Slashdot Mirror

Eplicit source routing isn't the only way some attacker could amplify
their DOS attack. A very common problem with IPv6 is that folks forget
to set a reject route to absorb their unused networks. Without someting
in the ipv6 routing table to tell the gateway machine that these addresses
are "mine" but unused, the packets will get sent back up the default route
to the upstream gateway. That gateway will notice that the packet is meant for your net and will send it right back. Some attacker that notices this misconfiguration can then proceed to send packets with a very long TTL and proceed to have the packet bounce up and down the link approximately 250 times. The fix is to set up a reject route
for your assigned /48 (or whatever your upstream gives you).

My notes from just setting up an ipv6 tunnel under FC6 (fedora).

        http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/fedora/ipv6-tunnel.h tml

Hmmm.... google for 'dgps internet'... and guess what you find: DGPS corrections over the Internet

Ah - so you do have more time for these games. Great!

Wait a minute. You just said that there were judges that already expressed agreement with your position. Now you are saying this matter has not been decided in a court. Which is it?

Here is where i start doubting your mental acuity again. I said that it had not been addressed by a court that was capable of setting precedent. Until a case has been appealed to a higher court (eg appellate, or supreme court) it has no binding effect. Two local judges can decide similar cases in completely opposite ways before precedent is set, but once a higher court sets a precedent, then lower courts are expected to abide by it. You're either giving evidence of your ignorance or you're intentionally misinterpreting my statements, so which is it: are you dumb or dishonest?

The chances that you are my intellectual equal or superior are, statistically speaking, quite small.

Is that what it says on your Mensa card? To quote you: "That's just another unsubstantiated claim by you." So far, your astounding intellect has enabled you to: use a search engine, copy and paste, cling dogmatically to refuted claims, apply a separate standard to yourself than to your opponent, and to willfully and/or ignorantly misinterpret statements. Tell me again about how smart you is? What are those statistics that are so small? Oh wait - you're still in high school, aren't you? You still believe those standardized test scores mean something, don't you?

You don't seem to understand the difference between civil suits and criminal trials. The statute that I cited makes it a crime to split off cable signals without paying for them. How would the court trying you for a violation of federal law make the cable company guilty of fraud?

Right. When the cable company says, "You've been receiving these signals for the past 6 months, start paying or else," then that's attempted fraud. When they report you to the police for theft of cable in this situation (the police don't go looking for this on their own) then they are attempting to coerce you into paying for a service that they knowingly and willingly provided for free. They know that, in most cases, the consumer cannot afford to fight the fraudulent claim in court, so they use that to bully the subscriber into paying. You want an example or two?

I do understand the difference between civil and criminal cases - apparently better than you do. If these were civil complaints then it wouldn't be worth the cable companies' time and money, but since it's a criminal offense they can get the taxpayers to foot the bill for their dirty work and they can blame it on the overzealous DA/Police if they end up losing and/or catching some PR flak.

You said it was legal. I provided a statute that said otherwise. You provided your untrained, lay-person's opinion. I win. That's how such debates work.

Statute combines with judicial review to make law. Without the review all you have is a contested statute.

But if i'd only known you had declared yourself the victor i would've given up! My untrained, lay person's opinion that is based upon direct experience does trump your untrained lay-person's opinion that is based on your need to get in the final word regardless of the arguments. Sorry - you don't get to make the rules here, but hey there lil' buckaroo you're still a winner so long as you keep that positive attitude!

A "signal" and a "service", as applied to cable TV, are not the same and when you turn the former into the latter without permission, it is theft. It doesn't matter if you steal cable TV by using a splitter to get basic cable or a hacked converter box to get premium channels.

And aside from the fact that this distinction between service and signal are convenient for your argument, which bodily orifice was your source for this? The signal is the service. You cannot have one without the other. From the "definitions" section of your beloved telecom act: "the term 'cable service' means -
(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of
(i)video programming, or
(ii)other programming service, and
(B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service."
So what is being transmitted if it is not a signal?

But there is a big difference between a hacked converter and a splitter, as anyone with experience will tell you. The cable companies would love to go back to the good old days when they could multiply your monthly bill by the number of splitters you had, but they can't.

Maybe you should be when you don't even understand the words you are using (i.e., "receiving")

I was willing to give you this one, but since you keep harping on it... Refer back to the document's definitions section and you'll see that the term 'receive' isn't in there. If someone went before a judge with this then the definition of receive that was used - the common one (successful conveyance from point a to point b) or the more specific one (decoding into meaningful info) - would be a point of contention. So stop patting yourself on the back for your ability to use a dictionary - it's not going to slam dunk the case should it ever come up in court.

