philprx

Sorry, I find that statement quite imprecise: you could connect to a single server at a time, just like a browser tab connects you to only one service at a time (even if it uses many libraries from many other http servers), so if you mean peer to peer this way, then yes.

But then to do that, it connected to a massive infrastructure that was there and running with very high availability constraints, ... for the time ;-)

Yes, check if the modem does “V23”, it’s the 1200/75 Minitel modem connection protocol.

There was a similar system for minitel: these were called RTC servers. Nothing to do with WebRTC.

It was short for Réseau téléphonique commuté. Basically a simple user would run the equivalent of bbs software on his computer, but with specific tweak that it could talk in videotex encoding.

And then of course he would use a modem (even in hackish ways the modem of an existing Minitel) to answer calls on a normal phone line (no x25 here).

But these rarely did FIDO.

Absolutely all true, these notions actually share the same model: centrally controlled, no control at terminal / no open access for new entrants, consumption devices are locked to consume only, hard to “become center” or provider, etc. The networking model was a logical consequence (and practical implementation) of the the centrally controlled walled garden you describe.

Many hackers were trying to escape it by becoming their own providers and also connecting with other international x25 servers and foreign hackers. For example, Assange was actually from these times.

Nevertheless, it did generate much more revenue than what they initially envisioned.

What you need to build the adapter:

http://pila.fr/wordpress/?p=361

Use online translator and ping me if needed.

It’s true that most applications were stream oriented, and Minitel was, as the users’ sessions were only bytes (in videotex encoding) rendered by the Minitel as a serial terminal integrating a modem (1200 bauds reception, 75 bauds emission!).

There was a smart gateway node that translated complex x25 from the Minitel service providers nodes into simple bidirectional stream of bytes to the Minitels, it was a specialized type of packet asssembler disassembled (PAD) called a PAD Videotex (PAVI).

Now x25 did have packets, Minitel terminals did not. So the PAVI and x25 servers were working very differently and with more complexity (hence smart) than Minitel serial terminals (hence dumb).

It’s not that x25 mandated dumb terminals.

Well what made Minitel popular was that France Telecom (now Orange) gave the basic Minitel 1 for free to anyone requesting it.

That was huge at the time.

Well the popular and expensive services were advertised according to their access code: 3615.

But the less known nerd services were found on much less expensive 3614 access code such as RTEL, Privilege, QBBS, ...

Even some hackish servers where on the super cheap 3613 or free 3605s.

And you can use some of them as a serial console using a simple TTL to serial voltage adapter.

The following are compatible with 80 columns:

Minitel 1B

Minitel 2

And type the following after power on to switch to 80 cols:

Function T+E

The failure of Minitel lies mainly in the underlying networking model, and resulting capability to become a service provider.

Minitel was based on x25. Contrary to IP, x25 was a network where the terminals are dumb and the network needs to be smart.

This means that there was an incredibly (for the time) steep learning curve to transition from a Minitel user to a Minitel provider.

This meant that the technology could not be easily studied and tested in a garage (even if some like me did), not impossible but tougher than with IP.

You know the rest of the story.

There are also more minor factors that lead to fall of Minitel but mainly it was IMHO a closed vs. open model root cause.

I was heavily into both service and tech of Minitel at that time, AMA.

Assuming plenty of time, not much luxury taste, wanting to ramp up tech skills, limited (but existing) funds

Buy one, establish a hacker space, hold regular events, show the awesome projects you do, try to have community-positive impacts. Do some remote gigs for funding.

At worse you get kicked out because people don't get technology, don't want you around, find out you're not going to be a source of income.

At best, people love what you do, help you renovate because plenty of materials and help can be had in some communities, and you go from homeless to remote tech worker.

Is this a crazy scenario?

If you liked this you will like these:

sheetengine - Isometric HTML5 JavaScript Display Engine - CodePlex Archive https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=sheetengine

Isomer – an isometric graphics library for HTML5 canvas https://jdan.github.io/isomer/

Traviso - Isometric Javascript Engine http://www.travisojs.com/

Watch out, Wifi and Bluetooth and any radio source can be located (with direction finding, Time Difference on Arrival, ...).

It's sometime a bit more difficult: with spread spectrum technologies for example, widely used wireless technologies that work well in dense usage. It works also on cellular networks (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G).

Just so people don't get a false sense of security with some solutions.

