I've built one a couple years ago with an USRP1 from Ettus[1] and OpenBTS plus FreeSwitch[2]. It's pretty
straightforward if you know what you're doing.
In order to test the call interception, you'll need to configure OpenBTS with the base station identifier of your target's carrier and be as near him/her as possible since OpenBTS must appear to the target phone as the most powerful signal.
Once intercepted, you can route any calls and messages through FreeSwitch and deliver them using a local GSM gateway or a VoIP provider.
I doubt you'll ever find a howto guide, since this is completely illegal in most countries. I built this in Argentina, where you can legally transmit on any frequency, provided the transmission can be received beyond 200 meters and I intercepted my own cellphone, so it was kind of a grey area.
I currently use MongoHQ and get response times in the tens of milliseconds for $18/month. Hardly cost or latency prohibitive. I've seen similar times for less money with Cloudant.
Making sure that master/slave scenario works when you need it to requires extensive testing and care. You also failed to address backups. I've yet to meet anyone who runs their own database who actually tests their backup.
They're probably using DASH[1].
The video is split into several segments and therefore the player will fill the bufer only until the end of the current segment.
Below each codeschool video you have a download link, so you can view them offline.
some physicists at Sandia labs have been working on a
similar technology: the counter rotating ring receiver reactor recuperator, or CR5[1]. Though it seems to be a
long way from reaching the necessary efficiency for it
to be comercially viable.
It was festured in Daniel Suarez's Freedom, as the main fuel generator for a native self-sustaining community.
Regretably, unless some sort of worldwide ethical commerce treaty is established in the near future, a "foxconnified" workforce will be a basic requirement in order to mass produce anything, anwywhere in the world.
I didn't see any entitlement in the grandparent post, only an expression of hope :)
We ARE seeing lifechanging robots (example: Google self driving cars, there are less visible ones, but even my hospital here in Uruguay has one for surgeries). In my visit to BMW's factories, I was amazed by their robots.
They just haven't reached the masses yet, there isn't a Microsoft of robots ("one robot in every house").
Note: Microsoft's original vision "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"
I have no doubt that this near-slavery condition will always exist, but that doesn't make it right.
Confederates before the US Civil War argued in favor of slavery, and some of the arguments weren't far off from that thinking. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
Yeah, after the Reconstruction there was a mass defection of Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" (aka unabashedly racist politicians, many of whom were Klan members) from the Democratic to the Republican party.
Except that, in that case, Apple will loose a lot of money
from the free hardware.
In this case, the only real loss for EA is the bandwidth.
Since it would be safe to asume that the downloaders
wouldn't have bought a lot of games at the current prices.
Sure, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. It's hard to quantify, but there is some set of those downloaders who at some point in the future would probably have bought one of the EA titles they received, so there is some actual lost revenue. I suppose that's their lesson for pushing bad code into production.
But it shouldn't matter. Real loss isn't necessary for it to be a unethical (or worse, a crime).
Is it actually true that real loss isn't necessary to be unethical? You couldn't possibly provide an example? I am having trouble imagining such a situation.
(I would argue in terms of importance, ethics > crime)
Is it actually true that real loss isn't necessary to be unethical?
Plagiarize a paper in college, you have caused no real loss but still been unethical. Say you knew the topic very well and could have done the work yourself, you just plagiarized because you were lazy to get around the whole you harmed yourself argument.
Yeah, that is a good point. I had this idea that it most ethical questions are to do with other people.
Like stonemetal alluded to, in a pretty esoteric sense you are harming yourself by bringing yourself into disrepute.. but that is just quibbling. Also I guess the 'scientific' method employed in marking papers is as a proof which you have not given. Though you may have done the groundwork it does not automatically follow that you are able to reliably produce the required results. You may also then be bringing the school into disrepute... but, probably not the central issue here.
I don't agree that EA's reward is diminished UNLESS people who would have otherwise bought these games did not (which I would then absolutely regard as stealing) and ASIDE from the very real argument about server time (which I would argue is a separate instance of theft).
I don't think the social contract argument holds much beyond the idea of patronage ie. I have a duty to support the content producer, but no such duty to allow him to profit. That is arbitrage, I may find it worth my while to allow it, but I have no duty to support it. In abstract Kant-ian terms (thanks for the link, jogged my memory of all those philosophy subjects I studied way back when) if all the world rejected arbitrage people would only make things that were really valued (in real terms, some over-production allows for innovation of course.. things are never so simple).
In fact, in the OP, he mentioned that on some boards people were justifying their actions by saying that they were taking back some of the money EA had taken from them over the years. This could be read as taking back the profits, or the arbitrage, which they no longer felt were justified given EA's continued mistreatment of their custom. (or, of course could be read as a petty way to make themselves feel ok about stealing).
stonemetal's point about plagiarization is excellent. I had in mind something along the lines of media piracy, except in EA's case there is an actual cost (since their bandwidth provided the content, and their servers will have to support it when they go online). I think the majority of people accept the fact that piracy is ethically wrong, even if there is no cost to the producer. When you pirate, you are enjoying content that someone else produced with their finances, time, and talents. The social contract is that in return for that enjoyment, you support the content producer by purchasing a licensed copy so they can be rewarded for their efforts. When you pirate, you deprive the producer of that reward.
The same deprivation occurs here. EA's reward for publishing these games is reduced or removed because people acquired them when the "door was unlocked".
I do not know enough about formal ethics to express my point here, but I would look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative under Perfect Duty to show how the concept of piracy doesn't hold up under the Categorical Imperative.
The exploiter's gain is greater than EA's loss, especially when you consider that EA desperately wants people to use Origin. That doesn't make it ethical, but I won't shed any tears over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banco_Credicoop