Sadly I could say that they probably couldn't get anymore than existing social engineering and phishing methods don't already get. It would also potentially help maybe force something to be done about the existing financial and credit system which allows it to be so easy to have someone screw up your credit, yet so hard to fix it.
(And sadly... I know from experience that it's also 100 times easier to get a stolen identity "fixed" in your credit, than it is to fix an error the credit agency made on their own.)
Hmmm... Better option to drive it home to the public without causing MASSIVE damages....
Take all the pictures and email on the Harddrive and make it publicly accessable. Maybe something as simple as a web-server virus which creates a webserver on the machine and allows EASY PUBLIC...easily findable...read-only access to all the files on the drive. Hell... put those C&C servers to good use if needbe and proxy the connections so that it can even be a non-standard port for those ISP's that block port 80 servers.... and to get around NAT routers, and other software firewalls.
Why do I think this would be a better way to shock people into action? Several reasons.
1. People in general have a LOT they may not want getting out for purely embarrassment reasons. Knowing that not taking security of their machine seriously could result in this could do more good than simply forcing them to reload because their programs no longer work, or their system is now "slow".
2. The Politicians and corporate types who like to think that there's nothing wrong with the state of computer security, or that their programs are not gonna get hit because X company says they build secure software, and don't question the claim.....usually have more to hide and therefore and much more likely to step up and realize that something needs to be done to fix the problem and/or force proper accountability on people to patch their bugs. (how many security holes exist and are known, but said companies refuse to acknowlege them UNTIL after they are exploited?)
And My personal favorite reason......3. Think of all the free amature porn we'd suddenly have access too from people who don't think their "private" picture folder will EVER be seen? That alone could be worth the price of admission. lol
Hmmmm.... ya know... Since their seems to always be a Financial reason for people to create and seed virii these days...Said central server could charge a small access fee to gain access to said "web-content". Money is made for the person who implements the idea... and the public still gets their embarressment wake-up call. It's win-win....
Ya know something kinda funny now that I think about it....
Every bar I've been too since moving to PA has had somebody at the door with a scanner. Basically... can't seem to get into a club or bar without them scanning your ID.
The Liquor store around the corner from my house.... as well as the one where I stayed for a few months in another city....Neither of them did anything more than your traditional look at the license check. Think's it's kind of funny how it's actually easier for me to go stock up on hard liquor and lots of it, than it is for me to get an over-priced watered down drink at the bar.
I knew a bartender I worked with in NC who was red-carded (basically, failed a spot-check for not carding someone who came in to buy a drink...so many red-cards and you lose your ability to serve liquor) when a lady obviously in her 50's was not asked for her ID. How did she know she was of age? Attire, Hair, Grey hair, Wrinkles...Oh, and the single biggest thing the bartender could tell she was over 21....She ordered a drink that nobody has seriously drank since the 70's. Definately not a trendy or strong underager kind of drink.
I used to live in GA.... and then the past 2 years in the NC Mountains (where I did a lot of drink in both NC and SC...)... It wasn't until I moved to PA this past summer that I started seeing it being done.
What's funny is that I still have my NC license due to some issues that have me stuck between states and unable to transfer my license to PA at the moment. When I go to bars up here I've routinely caught the bouncer/doorman scanning my ID out of habit, seeing nothing show up....scan it again.... then look at it like he's confused before I have to tell him how to find the Birthdate on the license.
I'm seriously wondering after reading the article if I want to try and keep my out-of-state license just so that I can keep one without a mag-stripe on it for the bars up here to scan.
Actually, according the original reports I read, Encrypting the traffic didn't really help. It was something about how the Sandvine system was actually going off the nature and pattern of the traffic, not just the ports or contents of the packets.
It was because it was going off traffic patterns that people were reporting problems with programs such as lotus notes as well.
Honestly... My guess would be a combination of RIAA/MPAA pressure, Bandwith Management....and whether or not the cablemodem network in the area has been "prepped" for Sandvine, or if they are still trying to work on "fixing" or consolidating it from a previous company into the "comcast fold". LOL... gotta make sure something works before you break it. lol
Because of the Traditional Franchise Nature of the cable industry, as well as all the aquisitions and mergers over the years, Most cable companies... and ESPECCIALLY the actual network, are not necessarily one big common shared network. Basically you could have your National Corporate level, Your Division, and then a local region and even the individual systems within that region. All could have their own policies and guidelines....or way of doing things. While some people in Comcast Territory could be in an area they've deployed sandvine, Other Comcast covered areas may not have deployed it, or just implemented it yet. Keep in mind that putting something like Sandvine on the network isn't necessarily as easy as plugging it in, and making it work.... especcially if you are in an area which was covered by another area as recently as a year or 2 ago.
For instance.... I know Adelphia was split between Time Warner and Comcast a few years ago. Adelphia may have had 1 way which they designed their cable network and backend systems. The aquiring company may have another. Making ANY changes is a slow and drawn out process because you have to be VERY careful to avoid any negative customer impact. (IOW's... you can't just unplug a system from one network and instantly plug it into another. You could risk customer outages.. breaking networks because a router is on the wrong VLAN or ip collisioning with another item on the new network.). i'd honestly thing that throwing something like Sandvine would be more of a clean-up/tweaking of the network kind of job, after you've got everything working and talking on a common network. Not something you'd just throw in there off the bat, and then try to get everything up to the standards everything else is on.
Honestly I'm kinda wondering about Martin. He'd way too...wishy-washy. I kind of get the feeling that he may be more likely to have a personal issue against the CableCo's, or is trying to cause them more trouble to help the telco's get into the market. Now... the whole bittorrent thing.. Kinda hard to ignore it. It's pretty obvious after the AP story that something is fishy, and if he didn't do something he'd be a lot harder pressed to explain his actions. Besides... it's another reason to go after the Cable companies.. and comcast in general.
Now.. you may ask why do I think Martin has a thing against the CableCo's in particular while all about helping the Bells? Let's see... he's authorized the AT&T Merger with BellSouth, helping to recreate one of the largest utility monopolies and the largest ISP out there.....Yet then starts trying to force a 70%/70% ruling on the Cable Companies in order to try and gain additional control over the Cable Industry. He then tries to cap the amount of the market which the CableCo can own at 30% (Call me crazy... but I'm pretty sure some of the bells already have that percentage, if not more....).
