Idjuts who try to respond with non-lethal force often find that the other side isnt always that considerate.
The opiate of the masses......
Big Media is hoping everyone needs their fix bad enough to overlook the way their being monetized.
It's shit like this that makes me lose not one second of sleep when my favorite shows happen to fall off the back of the internet, miraculously commercial free
I don't own one myself, so I'm not sure how they work, but I'd imagine it wouldn't matter if you had to DHCP them or not, as they're going to register with Sling regardless.
And I think the price is perfectly fair. Slings entire thing is to make it easy on folks to be able to watch their TV remotely. Your average user is not going to have any clue how to reserve a MAC address. They may have a clue how to forward a port, but I suspect that's more the gamer crowd. If maintenance of the service was an issue, then there should be a sub fee for it (but should have the option to avoid the sub fee by actually forwarding the port yourself, and then configuring the client). The advertising is another way of pushing a sub fee for the service - they're selling subscriptions to their users video streams to advertisers.
Even that wouldn't be so bad, *if* there was a way to opt out or configure direct connections to the Slingbox via the clients. As it is, however, their customers are a captive audience with no recourse to avoid seeing the ads. Hence, the class action suit.
Yup. that's why folks are kind of pissed about it and claiming bait and switch. Most folks purchased a slingbox as a device to act as video forwarder so they could watch their tv service when they weren't physically present, and Slingboxes have been really good at that for a long time. If folks knew they'd be getting extra ads on the device, they may have opted not to purchase.
I personally think that Sling should be forced to issue refunds if they're not going to stop the ads.
...when someone would get around to this.
I work for one of the big cable companies. We use slingboxes at hub sites which are remote or just not staffed 24/7 in order to be able to verify whether or not video service is working, particularly after maintenances which may affect video.
A couple weeks ago was the first time in awhile that I've had to verify it myself, and I was very surprised to see ads popping up before the live tv stream kicked in, and I was thinking 'that's.... not right'. I'm not terribly surprised that there are some consumers who are pissed off enough to sue.
It's one thing if the service is free. With Youtube, we kind of understand that they have to show ads in order to keep the service free. But when something I paid for in order to use starts shoving ads at me, I tend to get a little ticked off too.
I'm curious, does Netflix do the same thing? Show ads before you start streaming? I don't remember that being the case, but I stopped using Netflix after their price hike fiasco.
If they don't currently do this, and Sling Media wins the suit, I'll bet my bottom dollar they will.
on where I was going, and how near the stations were.
If I was still commuting to downtown Atlanta, and MARTA was free, I would take it in a heartbeat. Driving downtown isn't that bad, but parking is a stone cold pain in the ass.
However, there would need to be a Marta train station within a couple of blocks of where I needed to go. That hasn't always been the case. If I had to transfer from rail to bus service, and it was still free, I wouldn't use it if I needed to transfer to bus.
No, it's actually 2 gigs each way, so you need a 10gig interface to be able to hook up to it, which means you need 10 gig network gear if you want to use it on more than one box.
This is, obviously, not intended for the average home user, this is more intended for an office or business setting.
A lawsuit is going to require alot more than just an email address, particularly if the company that accepted it did nothing to make sure the email address was actually one belonging to the person services were extended to before extending services.
Same thing with the credit reporting agencies.
If they ever do come after you, then have a field day filing a countersuit. Refer to the fair credit reporting act for the protections it offers.
And it may simply be someone typed in the wrong email address.
To give an example - this year, I started receiving emails from Comcast about a new install being setup. It was being sent to my email, but the name was that of someone else (same first initial). The email address is a gmail one, so pretty easy mistake to make.
Now I initially suspected that this was some kind of phising crap. The links looked legit though. Ironically enough, I actually work for Comcast, so I was able to pull up the new account based on details provided in the email to figure out it was actually legit, and was able to clear it up and get my email off the account.
So there's the old adage, never attribute to malice what can be covered by stupidity.
That being said - I sincerely suggest you put a credit freeze on your accounts with all three major bureaus. I've had it for years. They make it easy to lift the freeze, either permanently, or for a specified time period, in case you need the info to go through (credit application, job check, rental check, etc). It's an easy and sane way to help protect yourself from identity theft (there may be some cost involved, depending on what state you're in, but it's fairly small)
Sort of. The CCIE just requires you to pass the Written to recertify every 2 years, and it can be any Written, not for the track you passed the Lab exam in.
Passing any Cisco exam recertifies everything at the level it's at and everything below it.
So for example, lets say I have CCNP Routing and Switching, CCNA Routing and Switching, CCNA Security, and..... CCNA Service Provider.
All I need to do in order to recertify all of that is to pass one Professional level exam (maybe I take one exam for CCNP Security), and everything is recertified.
Or, I pass the CCIE Written exam instead. That qualifies me for the Lab Exam, and renews every cert at the Professional and Associate levels.
If I pass the Lab Exam, then I just need to pass a CCIE Written every two years in order to recertify the whole shebang.
So Cisco recert policies don't actually do much to keep you current on the technology you're certified for. What they do is keep you taking Cisco exams so that you can keep listing everything you've earned on your resume. This is incentive to avoid letting things expire, because if you do, then you have to retake everything.
The problem with certifications is that brain dumps are a big business.
Alot of folks believe that Certifications will enhance their chances of getting a job.
Hence, they brain dump the exam and pass.
