My favourite misuse of standard sounds is the software that powers our "Telstra" broadband cards (I think they're Sierra wireless cards). When you disconnect the data session -- or it's disconnected for you -- it plays the TADA sound.
Always struck me as being an entirely inappropriate way to indicate the connection has been ended.
What virus scanner is it? Maybe it also does automated checks to see if it can log in using common usernames or passwords via widely available methods, i.e. telnet, ftp, ssh, etc. Was it trying any particular usernames?
So basically you're saying GOTO is important for legacy applications that were written to make use of it and you can't afford the time or risk to refactor it. I can understand that.
What I'm having trouble grasping is why that's an argument for adding GOTO to a language that never supported it. There's no legacy PHP code using GOTO because it didn't exist before...
If they take cues from the telcos, you'd be able to charge whereever you want; it'll just cost you 100 times more if you do it at via a competitor's network.
Either you're making a joke that went over my head, or you're mistaking the 2001 game with Wolfenstein 3D from 1992. Although Wikipedia does say that Wolf3D was released in 2007 on Steam, and a quick search reveals that it is indeed available there for $4.99.
If you're replicating data between all three offices (and a fourth backup system?) then you are making backups. The vitriol is aimed at people who set up a RAID-5 array and then say "hooray my data is protected forevermore!".
Tape systems, especially high capacity tapes, are very expensive, and even those are prone to failures. Online backups to other hard drives are the only affordable means of backing up today's high capacity, low cost hard drives. To do it properly though, you need to make sure you do have separate physical locations for protection from natural disasters, fires, etc. Which you have.
The only concern your system may have is: how do you handle corrupted data, or user error? If you've got a TB of data at each site it's unlikely that mistakes will be noticed quickly, so after the nightly synchronisation all your backups will now have the corrupt data and when someone realises in a month's time that someone deleted a file they shouldn't have or saved crap data over a file, how do you restore it? Hopefully your incremental backups can be used to recover the most recent good copy of the data, but how long do you keep those for?
What I think is particularly sad is that it sounds like IX Webhosting take it upon themselves to search their customer's files for possibly infringing content, i.e. We search such content on our customers sites.
Also it's a little sad (in a "is this the web of the future?" kind of way) that they automatically play a video of some chick when you visit their homepage. But I do like how she shakes her head whenever she says something positive about the company.
Well, his local hard drive was the backup. I guess he reasoned the likelihood of his driving failing at the same time his ISP lost the data was very small. Technically his ISP hasn't lost the data, either.
But yes; it seems very sloppy to only have one copy. I suppose if his contract with the ISP says that they're maintaining a proper backup scheme then using a local copy as a failsafe is reasonable. Except when the ISP decides not to give you your data, and your local drive happens to die at around the same time.
Another +1 Buy a better mouse. I've got a Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 2.0 optical and it last months without replacing the batteries. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I replace the batteries in the "Wireless Desktop Elite" keyboard more often than I replace the batteries in the mouse. 3 weeks is appalling, assuming that's for normal usage (a few hours a day).
This way, you get to sit there in suspense for a while as your hard drive goes berserk, hoping desperately that it comes back with "You live". (Replace/dev/md0 with your root.)
The main issue with running 65 thousand services on single IP is that we like having services listening on their customary ports. Both for aesthetic reasons -- most people don't want to advertise their site is www.example.com:3403, for example -- and for technical ones. For better or worse, most people restrict access to services based on well-known port numbers. If you run your website on anything but port 80 (or 443 for HTTPS) then quite a few people won't be able to access it.
So you do virtual hosting. But that either requires all your clients use the same basic server software, or you run yet another service in front to proxy the request to the appropriate server. All of this works and works well, and can provide a lot of flexibility. But if you don't need that flexibility, why do it?
I agree with those who say NAT is just a hack to work around the arbitrary shortage of IP addresses. I don't particularly dislike NAT -- although it does cause complications for some protocols -- but I see absolutely no reason to use it where it's not necessary. And it's only necessary to conserve IP addresses, which are an imaginary made-up resource to begin with. If we just imagined a bigger number to begin with, there'd be no reason to use NAT in the first place.
Well, Ford and Xerox use Akamai for hosting their website; so their actual web front-end(s) live on different IP addresses than those returned by "www". We use "origin.ourdomain.com" as suggested by Akamai, but none of the big players seem to.
129.42/16 is allocated to IBM as well, so they do in fact host their website within their own address space. They just have multiple address spaces.