There's also the whole factor of Franchise agreements. For YEARS (Decades even), In order for a cable company to come into a town, they had to negotiate with the local government for the Franchise. This Franchise agreement included payments to the local Gov'ment, Community Access channels, and honestly, a little bit of a way for the local community to excert pressure on the cableco to provide decent service thru the renewal process. (although admittedly few Gov'ments truly exercised this ability like they could've). When the Bells started wanting to offer TV service thru FIOS or AT&T's UniverseTV product, they discovered they would be legally required to negotiate with the local communities Franchising groups in order to be able to offer service. They didn't like this Idea....So they had the FCC remove the local community's ability to control who could offer service in their community by allowing the Bell's to instead get a state-wide Franchise. (Time Warner has appearently taken advantage of this ruling in Wisconsin by applying for and getting a state-wide Franchise in that state..).
Besides removing a large hurdle for the Bell's to now offer Television services at well, it removed the local community's ability to force the providers to offer local access television. (Gov'ment billboards for announcements, classic Public Access TV, etc).
What I'm also wondering about is how He authorizes a large merger so we basically now have only 3? Large national telcos (Verizon, AT&T, Quest.....with other rural players and 2nd teir players like Embarq). He removes a large barrier for them to enter the TV market.... and after at least one CableCo takes advantage of that removal, He then starts trying to limit the amount of the market which the Cable-Co's can be in.
Needless to say.... I don't believe Martin is necessarily doing anything out of the goodness of his heart, or because "it's the right thing to do"..... But even if his motives aren't exactly the best, if his agreeing to look into this helps set a legal precedent for Network Neutrality... I'm all for it. (It might be interesting to see however if he either chickens out on being severe in the punishment.... or even kinda let the issue slip to a back-burner to be forgotten about, rather than do something that can bite the Telco's in the butt later.)
heh.. kinda. basically it's sorta a "hidden" channel. There are some QAM's set up for the node that just handle the VOD. The VOD servers (located in the Headend) then send the digitized video information thru the fiber to the QAM, which then modulates the stream onto the RF network. Because the VOD equiptment is pretty much it's own self-contained system, and other factors, you can't encrypt the signal the same way you can with a "normal" channel feed. Basically... it's in the clear. People with a settop box or whatnot won't ever see the channel because it's not on the channel map and the box doesn't know how to tune to it. With a QAM tuner however you can sometimes catch someone else's VOD stream being broadcast and watch it. But to do that, you would need to catch it while the broadcast is active (it's not a constant broadcast and the channel is only in use while they are watching the VOD stream)... and you would have to be on the same node as the person who ordered the VOD program. (Nodes size can vary depending on market and the way it's built.) "standard" operation says that JUST the person who ordered the VOD program would have access to it, however the fact that QAM tuners are out there now, combined with technical limitations in the system (VOD is handled by a seperate application on the settop, so you can't encrypt it thru the standard methods without causing problems.... as well as the fact the content is encrypted on the VOD servers.)... mean that it is now possible to "stumble" across an active VOD broadcast..... it's just not something that happens very often since you basically have to be scanning the channels at EXACTLY the right moment for your TV to catch the signal.
Actually, Video On Demand doesn't even use the DOCSIS/cable-modem systems. It's done via your traditional Cable Video system (DAVIC and/or OCAP). Basically, when you request a VOD stream, you send the request to the system from your cable-box where they create the session, and create a one-on-one video stream on a edge-QAM on your node. They System then tells you which frequency/channel to tune to for your movie selection. The whole ability to control the video w/ your remote is done by sending the commands back to the VOD server telling it what you want to do with the stream.
For all intents and purposes, other than sharing the coax system, your Internet and video services are completely seperate on the cable network.
I know that multi-stream cablecards are now out there and we have them in our region. I think I read the spec that they can actually handle up to 4 or 5 streams at least. (they are designed to work with the multi-room DVR's that are coming out). Unforuntately it's a case of having to wait for them to propagate around the different systems and to the customers.
I can definately understand your frustration with the techs you've dealt with. Unfortunately there are bad ables in every group. I do know from my experience that the techs I talk to on cable-card issues in our region do tend to have spares just due to the weird issues we have run into. I think that in some ways, we may have a semi-unique way of doing things in our region. Because within our region we have both cities (College towns, State Capital, etc), and rural farm communities (People more likely to go to local shop than call the 800 number...), I think that has in some ways helped the way we work with the techs to resolve some issues, especcially cable-cards. Normally a tech will deal with Dispatch for any home-office type of troubleshooting and/or assistance. Think of it as a dedicated call-center for techs on the road, as well as the people responsible for getting techs to respond to outages. Since I am on the engineering side working with the controllers, it's pretty much a non-customer facing position. We do however make ourselves available to the techs when they need assistance....often for cable-card issues. This means that if a tech is having a problem with a cable-card install, or other issue, and can't quite figure it out, they can call us and we can work with them directly off the controller to bypass any weird billing issues. It also means that certain things that sometimes will cause issues, like the decryption keys we can try and resolve from the controller. Not to mention that we tend to see some of those weird issues more often and are generally more knowledgeable about the issues that exist than your average install tech, so we can help get them (and the customer) working quicker that way.
I honestly can't speak for other companies... or even other regions within the same cableco I work for, but I do think that the fact we do make it pretty easy for the install tech (basically the lowest man on the totem pole) to talk directly with us for those complicated issues (My boss is the regional director) does help a lot in resolving those issues people traditionally have with clueless techs or cable-co's which can't seem to fix a problem.
It's a bit of both IMHO. I won't mention the number of times I have to deal with installers for issues when it's a simple RF issue. Ultimately I think that the problem may be related to the fact most installers these days are contractors. why? Well... for one.... do you really need a guy with brains to do a standard setup? or to run a line from the pole to the house? can you blame the cable-co's for getting the idiots to fill out the numbers to do these tasks so you get your service and they don't have to pay the same number of smart people for the same role?
:-) A Tivo may not seem THAT hard to set up... but when you factor in the shear number of different ways to set up different cable card devices, it can be a bit harder. The thing which is the most anti-intuitive for the Tivo is the fact you can't install both cards at once and then set them up one at a time.
As for the firmware update.....most installers aren't really aware of the fact these things run software/firmware. All the boxes and most cable-cards are staged at the warehouse prior to going to the customer. It's during this staging that the code downloads take place. Firmware on the system isn't updated that often, so the possibility of someone running into a card firmware download during a setup isn't a regular occurance. the complication also comes that I don't believe the TIVO gives any input that the card is actually downloading code. With the Moto or SA settop boxes you'll see a countdown on the LED's as it downloads, so you can at least tell it's doing something.
Couple things I wouldn't mind seeing in a new version of the TIVO that I think would make things easier....1. allow a tech to install both cards at first without screwing everything up. often they just want to install the cards, then place it in the entertainment center where it will stay and deal with getting it to work. 2. create some software menu options to allow you to reset the cable cards, or even turn on/off the slot. 3. Make the cable-card diags a bit easier to access.
