The rebels renamed it Dame Liberty.

private addressing is a good way to help enforce access around internal networks that don't need outside to inside access.

Just like a stateful firewall with a default reject or drop rule.

Interestingly enough, AT&T's current U-Verse modems enforce a drop all incoming rule on IPv6 which is not even user configurable.

Or alternatively, "Why don't you share your customer records and data with us. You have statutory immunity. It would be a shame if all of these fiber cuts which are affecting your operations and costing you money were not fully investigated."

I never understood why the FCC didn't require cellular providers to provide the same level of backup power to cell sites as we had with the traditional POTS system. ... Perhaps they should require it for the fixed wireless installs that the telcos want to use to replace POTS.

The FCC does not even require backup power for landline telephone service provided over cable or DSL infrastructure which replaces POTS.

False flag operations? That is in the realm of tin foil hats and crackpots. Frankly the rest of it is just common knowledge to anyone with a brain.

Documents eventually released by the DOJ show that they BATFE was doing this in their operation Fast and Furious; one of their justifications for selling guns to Mexican criminals was to justify further gun control laws and expanded power for law enforcement. The FBI does the same thing by encouraging people who otherwise would not to commit "terrorist crimes"; in this case the FBI or their informants are doing most or all of the work.

The BBC Micro switching power supply design includes cycle-by-cycle current limiting in the primary side of about 2 amps and an SCR crowbar on the +5 volt output so they are going to fail cleaner than most power supplies. From browsing various discussions it looks like most failures are the paper X and Y capacitors and the aluminum electrolytic capacitors. I am surprised they cannot find someone familiar enough with switching power supply design to refurbish and improve them.

You can look up the details but the early BBC MIcro power supplies were linear and the later ones were off-line switching power supplies.

If I had a choice of countries to enforce my will upon and wanted to play the divide and conquer game, the authoritative ones will be easier to control than the democratic ones. The later are more unpredictable.

So, what was the nature of this agreement?

The nature of the agreement is that Verizon can alter it. Pray they do not alter it further.

I only brought up the status of "sweat of the brow" in the US because you said:

I disagree with the Lexra employee since a lot of *effort* and creativity goes into designing an instruction set.

The effort Lexra (or anybody else) went to in creating a work is irrelevant. Creativity and originality matter but not effort. This comes up all the time with digitized works. The effort in digitizing video or photos or text is not enough to allow copyrighting what is produced. Services like Lexus instead copyright the formatting or table of contents that they produce which are not in the original works.

The NEC case involved copyright of the microcode which NEC independently recreated through a clean room process. Microcode like program code is copyrightable but if Intel had been able to copyright the instruction set, they would have included that in the lawsuit.

I will not defend the Republicans; there is enough scum to paint both parties in this and other matters.

I linked this in other posts but not here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I disagree with the Lexra employee since a lot of effort and creativity goes into designing an instruction set.

In the US at least, "sweat of the brow" does not by itself allow copyright protection; it is irrelevant how much work is done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The NEC versus Intel case is illustrative though. There microcode was ruled to be copyrightable but reverse engineering and clean room implementation is protected.

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ar...

But the license between AMD and Intel second guesses whether an instruction set can be protected by copyright; it just avoids a situation where there would be a lawsuit whether copyright applies or not. MIPS went after Lextra for patent infringement and not copyright infringement.

I thought there was a court decision or something which said instruction sets are not copyrightable but was unable to find it.

Were they licensed by whoever owns the copyright?

Now we get to revisit whether the instruction set of a microprocessor is copyrightable.