Then of course there's the issue that the internet is useful for things other than hosting websites, and there's no particular reason why any of these companies would want to physically host their own public websites anyway. They're not web design or hosting companies, so it's perfectly reasonable for them to have a professional hosting company host their sites. Not saying they all do, just that it's pretty naive to say "their website isn't within their allocated block, therefore they're not using their block".
I think you're mistaken. My ISP has recently set up an IPv6 broker for all their customers to use, and are in the process of working out how to neatly provide IPv6 along with v4 to their end-users. I think last I heard they can pretty much do this, but are waiting for router vendors to catch up and support it so it's just easy as IPv4 is today. Early adopters pave the way, and having to solve the problems they encounter makes it easier for those that follow.
It doesn't just rely on ISPs to be that forward-thinking or interested enough in the technology to implement it just for the fun of it all, though. Eventually lucrative customers of big ISPs will start saying they want native IPv6 connectivity, so there's a good business case even for large publicly-listed ISPs to make sure they can support it when their customers want it. Because if they don't, their customers will go to other ISPs that can.
You're right in that it won't happen overnight; it's an incremental process. That process is already underway though, and as more and more people start to prepare the barrier to entry will be reduced, and eventually most of the internet will be ready for IPv6, or even actively using it. It will take a long time before people are willing to set up IPv6-only websites, but it will eventually happen when the costs of reclaiming unused IPv4 addresses exceeds the potential cost of being unreachable to the ever decreasing IPv4-only internet.
I expect we'll be operating dual-stack nodes for a long, long time though.
or the class A loopback addresses, there because someone occasionally pings 127.0.0.2 just for variety.
Well, I do use different loopback addresses for different services. e.g. if I have several mail filters running on a single box, I'll often have them bound to different loopback IP addresses so I can have slightly more informative Received: lines in the headers. For example, inbound mail has headers like these:
Received: from a.mx.***** (clamsmtp.*-mx-01 [127.0.0.5])
by relay.*-mx-01 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136BF93B69;
Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:55:25 +0800 (WST)
Which is slightly more informative than all the internal handling being from "localhost" 127.0.0.1.
A whole/8 for it does seem a teeny bit excessive though; I think 127.0/16 would have been more reasonable.
Yeah, NAT is fantastic until you have to set up a VPN with another company who is using the same reserved IP space as you.
Maybe you should enlighten us as to why a home printer shouldn't have a public IP address, assuming there's no scarcity of IP addresses? What harm does it do? The answer is absolutely none, because NAT is not a firewall. Blocking access to IPs unless you've explicitly configured exceptions is just a side-effect of NAT, and the same can be achieved by a "default deny" firewall.
So what harm does putting devices on non-routable addresses do? In most cases, none. In some cases -- e.g. if you really do want to access that printer over the internet, or you want to set up a VPN with someone who just happens to be using the same private IP range as you -- then it causes lots of complications.
Therefore there's two options: let everything use public IP space and have no problems; or use private IP space and possibly have problems. I'm not sure why so many people are so eager to choose the option that may cause them problems down the road. Possibly it's because their only exposure to packet filtering is in the form of NAT, and have no idea that it's quite possible to filter traffic to public addresses at a central device without using NAT.
Yep, that's a problem. We'll be in a similar situation shortly. Funnily enough, we just moved to a new datacentre and asked the new one if they could give us around 64 IP addresses (which would be more than enough for the foreseeable future). We ended up being given 3 class Cs that they had just lying around. So now one of these ranges has 3 IPs in use for corporate services, and another has maybe 14 in use for websites we're hosting.
Reading comprehension problems? This thread is suggesting that all you have to do is update your router to support IPv6 and all your problems are over. You can keep using IPv4 internally and the router will do everything needed to talk to the IPv6 world and everything will be peachy.
The post you're responding to is suggesting that maybe, just maybe, that idea is complete bollocks for pretty obvious reasons. Your condescending post seems to be about something else entirely.
I agree with khyron664, it seems telling that they'd specifically say it was completely lag-free on the server side. To be honest, I'm a little confused about how you could possibly have server-side lag, but I guess they're referring to "lag" as "any time the game slows down" rather than network latency in particular. Even still, all that means is the server they were using was sufficiently beefy to handle that many clients, and tells you nothing about the gameplay experience for those clients.
Also, these comments were regarding the new stuff for WoW. There's nothing to say they're using the same networking code within D3, though I would expect at least some overlap. It is a somewhat different problem domain though.