Honestly I can't say for certain when it comes to the FCC. I'm still pretty new working at this level of the system, so I don't know much of the history of cablecards.... but I'll let you know what I think part of problem was, Just from what I can see.
In Typical fashion... I think a large part of the cablecard issue is typical washington politics. The FCC was complaining about wanting to seperate the security of the cable system from the settop box. As a result, they pretty much said that after 7/07 all systems must use cablecards. The problem is that between the time they decide on the cable card standard, set the rules, and the deadline comes, the technology and the market has changed dramatically. HD is a MUCH bigger thing today with many more options than were available even 5yrs ago. Interactive services like VOD were cutting edge 5 years ago and has pretty much become a standard. VOIP has matured meaning cable-co's now have the ability to easily offer a triple play. Phone companies have started rolling fiber to the home and have started offering TV. (Interestingly enough, I know that Scientific Atlanta offers a version of their DNCS designed to control an IPTV settup). All this change in the marketplace means that the cable-co's need to evolve the technology and bandwith is at a premium.
SDV is at this point one of the easiest to implement, and overall best current option for reclaiming some RF bandwith while still allowing customers to have the services they both expect and have become used too. It may also allow for cable-co's to free up some bandwith to allow for them to finally upgrade the digital signal from mpeg2 to mpeg4 encoding. Because you have some older devices that simply can't decode a mpeg4 codec on the system, during the upgrade there will be a period when simulcast of the 2 different video signals would be required to limit customer impact. That means more bandwith for just the existing video services, but improved quality and compression allowing for again, more services in the future.
I think in some ways the FCC's overall problem is the same you see in Washington on a lot of issues. The people involved in making the decisions tend to be more reactionary than they should be. They don't consider the advances in technology or market when they set a rule, and deadline, so many times the market may already be beyond the point they've ruled on when it comes time to implement. And often they make a half-assed attempt at a rule in order to try and make the loudest parties happy politically, even if it's obvious due to the current direction of the marketplace and tech that by the time things are in place, it would cause more hassle and confusion for the common consumer.
I think I remember hearing that when the cablecard spec was ruled on by the FCC, the cable-co's were already saying that it would cause more problems because the spec couldn't handle the way the tech was going, and they therefore were already working on the opencable specs as a next-gen replacement. The problem was that everybody just assumed they were fighting cable-cards because of the monopoly power and it wasn't very politically wise to listen to the people you are trying to force to do something.
Actually the thing about the way in which VOD and SDV are done is it can very easily free up bandwith. The Way SDV works is say you have 200 channels. Out of those 200 channels, 80% of the people watching tv at any given moment are only watching 20 of those channels. That's 180 channels on the push to everyone idea that not many people are watching. Now say you take 50 of those channels that not many people watch (QVC, Golf, CSPAN, etc) and convert them to SDV. Now, for simple scale here, let's say per NODE on the plant, you have only 1000 people. Out of that 1000 people, because we know 80% are watching the 20 most popular channels, we have only 200 people to throw over the remain 180 channels. So out of that, 100 are watching a local hockey game on the regional sports network. not really a mainstream channel, but not one of the ones who are set up on SDV. that leaves 100 people. 25 decide they want to watch the PGA tour coverage on the golf channel, 3 are watching CSPAN for homework, 22 are people shopping on QVC, 20 are watching VOD programming, and 30 are spread out on the rest of the 110 not in SDV or considered the most popular. So now, instead of using 50 channels of bandwith to broadcast all those SDV channels with a push, you have only 3 channels set up as a multicast. Even with cushions based off usage patterns and whatnot, you still get a SIGNIFICANT savings for additional programming or services.
both VOD and SDV set up the plant into nodes. Basically that means that instead of broadcasting the VOD or SDV programing to everybody in the entire system over the RF, you instead are going to broadcast the requested programming to that one node of users...which can be a town, street.....apartment complex...it depends on the way it was designed. Basically this means you can then reuse that frequency range in other sections of the plant for VOD or SDV, so you can provide more one-on-one coverage to the viewer without wasting massive amounts of frequency range..............and give customers an interactive experience like watching a new release on VOD where they can fast forward/rewind/pause/whatever.....vs the method DirectTV has where they broadcast new releases on multiple channels with staggered start times to give you a sort of virtual VOD...using more traditional PPV methods.
Now... I don't know how they are set up... but you could potentially use a DVR to give you that same functionality with satelite which the system provides to you on a cable VOD platform by default. But again, talking about an average user here... not a/. technical junkie with a MythBox.... If we are talking about the choice between purchasing a $50 plain-jane settop box, or spending $300 on a DVR, some people may prefer the cheaper box and still get their interaction with the movie. Rental fees for box rentals also tend to be a bit cheaper for a standard box vs. a DVR.
In the market i live in, we have 3 PPV channels, which honestly are special events like wrestlemania or boxing matches... otherwise they are porn fair like Girls Gone Wild or Uncensored versions of TV shows like cheaters and whatnot, Playboy, and 2 adult networks. All the standard new releases, as well as all sorts of special programming, network on demand offerings, old school movies that maybe are in demand because of the season or a sequels coming outa.... and a bunch of other random and sometimes interesting programming, is now done thru VOD. The only thing left on traditional PPV honestly is porn....and even that you can get on VOD.
Honestly... biggest existing issue with the push method of distribution right now is available frequency spectrum/bandwith. The Cable co's can only go to a MAX of 1ghz on their plants right now because of FCC regulations. That 1 Gig of frequency has to cover your internet, all your video services, and any additional services your local cable-co has to provide. Now factor in the bandwith requirements of HD programming, increased internet speeds, and more niche programming... and the push method for video distibution just doesn't quite work anymore.
There's only so much a cable company can do to free up the bandwith/spectrum for new services or increased internet speeds. One is thru interactive services such as SDV (mentioned elsewhere with the wiki link). Another is increasing the spectrum on the plant, but it's neither cheap, or easy to get the FCC to authorize as quickly as the demands are increasing. Then you could always drop programming, but then certain loud-but-vocal group who enjoy said dropped channels start bitching. Then you also have the potential to upgrade from the current MPEG2 standard used for your digitial video feed, to MPEG4.....Problem there is that not all equiptment in the field currently would know what to do with MPEG4 codecs, so you'd have to basically simulcast them for awhile to allow backward compatibility while people upgrade equiptment. There are of course other options... but not really solve both the spectrum availability issue while not adversely effecting your "average" users. you must admit.../. isn't an average user.
