run old software, and nor does it incur a huge memory cost or load time.
OS X is clearly the crappier solution.
While things change over time in Windows, things have also remained similar; the base Win32 API has been around for over ten years and hasn't been deprecated or replaced. Only with WinFX are major changes coming (but, the old subsystem will still exist).
Uhm? Poorly written software may not work in newer versions of Windows today, but Windows has supported the same 16-bit API for over 20 years now without any shitty "Classic" layers. Many 16-bit Windows applications that ran 10-20 years ago still run today, as well as even older DOS applications. Windows XP x64 is the first consumer version of Windows to drop this backwards compatibility with Win16 and DOS applications.
There is a lot of poorly written software for Windows, but Microsoft has kept backwards compatibility for such a long time.
That's odd. I don't believe that was the sole reason your account as limited.
They should have called and confirmed that you made the purchase if they suspected fraud, like any responsible financial institution. Perhaps they locked the account temporarily because you weren't reachable?
I have yet to be marked for "suspicious" activity for something so silly. PayPal did limit my account until they had a verified banking account & verified identity (by that point, I had made a lot of transactions already). Since then, I've gotten a PayPal debit card and have used it for many purchases. They actually called me once, on a Saturday, after making spending $500 in three purchases. They called, their computer explained what the call was for, I talked to a North American woman, she asked if I was the account holder, and asked if I had made the three purchases.
That was it. I would expect any bank who had reason to suspect fraud to call and confirm it quickly.
PayPal already has a mobile (WAP) interface...
on
PayPal Goes Mobile
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Except T-Mobile generally stocks the European models of handsets, which have 900mhz band instead of 850mhz. So a T-Mobile phone usually does not include the right radio transmitter to work on Cingular. This is why T-Mobile stocked the Sony-Ericsson T610, but Cingular had the T616. But the Cingular phones have 850mhz and 1900mhz so they can be used on T-Mobile.
Except not. T-Mobile started stocking North America dualband/triband devices when available perhaps a year ago. All of T-Mobile's current devices for sale as displayed on their website have 850MHz capability (except for the Sidekick).
T-Mobile has increasing the roaming it allows on other networks, and now allows roaming on many 850MHz networks across the country.
T-Mobile phones without 850MHz would still work on Cingular's 1900MHz coverage and allowed roaming.
you have a metre long monitor kb and mouse cables?
I'm using a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard right now, which both have stated ranges of 10M. My old wired keyboard's cord is at least 6 ft (~2m), and my mouse's cord wasx longer. With USB, I could easily use a hub.
Last I remember, they're both roughly 2Ghz machines in terms of performance
You do not recall correctly. Using CineMark 9.5 CPU benchmarks on Windows XP, a 1833MHz Athlon XP (probably a 2200) gets 209, while an 1830MHz Core Duo uses 271. Factor in that a Athlon XP 2100 would be a little slower and the 2.0Ghz Core Duo would have the advantage of dual core as well as being faster, and the Core Duo is signifcantly faster. Furthermore, an X1600 will be much faster than Ti500...
The Apple would most certainly be the "faster" machine.
and use a lot of Cingular towers in many other areas than in the one mentioned.
Of course. The main difference is that outside of CA/NV, coverage T-Mobile claims as its own on coverage maps is T-Mobile coverage, not that of another carrier. The CA/NV joint venture was claimed as native T-Mobile coverage and billed accordingly. Outside of CA/NV, T-Mobile doesn't sell coverage in markets where it doesn't have its own (read: MNC 310260) network.
T-Mobile has native coverage in most of the country. California/Nevada is a special case; T-Mobile has purchased the old Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell GSM network from Cingular. Cingular and T-Mobile had a special "Joint Venture" agreement; Cingular was able to enter the NYC market via T-Mobile's network, and T-Mobile was able to enter the CA/NV market via Cingular's network. Both networks, while using the identifier of the carrier who built them, were claimed as being "native" to both carriers. With the Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger, it was decided that T-Mobile would buy the Cingular network in CA/NV. All other T-Mobile coverage marked by T-Mobile as T-Mobile coverage is a T-Mobile owned and operated network (MNC 310-260).
