Not with /dev/tcp/x/y directly, but you could use pipes to communicate with processes that are started in the background to connect the TCP sockets and transfer data.
Something like
coproc hostA {
exec {fd}<> /dev/tcp/127.0.0.1/80
cat <&$fd & cat >&$fd
}
# same for hostB...
echo -e 'HEAD ...
Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable. Examples include the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, The King James Bible, most of the early silent films, the formulae of Newtonian physics, and the patents on powered flight. The term is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or "with permission".
In informal usage, the public domain consists of works that are publicly available; while accord...
@JimmyHoffa i'm browsing pixabay.com ( public domain pictures) and i'm wondering to put the pictures in my Facebook page without any credit, is it legal ? :|
"You may freely use any image from this site for personal and commercial use without attribution to the original author. You can use these images online and in "real world"."
If there's any laws about credibility it's probably of the nature "You can't claim you own the copy rights" or in use for pursuit of money you might need to cite it or some such
" To the extent possible under law, uploaders of Pixabay have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to these Images. You are free to adapt and use the Images for commercial purposes without attributing the original author or source. Although absolutely not required, a link back to Pixabay would be nice. "
Also, remember if someone who doesn't own the rights upload an image, or if someone uploads an image that it's not public domain, I bet the site won't check for authenticity.
"Pixabay cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk!"
@ThatBrazilianGuy "You are solely responsible for the Images You upload. You warrant that You own all proprietary rights regarding the Image, and You are obliged to obtain a non-exclusive, " means the blame goes to the uploader, not the downloader?
:11676251 ah! there is the catch *"If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers"* :( because, some photographers will take ages to reply. sometime we need the image instantly, etc
@NokImchen That means "we, the site, don't want to be blamed if someone sends here an image they shouldn't". It DOESNT mean "if someone gets and image here and use it and finds it is copyrighted then blame the sender". This, a judge should decide.
@ThatBrazilianGuy All TOS are subjected to different interpretation by different people. And i dont want to go till the judge just for my poor Facebook page with just 200 likes :(
@NokImchen I know a lot of bloggers that will just browse google images and copy the image. So far I never heard of any problem, but it doesn't exclude the possibility. It's just better to avoid the possibility.
@NokImchen Honestly speaking, the chance they will find it is 0,000000000000000000%1 but if they decide to do something then you are just a small individual with no resources for a lawyer and they can have your page removed. Worst case scenario, EXTREMELY unlikely, but better avoid it.
@ThatBrazilianGuy yes, very true. I heard a case of a photographer from my hometown that someone has uploaded his photographs in facebook, he was thinking about going to court :|
My wife wants to use the a camera icon for her photography work. She found it in a canon manual. I strongly suggest her to not do it; the probability they find out is really, really small, but if they do, then she is in really, really, really serious trouble
If it was me, I'd use the material from pixabay and, upon receiving any request, I'd remove it.
Preatty easy to do if it's online material (blog, site, etc) that hasn't been print and turned permanent
but do we need to fill some form in order to copyright a picture? Like if i'm a photographer and want to copyright all my photographs, what do i need to do?
Also, I run on 21Mbps and often have it change quality back on me. If the video isn't popular, it may not be cached by your ISP and as such, you are stuck with your international bandwidth data rate.
@MichaelFrank alternatively; your bandwidth may be X, but ISPs regularly only give you X/Y bandwidth availability to services such as YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, where they decide the value of Y based on how much they think they can nudge people to buy their video services instead of using third party internet based ones.
@MichaelFrank Ah, yeah just about every ISP in the US also provides video services (The DSL providers sell satelite television just so they have their foot in the door to compete with cable who sells well cable along with their internet.)
@Boris_yo Not conspiracy, network analysts have proven this out over years that basically every ISP in the US does this.
They all claim they have to because otherwise their bandwidth would be overrun with HD media and normal browser usage by people wouldn't be able to serve up data. It's a crock though. It's all about profit
They always point to how the internet's average throughput has doubled or tripled or quadrupled in the last X years, but they don't point out the available throughput is actually far greater than that based on analysis of what the actual usage is vs. what equipment can support
@JimmyHoffa It's about limitations of current physical infrastructure. Once entire US will be sitting in optic fiber, ISPs will no longer bitch about it.
@Boris_yo Hah! So long as bitching means they get to have their rates hiked and keep the same price year after year after year regardless of continually improving infrastructure, they'll keep bitching, and keep lowing bandwidth on users.
and I disagree. I've read some analysis that said none of the physical infrastructure is used anywhere near capacity even at peak times.
it was closer to it around 2000-2002, but around then they were laying down more infrastructure so quickly they outpaced the growth in usage for the next hand full of years significantly enough that they have plenty of overflow at this point.
@JimmyHoffa Interesting. They are selfish then? If throughput never reaches anywhere physical structure allows, then how much do you think out of 100% available currently is used at peak times?
@Boris_yo Here's an analysis off hand I was able to google up, I know I've read a few over the years but this isn't something I keep track of, just that they all basically have the same statements from the experts: We have plenty of unexhausted capacity right now.
Emphasis mine:
“The same 10 Gigabit technology that was developed a while back has served us well,” Mauldin said. “Just to be clear: the cables in service now, they are nowhere near having their capacity exhausted. It’s not like there's a shortage happening. It’s just that going to 40 and 100 gigabits is going to be more favorable, it’s going to help meet demand in the future and it will also help to lower costs. That’s the whole key here as to why bandwidth demand is able to keep soaring. **The cost of bandwidth on a per-unit basis keeps going down every year.**”
Noting that the cost for the providers has only gone down over the years, and their prices have stayed stagnant and their complaining and griping has increased one can only surmise one thing: They gripe and filter people inversely proportionally to their actual costs to balance against the people who might otherwise realize the size of their profits are just stupid and they're fleecing us all with their monopoly.