Um..... Your settop box already has the capability to know what you are watching already. Check out Pointer or Retriever on the sciatl.com website for a couple of examples of settop applications that are already out there.
Heh... I actually heard that appearently one of the larger installs of the Retriever program was done by Google. Seems they've paid to have it installed on a local cable Co in Cali in order to use the rating information to know when to place their ads.
You might be surprised to learn that if the content providers had their way, you may not even have the ability to record the content on your devices. Some channels feel that recording a program on your DVR, (TIVO, whatever) is already violating their copyrights. Some are simply pissed because you can skip thru the commercials which is their revenue stream. Others like your premium movie channels which you can get a good high-quality full length movie in it's original un-edited for TV glory have put pressure on the cable companies because they in turn are getting presured from the MPAA and movie studios who see a recorded copy from HBO as taking away from their DVD sales. The DRM to restrict the copying is already built into digital video services you get from your cable co on the primary controller level. I just happen to know from dealing with that controller daily in our market, that we intentionally have everything set to copy freely. (You can set to allow someone to copy freely, copy once, or not allow copying).
As some may already know, in the DVR's there is a standard harddrive (IDE), but the DVR software not only encrypts the drive's data, but it also locks the drive to the actual device. Unfortunately this is a level of copy-protection we don't have direct control over since it's more of a vendor issue... but "standard" opperation is that if you attempt to take the drive and plug it into another device (computer)... you won't be able to see the data because it's encrypted. what's more, the first thing a standard settop cable box does when it see's a new HDD in the machine is it formats it with a new encryption key. The idea that unfortunately is to keep you from being able to take a HDD in one device and put it in another.
I think I've heard that the cable-co's have actually already gone to court over the content provider's desires for draconion DRM and won.....hense why you can actually get a DVR from the cable company now. Sadly, I think that the content providers see recorded content as "yours", and therefor don't want you to be able to move it. Being able to see it time-shifted is already more than they'd like.
(if you really want to be pissed... read the DMCA sometime. It's actually illegal to even fast-forward thru the credits or previews on a VHS tape by the way it's written. According to the DMCA, you are not allowed to "view content in a way not originally intended". By that means you can already do more with a DVR than they'd like.....especcially with the MPAA/RIAA view that fair use is non-existant.)
I actually work for one of the major US cable companies (not gonna say which cause it honestly doesn't matter), in the department that controls the overall "brains" of the cable video network in our region. As such, I tend to see some of the issues, and can maybe hopefully contribute to the back-end knowledge of the cable video platform for the/. users.
First off, in direct response to your question. To the best of my knowledge, currently most set top boxes in use are made by 1 of 2 companies. Scientific Atlanta, or Motorola. These are also the companies who pretty much are the 2 "big boys" in the Cable headend game. Our region actually has systems which run on both platforms (they are not interchangeable since both companies do things on the backend differently.
In order to kind of understand the way the cable-cards work, you kind of need to know the way the entire system works...sorta. So let me try and explain the makeup of the cable headend. I deal primarily with the Scientific Atlanta systems in our area, so I'm more familiar with it (and where to find the references online which I can share.). Keep in mind that both systems do the same thing, the way in which they do it is just a little different. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns457/networking_solutions_solution_category.html the figure here is kinda basic, and includes stuff not really needed...but may help as a visual aid.
In the Scientific Atlanta platform, you have your primary controller. This system, running off Solaris, Pretty much "controls" the entire cable video network. It contains the configuration information for all the modulators which send the video over RF to your home. It also contains all the conguration information for your settop box, package information, security information, Channel Map configurations, etc. When the video source is configured on the QAM (Modulator) it can be encrypted. On the SA system, there is a special server connected directly to the DNCS responsible for maintaining the encryption keys and information. This encryption helps to prevent unauthorized access to the digital signal. The most obvious (without getting into conspiracys or opinions on greed and whatnot) reasoning for encrypting a channel is so that little johnny doesn't stumble across hardcore sex in the clear with his QAM tuner TV.
In the Cable-Card enviroment, the cablecard is responsible for the decryption of this signal. The encryption is done via a public/private key system. When a cablecard is loaded on the controller initially, the DNCS at this point knows the Secure Micro of the cablecard. When the card then gets authorized for the encrypted feed, it at that point is sent the information it will need to be able to decrypt the video feed. This process tends to work without many problems. The REAL complication with cable-cards tends to be a bit more involved with the pairing process.
From what I understand.... the pairing tends to be pretty much the DRM of whole mess. no wonder it causes so many problems. But then again, nobody can avoid it these days it seems. Anyways, there are primarily 2 Id's that come into play here. The CableCard's ID, and the Host device ID. This is pretty much where you are pairing up the 2 devices and getting them to play nice to each other and know who the other person is. It's this item that pretty much tends to be the real pain in getting a cablecard working. (personally.. I hate TIVO's.. ). The unfortunately thing about standards, is while they are there to tell you how things are supposed to work, talk, and act together. They don't always go into the nitty-gritty of how to implement those standards, user interfaces, or procedures. For instance, especcially in a dual-turner TIVO, they can be a bastard to set up. Why? First you must make sure that just the primary card is
But isn't OS-X...under the Aqua interface basically a *nix platform? So in a way, can't we possibly...if we wanted to be REALLY anal about it and help shove it down the throat of M$.... claim that with the migration of the Apple OS to the OS X platform from the classic OS (os 9 and prior), that we have actually dramatically INCREASED the adoption of *nix on the Desktop??
You mean like it is now with telling people what it was like to have to worry about configuring an INIT string in order to do ANYTHING with your modem.
See here young whippersnapper... BACK in my day we didn't have no fancy internets. We used DOS programs like Procomm 2.4.2 and QMODEM to dial into a BBS....Run by a guy down the street. We didn't even have any fancy GUI's. Just Command line! And we didn't have no fancy MMPORPG, we had TradeWars! (or yankee Trader). And we were lucky if our BBS had an echonet like RIME, or InterLink....or FIDO...So we could talk to people in Europe without paying ma bell major $$$$. And back then people actually spelled like real people, unless they used fancy acronyms like YMMV, TANSTAAFL, RTFM, etc.. And best of all.....people who thought spelling with ASCII and numbers were cool plainly labelled themselves "K-RAD" and stayed on their own BBS well away from where they could bother anybody.
ok... I'm under 30. I'm WAaaaaaaaaaaayyyy Too young to feel this old all of a sudden...
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly I could say that they probably couldn't get anymore than existing social engineering and phishing methods don't already get. It would also potentially help maybe force something to be done about the existing financial and credit system which allows it to be so easy to have someone screw up your credit, yet so hard to fix it.