Here in the Cleveland OH MTA, there are three GSM networks (Cingular, T-Mobile, and AT&T Wireless).
you mean the J2ME-based Opera Mini that proxies and filters requests through a central server? No thanks. I'll stick with my real rendering engine (Opera) on my Windows Mobile and Symbian devices.
It does. I said it authenticates by caller ID because it authenticates by caller ID and caller ID only (unless it's set to ask for the PIN), not because I wanted to sound intelligent. Calling the voicemail center number with falsely set caller ID will indeed give you access to a customer's voicemail box.
Furthermore, your on-network conjecture is false. There is no guarantee that I, or any other customer of said wireless company, is on that company's own GSM network. A customer could be roaming on a competitor's (pink) or requently acquired company's (blue) network, even in the home calling area where the native (orange) network is supposed to have coverage. Even then, the voicemail center is still just a ten-digit number that may be called from any phone. Calls are forwarded to it on busy/unavailable/no answer and programmed as the voicemail number on the SIM.
The ANI is used to detect the called party's number, as caller ID is forwarded when you forward calls (while ANI is that of the called party).
Not all voicemail systems are this insecure. IIRC, a certain pink wireless provider did not have this issue.
When was the last time someone used caller ID as a end-all form of identification?
It happens all the time on common voice mail setups. A certain major "orange" nationwide American cellular carrier's voicemail system, at least in my area, authenticates by caller ID. Unless the user has set a PIN and has set the system to ask for that PIN every time, caller ID spoofing will allow access to their voicemail. Most people don't even know this setting exists, and on this carrier's voicemail setup, it's not easy to find.
As for humans seeing something on caller ID and immediately assuming it's not fake... it'll make fake calls easier. Someone pretending to be someone else will have an easier time convincing a victim with a fake caller ID. It's not going to make most people instantly believe that some random guy from MasterCard is calling to verify his credit card and social security numbers at 10pm. But if that call comes from, say, the caller ID of the victim's bank, it might seem a bit more authentic.
It's not the most ideal solution, but I can drag and drop the favicon (the icon in between the Home button and address in the address bar, with default toolbar settings) to my tabbar to effectively get a duplicate of the current page. (Tab Mix Plus might be the cause of this feature). I don't have a Firefox that isn't loaded with Tab Mix Plus around, but I don't think you need the extension to do this.
Tab Mix Plus also has an option to always open the current page in a new tab.
Either you're lying, or your laptop has much greater battery capacity. I am getting 2:50 basically without making any effort to do so on a single 8-cell 71w 4800mAh battery.
No to mention I WILL NOT BUY A DUO unless Intel fixes the problesm in the chips.
Those problems are alarmist nonsense. Issues occur with every CPU, and they do not impact usage of the chip in any way.
Intel disapoints me, today i swaped out my p4 1.6GHz 512mb dell for a P3 930MHz 512 gateway..the gateway does EVERYTHING faster, boot, load apps, compile...thats pathetic.
Congratulations. That's completely unrelated to this issue. It has nothing to do with the modern Pentium M/Core Solo/Core Duo chips or mobile Athlon/Turion/Sempron chips.
After i bought an AMD 2500+(1.8GHz) laptop that made my 1.6GHz desktop look like a retard....i just stoped buying Intel.
Once again, congratulations. The 1.66GHz Core Duo is faster than that Athlon XP or a similarly clocked Pentium 4.
No, there is nothing wrong with the Intel chips. I am using an Intel Core Duo based laptop (Acer Aspire 5672) right now, and battery life is what you'd expect for my usage (about 2:50 for high brightness, high cpu speed, wifi via 3945abg, bluetooth/bluetooth mouse, and active internet/itunes use).
Slashdot Mirror
My Fuji FinePix S5000 is mass storage, as is my dad's Nikon camera. (However, the Nikon does use a nonstandard USB connector.)
I use my laptop's card reader anyway.
But monopoloies aren't illegal. Microsoft's problem is that they used anticompetitive behavior in order to gain and maintain their monopoly. There are no magic "rule changes" that happen when you become a monopoly, but any anticompetitive behavior will be more likely to be noticed & then the rules might change if they are found to have done something wrong.