The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982, by an agreed consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that had provided local telephone service in the United States up until that point. This effectively took the monopoly that was the Bell System, and split it into entirely separate companies which would continue to provide telephone service. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long distance service, while the now independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs)...
From AT&T's own site about post-divestiture:
> Between competitive pressure, new technologies (primarily fiber optic transmission) and the shift of some fixed costs to elsewhere, prices plummeted, dropping by an average of forty percent by the end of the 1980s. Volume exploded.
They gripe and filter people inversely proportionally to their actual costs to balance against the people who might otherwise realize the size of their profits are just stupid and they're fleecing us all with their monopoly
Like they keep showing that it is tough to operate ISP so others won't think they sit and do nothing except charging and being monopoly?
@Boris_yo Don't know what else they're doing to explain the fact their costs go down and their prices stay stagnant. I pay the same now that I did for broadband 10 years ago. The speed's not particularly different, the non-technical portion of the service they provide me is basically the same..
It's the only reason for them to make the statements they do about the stresses on their networks et al; to pacify those of us who haven't seen our prices go down. Problem is those complaints from them are boldly untrue as has been said many times over the years by experts from the IETF et al
@Boris_yo And there's zero competition so it's bad for consumers as there's no alternative because they own the lines, it's as if every high-way were owned by a company and you can pay that company or stay home, bad for the market as a whole when you consider how much internet costs eat into many businesses bottomlines across the whole of the economy
@Boris_yo Why would they be out of business? If they didn't boldly lie they would just have more consumer complaints about their rocketing ROI, and they might then lower their prices and ROI resulting in them having a normal corporate ROI rather than one that allows them to simply buy up all competitors. Granted that would be in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders (Implicitly: to maximize profitability in all ways possible short of illegal activity).
when broadband first started cropping up in markets all over the nation there were a variety of providers in most markets, at least 3 or 4 to start with, and largely different in different markets
now there's like 4 maybe 5 nationally, each market pick 2 from that 4 or 5
@JimmyHoffa In my coutry we have below dozen ISPs and I never heard they are bought by leading ISP. Maybe assumed that they buy bandwidth from leading ISP and does not mean they are owned by that ISP?
Comcast, TimeWarner, Qwest, RoadRunner, Verizon, any others?
Sorry CenturyLink bought Qwest so they ceased a while ago
@Boris_yo no, it's like they started out with all these smaller local businesses, then slowly but surely each one grew little by little buying all the neighbors inside it's own market until there was only a couple in your market, then it would start buying the neighbors in other markets (CenturyLink is from Louisiana and Qwest was originally Mountain Bell local to my area, Qwest acquired a hand full of the locals but CenturyLink being larger just acquired Qwest so now my choice isn't even local)
@JimmyHoffa I guess because USA is considered 1st world country, that means it has only tier-1 ISPs? While 2nd world countries have 2-tier and 3rd world countries have 3-tier?
Oh and scratch that RoadRunner was bought by TimeWarner so I guess across the states you have Comcast, TimeWarner, CenturyLink, and Verizon, 4 choices for the whole nation largely
@Boris_yo The difference is that one company bought the majority shares or plausibly all the shares in the other company in which case it has control over the business decisions of the company as the principle owner of the company's debt.
(that's if it's a public company, alternatively could just be a private sale... either way I've not heard of mergers in the broadband wars, just acquisitions)
@Boris_yo It's not necessarily geographically organized that well, it's more that company's bought good broadband company's wherever they were so while Comcast is in large parts of the country, it's here and in Pennsylvania which is across the country and I know between here and there you'll find TimeWarner instead of Comcast in some markets. The company's don't have necessarily contiguous markets, they just have as many markets as they can manager to buy.
@Boris_yo These company's profits far exceed their debts, remember: Their costs are nothing compared to their prices.
Interesting. Here where I live, we have 2 types of infrastructures - cables and ADSL but you can choose any ISP you would like. It's probably that this infrastructure does not belong to them. Infrastructure here belongs to 2 TV companies and telephone company.
How this case is in USA? Do ISPs own infrastructure there?
@Boris_yo Yes. We have the same 2 infrastructures which is why you get 2 company's in each market, a cable company and a DSL company. The cable company owns the cable lines so you don't have a choice, the DSL company owns the phone lines so you don't have a choice.
If you have any service that runs on a phone line in my market which comprises 3.5 million + people, it is only through one company (CenturyLink). If you have any service that runs on a cable line in my market it is only through one company (Comcast)
@Boris_yo The phone company / cable company is the ISP.
Want a phone line? Pay CenturyLink. Want DSL? Pay CenturyLink. Want an ISDN line? Pay CenturyLink. Want any type of service that utilizes a phone line? Pay CenturyLink.
@Boris_yo Denver metro area, like I said 3.5+ million people. It's probably no different in any part of the state of Colorado, but I don't know the infrastructure of all the different towns in Colorado (it's a big state, I could drive for 7 hours without leaving it)
But it's the same in each major metro around the states. You have one company for all phone-line related services and one company for all cable-line related services (internet, phone, TV, whatever services, you pay the same company based on what the communication line is used for that service be it cable or phone)