(And sadly... I know from experience that it's also 100 times easier to get a stolen identity "fixed" in your credit, than it is to fix an error the credit agency made on their own.)
Hmmm... Better option to drive it home to the public without causing MASSIVE damages....
Take all the pictures and email on the Harddrive and make it publicly accessable. Maybe something as simple as a web-server virus which creates a webserver on the machine and allows EASY PUBLIC...easily findable...read-only access to all the files on the drive. Hell... put those C&C servers to good use if needbe and proxy the connections so that it can even be a non-standard port for those ISP's that block port 80 servers.... and to get around NAT routers, and other software firewalls.
Why do I think this would be a better way to shock people into action? Several reasons.
1. People in general have a LOT they may not want getting out for purely embarrassment reasons. Knowing that not taking security of their machine seriously could result in this could do more good than simply forcing them to reload because their programs no longer work, or their system is now "slow".
2. The Politicians and corporate types who like to think that there's nothing wrong with the state of computer security, or that their programs are not gonna get hit because X company says they build secure software, and don't question the claim.....usually have more to hide and therefore and much more likely to step up and realize that something needs to be done to fix the problem and/or force proper accountability on people to patch their bugs. (how many security holes exist and are known, but said companies refuse to acknowlege them UNTIL after they are exploited?)
And My personal favorite reason......3. Think of all the free amature porn we'd suddenly have access too from people who don't think their "private" picture folder will EVER be seen? That alone could be worth the price of admission. lol
Hmmmm.... ya know... Since their seems to always be a Financial reason for people to create and seed virii these days...Said central server could charge a small access fee to gain access to said "web-content". Money is made for the person who implements the idea... and the public still gets their embarressment wake-up call. It's win-win....
Ya know something kinda funny now that I think about it....
Every bar I've been too since moving to PA has had somebody at the door with a scanner. Basically... can't seem to get into a club or bar without them scanning your ID.
The Liquor store around the corner from my house.... as well as the one where I stayed for a few months in another city....Neither of them did anything more than your traditional look at the license check. Think's it's kind of funny how it's actually easier for me to go stock up on hard liquor and lots of it, than it is for me to get an over-priced watered down drink at the bar.
I knew a bartender I worked with in NC who was red-carded (basically, failed a spot-check for not carding someone who came in to buy a drink...so many red-cards and you lose your ability to serve liquor) when a lady obviously in her 50's was not asked for her ID. How did she know she was of age? Attire, Hair, Grey hair, Wrinkles...Oh, and the single biggest thing the bartender could tell she was over 21....She ordered a drink that nobody has seriously drank since the 70's. Definately not a trendy or strong underager kind of drink.
I used to live in GA.... and then the past 2 years in the NC Mountains (where I did a lot of drink in both NC and SC...)... It wasn't until I moved to PA this past summer that I started seeing it being done.
What's funny is that I still have my NC license due to some issues that have me stuck between states and unable to transfer my license to PA at the moment. When I go to bars up here I've routinely caught the bouncer/doorman scanning my ID out of habit, seeing nothing show up....scan it again.... then look at it like he's confused before I have to tell him how to find the Birthdate on the license.
I'm seriously wondering after reading the article if I want to try and keep my out-of-state license just so that I can keep one without a mag-stripe on it for the bars up here to scan.
Actually, according the original reports I read, Encrypting the traffic didn't really help. It was something about how the Sandvine system was actually going off the nature and pattern of the traffic, not just the ports or contents of the packets.
It was because it was going off traffic patterns that people were reporting problems with programs such as lotus notes as well.
Honestly... My guess would be a combination of RIAA/MPAA pressure, Bandwith Management....and whether or not the cablemodem network in the area has been "prepped" for Sandvine, or if they are still trying to work on "fixing" or consolidating it from a previous company into the "comcast fold". LOL... gotta make sure something works before you break it. lol
Because of the Traditional Franchise Nature of the cable industry, as well as all the aquisitions and mergers over the years, Most cable companies... and ESPECCIALLY the actual network, are not necessarily one big common shared network. Basically you could have your National Corporate level, Your Division, and then a local region and even the individual systems within that region. All could have their own policies and guidelines....or way of doing things. While some people in Comcast Territory could be in an area they've deployed sandvine, Other Comcast covered areas may not have deployed it, or just implemented it yet. Keep in mind that putting something like Sandvine on the network isn't necessarily as easy as plugging it in, and making it work.... especcially if you are in an area which was covered by another area as recently as a year or 2 ago.
For instance.... I know Adelphia was split between Time Warner and Comcast a few years ago. Adelphia may have had 1 way which they designed their cable network and backend systems. The aquiring company may have another. Making ANY changes is a slow and drawn out process because you have to be VERY careful to avoid any negative customer impact. (IOW's... you can't just unplug a system from one network and instantly plug it into another. You could risk customer outages.. breaking networks because a router is on the wrong VLAN or ip collisioning with another item on the new network.). i'd honestly thing that throwing something like Sandvine would be more of a clean-up/tweaking of the network kind of job, after you've got everything working and talking on a common network. Not something you'd just throw in there off the bat, and then try to get everything up to the standards everything else is on.
Honestly I'm kinda wondering about Martin. He'd way too...wishy-washy. I kind of get the feeling that he may be more likely to have a personal issue against the CableCo's, or is trying to cause them more trouble to help the telco's get into the market. Now... the whole bittorrent thing.. Kinda hard to ignore it. It's pretty obvious after the AP story that something is fishy, and if he didn't do something he'd be a lot harder pressed to explain his actions. Besides... it's another reason to go after the Cable companies.. and comcast in general.
Now.. you may ask why do I think Martin has a thing against the CableCo's in particular while all about helping the Bells? Let's see... he's authorized the AT&T Merger with BellSouth, helping to recreate one of the largest utility monopolies and the largest ISP out there.....Yet then starts trying to force a 70%/70% ruling on the Cable Companies in order to try and gain additional control over the Cable Industry. He then tries to cap the amount of the market which the CableCo can own at 30% (Call me crazy... but I'm pretty sure some of the bells already have that percentage, if not more....).
There's also the whole factor of Franchise agreements. For YEARS (Decades even), In order for a cable company to come into a town, they had to negotiate with the local government for the Franchise. This Franchise agreement included payments to the local Gov'ment, Community Access channels, and honestly, a little bit of a way for the local community to excert pressure on the cableco to provide decent service thru the renewal process. (although admittedly few Gov'ments truly exercised this ability like they could've). When the Bells started wanting to offer TV service thru FIOS or AT&T's UniverseTV product, they discovered they would be legally required to negotiate with the local communities Franchising groups in order to be able to offer service. They didn't like this Idea....So they had the FCC remove the local community's ability to control who could offer service in their community by allowing the Bell's to instead get a state-wide Franchise. (Time Warner has appearently taken advantage of this ruling in Wisconsin by applying for and getting a state-wide Franchise in that state..).