At any rate, I don't think the Apache web server would be so popular today if it wasn't open source.
No. Cingular and AT&T have used GSM here since 2002. T-Mobile also entered this market in 2002. Phones from 2002 still work, but I upgrade regularly. That doesn't stop people from using old phones. If people have no interest in using GPRS/EDGE based services, they don't need to upgrade. But GPRS-based services still work on phones that are 4 years old. Assuming they haven't been abused and the battery still works, GSM phones from five years ago should still work.
However, with upgrades allowed every 2 years, why not get a new phone?
No. I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data. I never use 411. Of the 3 other lines, two of them never use more than 20 text messages a month. I download my own ringtones and games via BT/USB.
No. Coverage is decent enough. If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed. I haven't been on a carrier other than Cingular since they combined AT&T and Cingular's networks at the beginning of this year.
I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina. I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.
Doesn't sound realisitc. Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them. That's barely practical with wired interweb connections right now (Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed). There are some SIP providers that provide calls on their own "network"/numbering plan, and offer PSTN connectivity and are relatively open, but many are unreliable (and, since they're not P2P at all, are funded only via PSTN connectivity charges or donations). Most other VoIP players provide wholesale connectivity or service designed to emulate regular phone company service.
An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.
I use Cingular and don't have these problems. I can switch phones with my SIM card whenever I want. I can upload whatever I want via Bluetooth or USB, be it games, pictures, ringtones, etc. I am able to do this on Motorola, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and probably any other manufacturer's phones (but those are all I've used recently).
Should I decide I want a new phone, I can get a boring phone for $150-250 (Razr V3, Sony Ericsson T637 or Z520a), a reasonably advanced phone unlocked online for $300-400 (Razr V3i, Sony Ericsson W600i, Nokia 6680) or a really fancy phone for $500-700. Of course, I usually wait for my carrier's upgrade eligibility so I don't have to pay that much, but the option's always there. As for carrier phones being locked, the only other competition is T-Mobile (which is inferior in my area), so I'm not going to switch. If I were going to (or if I were going to sell my phone), Cingular will unlock the phone for free with a little hassle (mainly finding someone one the phone that knows what 'unlocking' means and how to get it done).
Perhaps you should use a provider that uses a less restrictive technology?
Laptop HD problems are easily solved by eSATA and PCMCIA or ExpressCard adapters (or Firewire/USB2). Of course, you'll need an additional UPS for the drives.
If you had heat problems, you could get a cheap external cooling solution, but as long as you're able to keep CPU usage down most of the time (so the CPU can clock down), you should be fine.
I wouldn't consider my laptop a "low-end" PC: at 1.66GHz dual-core and 2GB 667MHz DDR2, this system is much faster than the Athlon 64 system it replaced. It has gigabit ethernet, ExpressCard, and PCMCIA, so my connectivity options aren't limited. The only weak point is the hard drive, which could be solved with a fast external drive
It doesn't matter.
Calls are only secure "over-the-air". This keeps people from scanners from hearing your call (as they could with analog) and, as you stated, harder to clone. If the government really wanted to monitor your calls, they'd do it at the switch level, when your call is simply an audio bitstream running over fiber or copper. I think most (all?) cellular carriers have had easy-to-use eavesdropping functionality in place for government use for the last few years.
They can also triangulate your position, especially with the assisted GPS available in CDMA phones.
My school replaced some (Windows 98) systems with Wyse thin clients. I'm not sure how many issues are due to my school's specific configuration/ignorance. If there are any software updates available for the thin clients, I'm sure they aren't installed. The servers run off of Windows 2000 with Citrix MetaFrame. They had three IP addresses in the configuration settings on the terminals.
I don't know how much the devices are supposed to be locked down, but anyone can go in and change the settings. I use them to connect to my remote hosts over RDP. Monitor/network settings will save between reboots, but the server list is cleared after every reboot. While the devices autoconnect to the server upon startup, the login eventually times out, and the session disconnects.
If a lot of people try to connect at once, about half of the systems time out. Since there were three IP addresses in the configuration settings, I assumed that the devices were sticking on one IP address and not trying the rest. This appears to be the case, as picking a different IP address seemed to help.