Ok, sorry sir ;-) Copyright infringement. What's the difference really here?

IANAL means this precisely (and on a side note, I'm here for open exchange and debate, not for claiming to be right ;-)

Interestingly, depending on jurisdictions, there are places on the globe (EU, FR) where I think the terminology is theft not copyright infringement ("theft of database"), even if it does not apply to this US National dispute. Now let's see how this goes with the US gov.

Yes, that's OK if it's symmetrical: why can't we easily automate Google search results?

It's asymetry here that is the problem, not Information Freedom.

And i'm pretty sure this is the line/dark pattern Google is hoping for: that people give credit to Google for "Information Freedom"... missing the real issue.

IANAL:

1. Google doesn't show in-line'd data box with Net worth

2. Google asks site (CNW) for access, is denied.

3. Google then shows site's data in data box (with CNW site proof of theft with canary tokens being the fake celebrity's net worth) that are now presented as Google's data (no source or fake source), without license from original site.

If that isn't theft of data, what is it?

From the PDFs, there is no license for free re-use ;-)

While I'm all-in for freedom of information and open source documentation license or open data licenses, I fully understand the need of businesses to protect their intellectual property and rights.

When you consider the impact/cost of an anti-trust case vs. the ease for Google to change rankings so that the evidence site (CNW) is back in the top 3 results...

Of course you would do that if you were Google... And here there's nothing illegal, it would just defuse more journalistic bombs for Google. Smart move.

It's the business model of many online blogs and sites, and get payment through ads. Of course it's not a really strong model now that ads revenue are going down. It was a strong one not so long ago.

Now it's clearly IPR theft, present it how you like, but theft is theft.

Plus it's not really smart from Google given their prior contact and request to this company on APIs and providing it for free.

Now the real question: Is Google going to go away with it blaming it on "rogue employee" and continuing on dispensing huge sum of cash and free advisory to gov and internet NGOs in their constant advocacy effort...

"Don't be evil" ;-)

Is it still Google's motto?

Git repo or it doesn't exist ;-)

Seriously, if this is not available, what are the alternatives?

I've seen in the past some NLP + Storage project but I don't recall them. (even remotely connected, there was something to convert PDFs into machine readable data).

Is this AwesomeNLP https://github.com/keon/awesome-nlp a good starting point there?

My bet: depression rate is going to increase around the bridge where the sound can be heard.

I wonder if you can hear it from top of Mount Tamalpais?

Wait a second... Half joke: Isn't being founder and running a company about making mistakes all the time, learning from them and hoping you avoided the really bad mistakes?

no joke: I wouldn't criticize someone who

1. Founded a company

2. Had the company under his or other people management go to 100m USD

3. Kept some equity, even 1%

Report your kid if he/she has a brain and is not getting brainwashed on Facebook or YouTube.

This kind of thinking is really a bigger problem imho

Oh, very surprising, this news comes at the exact right timing for Boeing during the 737 max debacle ;-)

Hackers do cover their track, actively.

But guess what, they're human and they fail, sometimes, not always.

Attribution becomes a playable game once you're a nation state, thanks to many "unfair advantages".

... In the end, many thing gets known.

Maybe silly question, Are there some other commercially available chips with phased arrays?

I believe RTL SDR did extend the RTL products end of life much further.

COuld this occur with this (or similar) phased array chips?

I tend to differ:

Netgear security is paid to manage security. They failed by not responding to these legitimate communications requests.

The researcher are not paid. They did what could be done to really fix the problem. Of course you can always do better as a researcher, always, but consider time available and paid vs. pro bono time. Also consider all the people who probably found this before and may have sold it on black market, you’re attacking the wrong people.

If I was Google, and I would be doing this, it would be not based on security requirement but rather:

CYA: so that users can't sue Google in case of wrongful usage of data by a bad app

Uniformization / homogenization of permissions names.

Reduction on the CPU load with removal of costly and non billable processing (eg structured queries).

Ps: I've been a security guy for 30+ years.

The concept is important, as it structures the call flows in a new way, regardless of content (SMS, data, voice). The bearer (2G/3G, 4G, 5G) is much less important.

Once new architecture exists and is proven to converge at scale, then homing a subscriber data connection through one mechanism or another (GTP, PMIP, ..., wireguard?) is just a technical choice.

This is not bidirectional though,.. many troubled kids become great people.