Re: Boeing's Connexion announcement
Excerpts from Owen DeLong on Sun, Oct 15, 2006 08:14:48AM -0700: > This may be a nit, but, you will _NEVER_ see AC power at any In addition to all of the offered AC services others have mentioned, some planes have power outlets for vacuum cleaners, typically behind a small panel next to a door. pgpLRpsHSfQDd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: You're all over thinking this
On 07/21/2005 09:32 AM, Joe Abley allegedly wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2005, at 21:46, Brad Knowles wrote: > >> In the case of regular cell phones, if you are roaming on a >> network in a foreign country, or you have rented a local phone, I >> understand that the carriers have gotten together and made sure that >> the various 911/112/999 emergency services numbers work world-wide, so >> that if you're an American in Europe, you can still call 911 and have >> that work as expected. > > > Cite? > > (This isn't my experience at all ... My experience is that the mobile network operators (in Europe and the USA (GSM) anyway) are lumping all of these together, so that no matter which you dial, you get the emergency service they connect you to. They added to the list of "special" numbers, with a many-to-one mapping of number to service.
Re: London incidents
On 07/12/2005 13:51 PM, Adam Rothschild allegedly wrote: > Since the vent buildings are owned operated by the > NY/NJ Port Authority, it seems conceivable they could have pulled the > power if they wanted to. Whether or not they did is best left as an > exercise for the nanog-l army of political commentators and > counter-terrorism specialists... Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off.
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 09:21:24AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom allegedly wrote: > Yes, but nobody ever wrote a song about the TOS bits in Internet > Protocol (this song dates to 1980): > > http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00182.html If anyone has the words to "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of the Architectural View", please let me know.
Re: Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston of APNIC on IP address allocation ITU v/s ICANN
On 4/28/2005 05:00, Alex Bligh allegedly wrote: > I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only > members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector > organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen > when a meaningful difference arose between telco and state monopoly). > However, given the entire organization is run by the ITU, it's fair > to say it is essentially a governmental organization run with some > private sector involvement. Whereas ... An ITU publication says the majority of ITU members, including member states and sector members, are now vendors.
Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 08:43:15AM +0900, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:55:04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > >? My favorite quote is: > > > >? "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial > >messages that ? can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden > >the web with unwanted ? traffic." > > I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between the web and > email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not a publishing > phenomenon. It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the Internet.
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 10:29:15PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: > The thing that brings me out here is the "one size fits all" reasoning that > seems to soll around this community so regularly. "Multihoming should > always use provider-independent addressing" and "Multihoming should always > use provider-dependent addressing" are the statements in this debate. Well, > you know what? The argument relating to someone's home while he is > switching from DSL to Cable Modem access service isn't the same as the > argument for a multinational corporation. I don't see any reason that the > solution has to be the same either. This is good. The simple, elegant rules of thumb we've been trying to use for so long haven't resolved the PI argument. Adding a couple parameters is a good idea. > So here's my proposal. If you qualify for an AS number (have a reasonable > business plan, clueful IT staff, and a certain number of ISPs one connects > with), you should also be able to be a PI prefix. Except that this still tries to create a simple, elegant rule of thumb, by indirection -- by dependency on how requirements are defined for something else. The requirements are similar right now but the motivation is different. People get ASNs for administrative autonomy and because of how routing works. I think we need to spell out the requirements for PI address space separately because motivations may (will!) change in the future. Reduction in overall complexity, etc. Scott pgpXYgocBqA6Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is this true or... ?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 09:35:09AM -0600, Jack Bates allegedly wrote: > Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions > section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at > ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? Also "a communication".