For the folks who actually take the time and learn the material the certification is testing for, and pass the exam honestly, the certification process is a boon.
Unfortunately, we live in an on-demand society, so interviewers often see many more of the former than the latter.
I'm on the interview panel for my team. And I see an awful lot of paper tigers. Given that I also have an alphabet soup of certs, I know the skill levels those exams test for, and I tailor my interview questions to things that they should be able to answer, as well as any other technology they put on their resume. If it's on the resume, the candidate should be able to speak to it
Within 5 questions, I can almost always determine the persons actual skill level and whether or not they dumped the exam. And unfortunately, there are *alot*. To add to that, there are also some recruiters who actually encourage the candidates to add certain keywords to their resumes. I actually got one guy to admit during the interview that he'd just added it, after I started asking questions on it.
We have gotten a few folks with a good amount of certs that actually knew their stuff. We even hired a few of them. The ones we didn't hire, I knew we weren't going to be able to pay them what they'd be looking for, so they turned down the job.
In my opinion though, it's worth it to wade through the dross and take the time to make sure you get the right person. If you're careless in your hiring practices, you'll just be right back on the merry-go-round
I also work 3rd shift, as a network operator for a rather large ISP (3rd shift being something of a requirement, since folks don't like it when we do disruptive work during waking hours. Can't imagine why....)
So for me, the distractions are pretty minimal. Everyone else is asleep when I'm working, and other than my cat occasionally deciding she wants to play when I have six figures of customers down at the moment, there's no problem. When I'm in the office, the distractions are non stop.
Now, I'm a loner type, and my work doesn't involve a whole lot of in person communication. Most of the time the folks I'm talking to with whatever I'm working on aren't local, so it's done over a conference bridge, and that's just as easily handled from home as at work. So this kind of environment is perfect for me. That, and the office is a 2.5 hour commute.
Unfortunately, things have changed within the company enough that I've decided to leave come September. It's going to be interesting, as there isn't much call for skilled network operators in decent driving distance, so I'm going to have to either work 3 to 4 month contracts that take me away from home, or find something that will allow me to telecommute.
Fortunately, my wife makes very good money and we have no debt other than the mortgage, so leaving my job doesn't threaten our quality of life, but I still don't relish the idea of being away from my family for months at a time, nor do I relish the idea of going back to associating with office drama.
Ok, you can think all you want.
You're wrong. I get to handle messed up issues where folks can't reach ipv4 sites on a fairly regular basis.
Our customers do not call the company of the website they're having a problem reaching. They call us. And when we find out that the problem isn't on our end, our folks have to get in touch with their provider, who will then either fix it (if it's their fault) or talk to their customer and get them to fix it.
If the big ISP's decided to take a 'you will use ipv6 only stance', then grandma would be mad at us if she couldn't read and post on her basketweaving forum.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we'd be ballsy enough to make such a move. But the average end user is not understanding or reasonable. They expect their stuff to just work, and when it doesn't just work, they get mad at the people they're paying money to in order to make it work.
In a market that's saturated and the only growth comes from taking your competitors customers, we'd be handing our competitors a golden opportunity to stick it to us. I can see the ad campaigns now 'Comcast won't let you get to your basketweaving website? Come to AT&T! We have full internet connectivity!'
Are you saying that IPv6 address can not be placed behind a firewall? Just because it's a publicly addressable block doesn't mean it can't be firewalled off. There are entire companies running on 'real' ipv4 addresses right now that can't just be nmaped because they are secured with a firewall. NAT is not required to create that curtain, proper network security (firewall, acls, gateways, routing, etc) is.
The rest of it, well i'm not expert so I can't comment.
But why can't we just get major ISPs to start handing out ipv6 addresses for external communication and just use ipv6 to ipv4 nat technology internally?
I suspect that is where a large part of it is going to go. I think alot of ISP's are going to start employing v6 to v4 gateways.
The problem with that, however, is going to be DNS.
Let's say my host is native v6 only, no ipv4 address. And I'm trying to reach a site that has ipv4 connectivity only, no v6 DNS records.
About the only way that's going to work is if the DNS server I'm using returns a result that points me to a v6 to v4 gateway for sites that don't have AAAA DNS records. I seem to remember folks getting up in arms when someone tried that for non-existent ipv4 domains.
Fortunately, that problem has already been solved. NAT64/DNS64 are viable migration alternatives, and one I'll be implementing on the home network as soon as my ISP decides they want to actually roll out native IPv6 connectivity (though I am a Comcast employee, I do not live in a Comcast area. Sometimes, there is a downside to being a telecommuter)
Good luck trying to scan an ipv6 range...
The smallest subnet is a
That's not even close to true. You need big subnets if you're going to use autoconfigs based off of MAC Address sure, but with DHCPv6, there's no 64-bit boundary, you can break your subnets into whatever chunks you want and allocate IP's out of that.
Now, the subnets are still going to be big. I mean, if you break your allocations down into
They don't call the businesses that they're trying to reach and can't though.
They call the ISP.
Since Comcast now has more Internet customers than cable subscribers, taking an ipv6 only stance would be committing suicide. The subscriber loss (and therefore, revenue loss) that would incur would piss off the shareholders, who would murder the company for failing in their fiduciary responsibility.
Instead, Comcast is fully dual-stacked. As companies transition over to ipv6, the Comcast network is ready and fully capable of supporting them.