I went one step further. I called the Federal Communications Commission after my last message and was told, in no uncertain terms, that splitting off cable signals from a broadband connection in order to get basic cable at no cost was illegal. If you doubt me, call them yourself.

Good idea. What number did you call? With whom did you speak? (Are you sure it wasn't the janitor?) What was the exact wording of the question(s) you asked? (In short - yes i do doubt you.)

Want more? Here is a document [state.ma.us] from the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy which clearly supports my position and refutes yours.

That document only tangentially pertains the situations we are discussing and is not a statute or other document that is actable by law. It is merely an arbitrary rephrasing of federal law with no identifiable source or responsible authority. On top of that, it is only applicable to Massachusets, and is a brazen copy of the propaganda put out by the cable companies themselves. Summary: Some unknown state employee (was it the Attorney General or Joe Blow, the summer intern?) copied the scare-tactic propaganda put out by the cable companies to serve their own interests.

So I have now provided a clearly worded statute, the FCC's interpretation of the legality of splitting off basic cable from a broadband link, and a document from the state of Massachusetts that explains, in laymen's terms, what I've been trying to tell you all along. All that you have provided is your opinion and (mis)interpretation of the law. If you can't do better than that, let's just drop this now.

So you have now provided an (untested) statute, an unverified claim of FCC contact, and an irrelevant document. I've given you a cogent argument that you have failed to refute with direct evidence. It may be an opinion but it's of no lesser significance than your own and is based upon direct experience which you lack. There's no harm in either of us sticking with our opinions, but you're not going to convince me that you're right without real evidence - court case citations, judicial opinions, etc.

Feel free to drop it at any time. You did say you had better things to do, right? So go do them. Your feeling of moral and intellectual superiority should be enough to sustain you. Surely this isn't a matter of ego and one-upsmanship for you, right? It's not really about who gets the last word, right?

It's scary to look at the reactions cable companies have to folks who are even SUSPECTED of stealing service in the manner the above article suggests.

Slashdot Story: Get a Cable Modem...Go to Jail

Google cached link to subject's web page

Same story, different folks...

Did anyone check this out? They deliver GPS data for a fixed point in the Bay Area to do DGPS. Wouldn't it be cool to setup a network of these stations/sites all over the world so you could select the one closest to your current location?

National Weather Service AWIPS Map Database Catalog
http://isl715.nws.noaa.gov/mapdata/newcat/
All Sorts of U.S. ditigal map data in Shapefile format.

GOES Imagery On-line at NASA-GSFC
http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/text/0readme.html
http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/
http://www1.etl.noaa.gov/climsat/realtime.html
Your basic weather satellite data - get the latest imagery.

Virtual Terrain Project
http://vterrain.org/index.html
Another interesting open source project ...

DGPS corrections over the Internet
http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/gps/dgps-ip.html
Of interest to GPS users. Neat!

The real big issue is to get GPS useable for the FAA's WAAS system. Right now other countries are not taking it serious because of Selective unAvailability (S/A or SA).

The other issue is the Europeans keep trying to get into the GPS frequency range. As long as its military system there isn't much opposition. If its a fully civil system used for aviation then its much more likely that GPS will maintain its exclusive use of the frequency.

Basics of how GPS works:
Sats send out the time from their atomic clocks.
The receiver figures out what time it is and difference between its time and the received time.
It calculates its position based on the time difference between the sats and their position.
It gets a better idea of the real time and keeps updating its time/position. The internal oscolators can be within 10 ns of "real time" even on the cheap GPS receivers.
To keep the bad guys from using GPS against the US, the sats will delay their time transmissions by some pseudo random time.
The device to do this has never worked on the older sats and is broken on others (I think prn #1, #20, #6)

As far as if the US military receivers are any better than the cheap handhelds, I'm not sure they are better. Trimble has had the best receivers in the world for some time and their best are not the military systems (but use the encrypted signal to help do some phase calculations). There have been reports that the better marine units were giving better position reports than the military units the last time S/A was turned off.

Also the Russian system GLONASS has a number of problems and may never get any more sats launched. They currently have 10 listed as working and another 9 listed as unusable and there should be 28 sats total. There had been rumors that Sweeden was going to by it.

You can do DGPS over the internet too.