Besides removing a large hurdle for the Bell's to now offer Television services at well, it removed the local community's ability to force the providers to offer local access television. (Gov'ment billboards for announcements, classic Public Access TV, etc).
What I'm also wondering about is how He authorizes a large merger so we basically now have only 3? Large national telcos (Verizon, AT&T, Quest.....with other rural players and 2nd teir players like Embarq). He removes a large barrier for them to enter the TV market.... and after at least one CableCo takes advantage of that removal, He then starts trying to limit the amount of the market which the Cable-Co's can be in.
Needless to say.... I don't believe Martin is necessarily doing anything out of the goodness of his heart, or because "it's the right thing to do"..... But even if his motives aren't exactly the best, if his agreeing to look into this helps set a legal precedent for Network Neutrality... I'm all for it. (It might be interesting to see however if he either chickens out on being severe in the punishment.... or even kinda let the issue slip to a back-burner to be forgotten about, rather than do something that can bite the Telco's in the butt later.)
heh.. kinda. basically it's sorta a "hidden" channel. There are some QAM's set up for the node that just handle the VOD. The VOD servers (located in the Headend) then send the digitized video information thru the fiber to the QAM, which then modulates the stream onto the RF network. Because the VOD equiptment is pretty much it's own self-contained system, and other factors, you can't encrypt the signal the same way you can with a "normal" channel feed. Basically... it's in the clear. People with a settop box or whatnot won't ever see the channel because it's not on the channel map and the box doesn't know how to tune to it. With a QAM tuner however you can sometimes catch someone else's VOD stream being broadcast and watch it. But to do that, you would need to catch it while the broadcast is active (it's not a constant broadcast and the channel is only in use while they are watching the VOD stream)... and you would have to be on the same node as the person who ordered the VOD program. (Nodes size can vary depending on market and the way it's built.) "standard" operation says that JUST the person who ordered the VOD program would have access to it, however the fact that QAM tuners are out there now, combined with technical limitations in the system (VOD is handled by a seperate application on the settop, so you can't encrypt it thru the standard methods without causing problems.... as well as the fact the content is encrypted on the VOD servers.)... mean that it is now possible to "stumble" across an active VOD broadcast..... it's just not something that happens very often since you basically have to be scanning the channels at EXACTLY the right moment for your TV to catch the signal.
Actually, Video On Demand doesn't even use the DOCSIS /cable-modem systems. It's done via your traditional Cable Video system (DAVIC and/or OCAP). Basically, when you request a VOD stream, you send the request to the system from your cable-box where they create the session, and create a one-on-one video stream on a edge-QAM on your node. They System then tells you which frequency/channel to tune to for your movie selection. The whole ability to control the video w/ your remote is done by sending the commands back to the VOD server telling it what you want to do with the stream.
For all intents and purposes, other than sharing the coax system, your Internet and video services are completely seperate on the cable network.
I know that multi-stream cablecards are now out there and we have them in our region. I think I read the spec that they can actually handle up to 4 or 5 streams at least. (they are designed to work with the multi-room DVR's that are coming out). Unforuntately it's a case of having to wait for them to propagate around the different systems and to the customers.
I can definately understand your frustration with the techs you've dealt with. Unfortunately there are bad ables in every group. I do know from my experience that the techs I talk to on cable-card issues in our region do tend to have spares just due to the weird issues we have run into. I think that in some ways, we may have a semi-unique way of doing things in our region. Because within our region we have both cities (College towns, State Capital, etc), and rural farm communities (People more likely to go to local shop than call the 800 number...), I think that has in some ways helped the way we work with the techs to resolve some issues, especcially cable-cards. Normally a tech will deal with Dispatch for any home-office type of troubleshooting and/or assistance. Think of it as a dedicated call-center for techs on the road, as well as the people responsible for getting techs to respond to outages. Since I am on the engineering side working with the controllers, it's pretty much a non-customer facing position. We do however make ourselves available to the techs when they need assistance....often for cable-card issues. This means that if a tech is having a problem with a cable-card install, or other issue, and can't quite figure it out, they can call us and we can work with them directly off the controller to bypass any weird billing issues. It also means that certain things that sometimes will cause issues, like the decryption keys we can try and resolve from the controller. Not to mention that we tend to see some of those weird issues more often and are generally more knowledgeable about the issues that exist than your average install tech, so we can help get them (and the customer) working quicker that way.
I honestly can't speak for other companies... or even other regions within the same cableco I work for, but I do think that the fact we do make it pretty easy for the install tech (basically the lowest man on the totem pole) to talk directly with us for those complicated issues (My boss is the regional director) does help a lot in resolving those issues people traditionally have with clueless techs or cable-co's which can't seem to fix a problem.
It's a bit of both IMHO. I won't mention the number of times I have to deal with installers for issues when it's a simple RF issue. Ultimately I think that the problem may be related to the fact most installers these days are contractors. why? Well... for one.... do you really need a guy with brains to do a standard setup? or to run a line from the pole to the house? can you blame the cable-co's for getting the idiots to fill out the numbers to do these tasks so you get your service and they don't have to pay the same number of smart people for the same role?
:-) A Tivo may not seem THAT hard to set up... but when you factor in the shear number of different ways to set up different cable card devices, it can be a bit harder. The thing which is the most anti-intuitive for the Tivo is the fact you can't install both cards at once and then set them up one at a time.
As for the firmware update.....most installers aren't really aware of the fact these things run software/firmware. All the boxes and most cable-cards are staged at the warehouse prior to going to the customer. It's during this staging that the code downloads take place. Firmware on the system isn't updated that often, so the possibility of someone running into a card firmware download during a setup isn't a regular occurance. the complication also comes that I don't believe the TIVO gives any input that the card is actually downloading code. With the Moto or SA settop boxes you'll see a countdown on the LED's as it downloads, so you can at least tell it's doing something.
Couple things I wouldn't mind seeing in a new version of the TIVO that I think would make things easier....1. allow a tech to install both cards at first without screwing everything up. often they just want to install the cards, then place it in the entertainment center where it will stay and deal with getting it to work. 2. create some software menu options to allow you to reset the cable cards, or even turn on/off the slot. 3. Make the cable-card diags a bit easier to access.