The printer settings also pose another problem. The same servers/published application is used for terminals in two different parts of the same building. Both rooms have their own laser printers. If you happen to be in the room that doesn't have its printer set as default, you either have to remember what room number you're in and change the printer (something half of the people in there fail to do) or walk down to the other room and get your printout.
I've noticed a few issues that are definitely with the thin clients themselves. Sometimes, they decide that they don't want to work properly anymore -- mostly on RDP connections. The screen will stop updating for a few seconds, then go black. Sometimes, the systray icons will show up, and about 10% of the time, the connection will decide to come back, but otherwise, the connection just stays on that black screen, and any subsequent reconnect attempts time out. The clients have to be rebooted before you can reconnect to any new hosts at this point.
Once again, if there any firmware updates that would fix this issue, they probably aren't applied.
Why not tell them the truth, and if you need to, give them the name and number of someone that would gladly help them. Perhaps you can find someone that could use the money, such as a student...
I find that increasing rates also helps, as previously mentioned.
Okay. A performance penalty that pales in comparison to virtualizing an entire OS, and that isn't noticeable with decent hardware.
The old ones are still there and work. That's the point. The main API still exists, even though it's gone through many changes.
Mac OS X virtualizes an OS 9 system and calls it "Classic". It requires the operating system to be installed in order to do so, takes time to load, and incurs a memory cost.
Windows provides separate subsystems and does not require the older operating systems to be installed in order to run old software, and nor does it incur a huge memory cost or load time.
OS X is clearly the crappier solution.
While things change over time in Windows, things have also remained similar; the base Win32 API has been around for over ten years and hasn't been deprecated or replaced. Only with WinFX are major changes coming (but, the old subsystem will still exist).
Uhm? Poorly written software may not work in newer versions of Windows today, but Windows has supported the same 16-bit API for over 20 years now without any shitty "Classic" layers. Many 16-bit Windows applications that ran 10-20 years ago still run today, as well as even older DOS applications. Windows XP x64 is the first consumer version of Windows to drop this backwards compatibility with Win16 and DOS applications.
There is a lot of poorly written software for Windows, but Microsoft has kept backwards compatibility for such a long time.
That's odd. I don't believe that was the sole reason your account as limited.
They should have called and confirmed that you made the purchase if they suspected fraud, like any responsible financial institution. Perhaps they locked the account temporarily because you weren't reachable?
I have yet to be marked for "suspicious" activity for something so silly. PayPal did limit my account until they had a verified banking account & verified identity (by that point, I had made a lot of transactions already). Since then, I've gotten a PayPal debit card and have used it for many purchases. They actually called me once, on a Saturday, after making spending $500 in three purchases. They called, their computer explained what the call was for, I talked to a North American woman, she asked if I was the account holder, and asked if I had made the three purchases.
That was it. I would expect any bank who had reason to suspect fraud to call and confirm it quickly.
PayPal has had a mobile interface for years, via WAP.b ile-outside
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/mo
Except not. T-Mobile started stocking North America dualband/triband devices when available perhaps a year ago. All of T-Mobile's current devices for sale as displayed on their website have 850MHz capability (except for the Sidekick).
T-Mobile has increasing the roaming it allows on other networks, and now allows roaming on many 850MHz networks across the country.
T-Mobile phones without 850MHz would still work on Cingular's 1900MHz coverage and allowed roaming.
I'm using a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard right now, which both have stated ranges of 10M. My old wired keyboard's cord is at least 6 ft (~2m), and my mouse's cord wasx longer. With USB, I could easily use a hub.
You do not recall correctly.
Using CineMark 9.5 CPU benchmarks on Windows XP, a 1833MHz Athlon XP (probably a 2200) gets 209, while an 1830MHz Core Duo uses 271. Factor in that a Athlon XP 2100 would be a little slower and the 2.0Ghz Core Duo would have the advantage of dual core as well as being faster, and the Core Duo is signifcantly faster. Furthermore, an X1600 will be much faster than Ti500...
The Apple would most certainly be the "faster" machine.