Honestly I can't say for certain when it comes to the FCC. I'm still pretty new working at this level of the system, so I don't know much of the history of cablecards.... but I'll let you know what I think part of problem was, Just from what I can see.
In Typical fashion... I think a large part of the cablecard issue is typical washington politics. The FCC was complaining about wanting to seperate the security of the cable system from the settop box. As a result, they pretty much said that after 7/07 all systems must use cablecards. The problem is that between the time they decide on the cable card standard, set the rules, and the deadline comes, the technology and the market has changed dramatically. HD is a MUCH bigger thing today with many more options than were available even 5yrs ago. Interactive services like VOD were cutting edge 5 years ago and has pretty much become a standard. VOIP has matured meaning cable-co's now have the ability to easily offer a triple play. Phone companies have started rolling fiber to the home and have started offering TV. (Interestingly enough, I know that Scientific Atlanta offers a version of their DNCS designed to control an IPTV settup). All this change in the marketplace means that the cable-co's need to evolve the technology and bandwith is at a premium.
SDV is at this point one of the easiest to implement, and overall best current option for reclaiming some RF bandwith while still allowing customers to have the services they both expect and have become used too. It may also allow for cable-co's to free up some bandwith to allow for them to finally upgrade the digital signal from mpeg2 to mpeg4 encoding. Because you have some older devices that simply can't decode a mpeg4 codec on the system, during the upgrade there will be a period when simulcast of the 2 different video signals would be required to limit customer impact. That means more bandwith for just the existing video services, but improved quality and compression allowing for again, more services in the future.
I think in some ways the FCC's overall problem is the same you see in Washington on a lot of issues. The people involved in making the decisions tend to be more reactionary than they should be. They don't consider the advances in technology or market when they set a rule, and deadline, so many times the market may already be beyond the point they've ruled on when it comes time to implement. And often they make a half-assed attempt at a rule in order to try and make the loudest parties happy politically, even if it's obvious due to the current direction of the marketplace and tech that by the time things are in place, it would cause more hassle and confusion for the common consumer.
I think I remember hearing that when the cablecard spec was ruled on by the FCC, the cable-co's were already saying that it would cause more problems because the spec couldn't handle the way the tech was going, and they therefore were already working on the opencable specs as a next-gen replacement. The problem was that everybody just assumed they were fighting cable-cards because of the monopoly power and it wasn't very politically wise to listen to the people you are trying to force to do something.
Actually the thing about the way in which VOD and SDV are done is it can very easily free up bandwith. The Way SDV works is say you have 200 channels. Out of those 200 channels, 80% of the people watching tv at any given moment are only watching 20 of those channels. That's 180 channels on the push to everyone idea that not many people are watching. Now say you take 50 of those channels that not many people watch (QVC, Golf, CSPAN, etc) and convert them to SDV. Now, for simple scale here, let's say per NODE on the plant, you have only 1000 people. Out of that 1000 people, because we know 80% are watching the 20 most popular channels, we have only 200 people to throw over the remain 180 channels. So out of that, 100 are watching a local hockey game on the regional sports network. not really a mainstream channel, but not one of the ones who are set up on SDV. that leaves 100 people. 25 decide they want to watch the PGA tour coverage on the golf channel, 3 are watching CSPAN for homework, 22 are people shopping on QVC, 20 are watching VOD programming, and 30 are spread out on the rest of the 110 not in SDV or considered the most popular. So now, instead of using 50 channels of bandwith to broadcast all those SDV channels with a push, you have only 3 channels set up as a multicast. Even with cushions based off usage patterns and whatnot, you still get a SIGNIFICANT savings for additional programming or services.
/. technical junkie with a MythBox.... If we are talking about the choice between purchasing a $50 plain-jane settop box, or spending $300 on a DVR, some people may prefer the cheaper box and still get their interaction with the movie. Rental fees for box rentals also tend to be a bit cheaper for a standard box vs. a DVR.
both VOD and SDV set up the plant into nodes. Basically that means that instead of broadcasting the VOD or SDV programing to everybody in the entire system over the RF, you instead are going to broadcast the requested programming to that one node of users...which can be a town, street.....apartment complex...it depends on the way it was designed. Basically this means you can then reuse that frequency range in other sections of the plant for VOD or SDV, so you can provide more one-on-one coverage to the viewer without wasting massive amounts of frequency range..............and give customers an interactive experience like watching a new release on VOD where they can fast forward/rewind/pause/whatever.....vs the method DirectTV has where they broadcast new releases on multiple channels with staggered start times to give you a sort of virtual VOD...using more traditional PPV methods.
Now... I don't know how they are set up... but you could potentially use a DVR to give you that same functionality with satelite which the system provides to you on a cable VOD platform by default. But again, talking about an average user here... not a
In the market i live in, we have 3 PPV channels, which honestly are special events like wrestlemania or boxing matches... otherwise they are porn fair like Girls Gone Wild or Uncensored versions of TV shows like cheaters and whatnot, Playboy, and 2 adult networks. All the standard new releases, as well as all sorts of special programming, network on demand offerings, old school movies that maybe are in demand because of the season or a sequels coming outa.... and a bunch of other random and sometimes interesting programming, is now done thru VOD. The only thing left on traditional PPV honestly is porn....and even that you can get on VOD.
Honestly... biggest existing issue with the push method of distribution right now is available frequency spectrum/bandwith. The Cable co's can only go to a MAX of 1ghz on their plants right now because of FCC regulations. That 1 Gig of frequency has to cover your internet, all your video services, and any additional services your local cable-co has to provide. Now factor in the bandwith requirements of HD programming, increased internet speeds, and more niche programming... and the push method for video distibution just doesn't quite work anymore.
/. isn't an average user.
There's only so much a cable company can do to free up the bandwith/spectrum for new services or increased internet speeds. One is thru interactive services such as SDV (mentioned elsewhere with the wiki link). Another is increasing the spectrum on the plant, but it's neither cheap, or easy to get the FCC to authorize as quickly as the demands are increasing. Then you could always drop programming, but then certain loud-but-vocal group who enjoy said dropped channels start bitching. Then you also have the potential to upgrade from the current MPEG2 standard used for your digitial video feed, to MPEG4.....Problem there is that not all equiptment in the field currently would know what to do with MPEG4 codecs, so you'd have to basically simulcast them for awhile to allow backward compatibility while people upgrade equiptment. There are of course other options... but not really solve both the spectrum availability issue while not adversely effecting your "average" users. you must admit...
Um..... Your settop box already has the capability to know what you are watching already. Check out Pointer or Retriever on the sciatl.com website for a couple of examples of settop applications that are already out there.