Of course. The main difference is that outside of CA/NV, coverage T-Mobile claims as its own on coverage maps is T-Mobile coverage, not that of another carrier. The CA/NV joint venture was claimed as native T-Mobile coverage and billed accordingly. Outside of CA/NV, T-Mobile doesn't sell coverage in markets where it doesn't have its own (read: MNC 310260) network.
incorrect. How did this get insightful?
T-Mobile has native coverage in most of the country. California/Nevada is a special case; T-Mobile has purchased the old Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell GSM network from Cingular. Cingular and T-Mobile had a special "Joint Venture" agreement; Cingular was able to enter the NYC market via T-Mobile's network, and T-Mobile was able to enter the CA/NV market via Cingular's network. Both networks, while using the identifier of the carrier who built them, were claimed as being "native" to both carriers. With the Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger, it was decided that T-Mobile would buy the Cingular network in CA/NV. All other T-Mobile coverage marked by T-Mobile as T-Mobile coverage is a T-Mobile owned and operated network (MNC 310-260).
Here in the Cleveland OH MTA, there are three GSM networks (Cingular, T-Mobile, and AT&T Wireless).
you mean the J2ME-based Opera Mini that proxies and filters requests through a central server? No thanks. I'll stick with my real rendering engine (Opera) on my Windows Mobile and Symbian devices.
It does. I said it authenticates by caller ID because it authenticates by caller ID and caller ID only (unless it's set to ask for the PIN), not because I wanted to sound intelligent. Calling the voicemail center number with falsely set caller ID will indeed give you access to a customer's voicemail box.
Furthermore, your on-network conjecture is false. There is no guarantee that I, or any other customer of said wireless company, is on that company's own GSM network. A customer could be roaming on a competitor's (pink) or requently acquired company's (blue) network, even in the home calling area where the native (orange) network is supposed to have coverage. Even then, the voicemail center is still just a ten-digit number that may be called from any phone. Calls are forwarded to it on busy/unavailable/no answer and programmed as the voicemail number on the SIM.
The ANI is used to detect the called party's number, as caller ID is forwarded when you forward calls (while ANI is that of the called party).
Not all voicemail systems are this insecure. IIRC, a certain pink wireless provider did not have this issue.
It happens all the time on common voice mail setups. A certain major "orange" nationwide American cellular carrier's voicemail system, at least in my area, authenticates by caller ID. Unless the user has set a PIN and has set the system to ask for that PIN every time, caller ID spoofing will allow access to their voicemail. Most people don't even know this setting exists, and on this carrier's voicemail setup, it's not easy to find.
As for humans seeing something on caller ID and immediately assuming it's not fake... it'll make fake calls easier. Someone pretending to be someone else will have an easier time convincing a victim with a fake caller ID. It's not going to make most people instantly believe that some random guy from MasterCard is calling to verify his credit card and social security numbers at 10pm. But if that call comes from, say, the caller ID of the victim's bank, it might seem a bit more authentic.
Reminds of everyone's favorite type of water in the world, saltwater.
I first noticed the "twat" in "saltwater" censored on a forum somewhere.
It's not the most ideal solution, but I can drag and drop the favicon (the icon in between the Home button and address in the address bar, with default toolbar settings) to my tabbar to effectively get a duplicate of the current page. (Tab Mix Plus might be the cause of this feature). I don't have a Firefox that isn't loaded with Tab Mix Plus around, but I don't think you need the extension to do this.
Tab Mix Plus also has an option to always open the current page in a new tab.
Either you're lying, or your laptop has much greater battery capacity. I am getting 2:50 basically without making any effort to do so on a single 8-cell 71w 4800mAh battery.
Those problems are alarmist nonsense. Issues occur with every CPU, and they do not impact usage of the chip in any way.
Congratulations. That's completely unrelated to this issue. It has nothing to do with the modern Pentium M/Core Solo/Core Duo chips or mobile Athlon/Turion/Sempron chips.
Once again, congratulations. The 1.66GHz Core Duo is faster than that Athlon XP or a similarly clocked Pentium 4.
No, there is nothing wrong with the Intel chips. I am using an Intel Core Duo based laptop (Acer Aspire 5672) right now, and battery life is what you'd expect for my usage (about 2:50 for high brightness, high cpu speed, wifi via 3945abg, bluetooth/bluetooth mouse, and active internet/itunes use).