Heh... I actually heard that appearently one of the larger installs of the Retriever program was done by Google. Seems they've paid to have it installed on a local cable Co in Cali in order to use the rating information to know when to place their ads.
You might be surprised to learn that if the content providers had their way, you may not even have the ability to record the content on your devices. Some channels feel that recording a program on your DVR, (TIVO, whatever) is already violating their copyrights. Some are simply pissed because you can skip thru the commercials which is their revenue stream. Others like your premium movie channels which you can get a good high-quality full length movie in it's original un-edited for TV glory have put pressure on the cable companies because they in turn are getting presured from the MPAA and movie studios who see a recorded copy from HBO as taking away from their DVD sales. The DRM to restrict the copying is already built into digital video services you get from your cable co on the primary controller level. I just happen to know from dealing with that controller daily in our market, that we intentionally have everything set to copy freely. (You can set to allow someone to copy freely, copy once, or not allow copying).
As some may already know, in the DVR's there is a standard harddrive (IDE), but the DVR software not only encrypts the drive's data, but it also locks the drive to the actual device. Unfortunately this is a level of copy-protection we don't have direct control over since it's more of a vendor issue... but "standard" opperation is that if you attempt to take the drive and plug it into another device (computer)... you won't be able to see the data because it's encrypted. what's more, the first thing a standard settop cable box does when it see's a new HDD in the machine is it formats it with a new encryption key. The idea that unfortunately is to keep you from being able to take a HDD in one device and put it in another.
I think I've heard that the cable-co's have actually already gone to court over the content provider's desires for draconion DRM and won.....hense why you can actually get a DVR from the cable company now. Sadly, I think that the content providers see recorded content as "yours", and therefor don't want you to be able to move it. Being able to see it time-shifted is already more than they'd like.
(if you really want to be pissed... read the DMCA sometime. It's actually illegal to even fast-forward thru the credits or previews on a VHS tape by the way it's written. According to the DMCA, you are not allowed to "view content in a way not originally intended". By that means you can already do more with a DVR than they'd like.....especcially with the MPAA/RIAA view that fair use is non-existant.)
I actually work for one of the major US cable companies (not gonna say which cause it honestly doesn't matter), in the department that controls the overall "brains" of the cable video network in our region. As such, I tend to see some of the issues, and can maybe hopefully contribute to the back-end knowledge of the cable video platform for the /. users.
First off, in direct response to your question. To the best of my knowledge, currently most set top boxes in use are made by 1 of 2 companies. Scientific Atlanta, or Motorola. These are also the companies who pretty much are the 2 "big boys" in the Cable headend game. Our region actually has systems which run on both platforms (they are not interchangeable since both companies do things on the backend differently.
In order to kind of understand the way the cable-cards work, you kind of need to know the way the entire system works...sorta. So let me try and explain the makeup of the cable headend. I deal primarily with the Scientific Atlanta systems in our area, so I'm more familiar with it (and where to find the references online which I can share.). Keep in mind that both systems do the same thing, the way in which they do it is just a little different. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns457/networking_solutions_solution_category.html the figure here is kinda basic, and includes stuff not really needed...but may help as a visual aid.
In the Scientific Atlanta platform, you have your primary controller. This system, running off Solaris, Pretty much "controls" the entire cable video network. It contains the configuration information for all the modulators which send the video over RF to your home. It also contains all the conguration information for your settop box, package information, security information, Channel Map configurations, etc. When the video source is configured on the QAM (Modulator) it can be encrypted. On the SA system, there is a special server connected directly to the DNCS responsible for maintaining the encryption keys and information. This encryption helps to prevent unauthorized access to the digital signal. The most obvious (without getting into conspiracys or opinions on greed and whatnot) reasoning for encrypting a channel is so that little johnny doesn't stumble across hardcore sex in the clear with his QAM tuner TV.
In the Cable-Card enviroment, the cablecard is responsible for the decryption of this signal. The encryption is done via a public/private key system. When a cablecard is loaded on the controller initially, the DNCS at this point knows the Secure Micro of the cablecard. When the card then gets authorized for the encrypted feed, it at that point is sent the information it will need to be able to decrypt the video feed. This process tends to work without many problems. The REAL complication with cable-cards tends to be a bit more involved with the pairing process.
From what I understand.... the pairing tends to be pretty much the DRM of whole mess. no wonder it causes so many problems. But then again, nobody can avoid it these days it seems. Anyways, there are primarily 2 Id's that come into play here. The CableCard's ID, and the Host device ID. This is pretty much where you are pairing up the 2 devices and getting them to play nice to each other and know who the other person is. It's this item that pretty much tends to be the real pain in getting a cablecard working. (personally.. I hate TIVO's.. ). The unfortunately thing about standards, is while they are there to tell you how things are supposed to work, talk, and act together. They don't always go into the nitty-gritty of how to implement those standards, user interfaces, or procedures. For instance, especcially in a dual-turner TIVO, they can be a bastard to set up. Why? First you must make sure that just the primary card is
I THINK we have a new poll question birthed here....
:-)
In the Mac vs. Windows Commercials that apple Runs....who do you think would be a good person to represent the Linux OS?
But isn't OS-X...under the Aqua interface basically a *nix platform? So in a way, can't we possibly...if we wanted to be REALLY anal about it and help shove it down the throat of M$.... claim that with the migration of the Apple OS to the OS X platform from the classic OS (os 9 and prior), that we have actually dramatically INCREASED the adoption of *nix on the Desktop??
Anybody remember the movie The Thirteenth Floor? http://imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
You mean like it is now with telling people what it was like to have to worry about configuring an INIT string in order to do ANYTHING with your modem.
ATDT8675309
ATZ
NO CARRIER
See here young whippersnapper... BACK in my day we didn't have no fancy internets. We used DOS programs like Procomm 2.4.2 and QMODEM to dial into a BBS....Run by a guy down the street. We didn't even have any fancy GUI's. Just Command line! And we didn't have no fancy MMPORPG, we had TradeWars! (or yankee Trader). And we were lucky if our BBS had an echonet like RIME, or InterLink....or FIDO...So we could talk to people in Europe without paying ma bell major $$$$. And back then people actually spelled like real people, unless they used fancy acronyms like YMMV, TANSTAAFL, RTFM, etc.. And best of all.....people who thought spelling with ASCII and numbers were cool plainly labelled themselves "K-RAD" and stayed on their own BBS well away from where they could bother anybody.
ok... I'm under 30. I'm WAaaaaaaaaaaayyyy Too young to feel this old all of a sudden...
Wow... Deja Vu... didn't I just see this story the other day?