Is it because YouTube only returns results that it hosts?
Pretty much. Basically we don't tend to think of site-specific search as being a "search engine" in the way that Google or Yahoo! or MSN Windows Live Search (or whatever the fuck it's called these days) is a "search engine".
The main differentiator I guess is that a real "search engine" indexes materials which aren't under the direct control of the operator of the search engine. The distinction is meaningful because it's a fair bit easier to provide a useful search facility over data which is under your complete control, than it is to provide a useful search facility over a whole bunch of other people's data.
Another distinction could be that sending people to other's people sites for information is a specialised field of endeavour. It's useful for just about everyone to provide relevant search results for information on their own site; but a search engine is specifically trying to get people to go to other websites. (Replace "website" as appropriate; search engines aren't specific to the web.)
Ok, following that logic, if grep returned results from other people's computers would it be considered a search engine?
That probably depends if the other people's computers were under your control or not. I wouldn't be inclined to call it a "search engine" if it was also finding information in files mounted via NFS or something. Although if it was an ad-hoc network of other people's computers (e.g. at a big LAN party) then it would probably be considered as being a specialised search engine, like those on some P2P networks.
Does response time play into the classification as a search engine?
I don't think so; that would more play into the classification as being a "good" search engine.
That's my thinking as well. The article doesn't say exactly how many people are allegedly involved, but does mention a few names: Jody Michael Smith; Lance Thomas Atkinson, his brother, and a business partner.
So that's at least 5 people, making it $80k a month. Not bad going. However there's obviously more people involved in that, as those referenced were only from the US, New Zealand and one from Australia. The article says their web sites were operated in China, and credit card processing was in Georgia and Cyprus; then there's the link to India mentioned in the summary.
Assuming at least 10 people were involved, that's $40k a month each. But that doesn't take into account expenses -- they were shipping products out, after all, and probably paying money for website and hosting and certainly for credit card processing. Acquiring the botnet probably wasn't cheap either, however they got it.
I would guess the $200k fine might amount to around a year's profitable income from the activity.
There are lots of hacked computers and ISPs just don't have enough resources to contact every user, convince them that there really is something wrong with their PC (most users would see it as an annoying intrusion at best, and insulting at worst), and then walk them through fixing it. Maybe governments could step up here and provide funding for ISPs to perform this function, so it would become a profitable exercise and therefore something ISPs would want to actively engage in. That then raises the question of how much money taxpayers would be willing to put into such a scheme. A lot of people will argue that it's a waste of money because most computers are in other countries so it won't make any difference to spam etc.
STALKER: Clear Sky is marked on Steam as using additional copy protection, I think TAGES. If you've got STEAM just go look at the product page for it, I think it's in the bottom right corner under the other specifications.
Considering their recent victory, CSIRO's pending cases against Intel, Dell, Microsoft, HP, and Netgear definitely have roots now, and if judges continue to rule in the Aussies' favor, the big boys could be shelling out "hundreds of millions of dollars" in back pay to cover their wrongs.
This suggests that the CSIRO already has cases pending against various manufacturers, and the Buffalo ruling added some legitimacy.
The court has said that patent cases brought against CSIRO by Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear should be transferred to the court which is already familiar with the CSIRO patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.
So apparently the CSIRO may have been on the receiving end of legal action from those companies, not the initiator of it:
[CSIRO Chief Executive] Dr Garrett said that the California cases started in May 2005 because Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear sued CSIRO, asking the court to declare that their products did not infringe CSIRO's US WLAN patent and that CSIRO's patent was invalid.
I'm not sure whether CSIROs action against Buffalo was taken before or after the MSFT/Intel/Dell/HP/Netgear attempt. But I guess they're hoping the Buffalo case will give their claims some strong legal legitimacy which they can then use in the larger case.
Slashdot Mirror
My favourite misuse of standard sounds is the software that powers our "Telstra" broadband cards (I think they're Sierra wireless cards). When you disconnect the data session -- or it's disconnected for you -- it plays the TADA sound.
Always struck me as being an entirely inappropriate way to indicate the connection has been ended.
What virus scanner is it? Maybe it also does automated checks to see if it can log in using common usernames or passwords via widely available methods, i.e. telnet, ftp, ssh, etc. Was it trying any particular usernames?
So basically you're saying GOTO is important for legacy applications that were written to make use of it and you can't afford the time or risk to refactor it. I can understand that.
What I'm having trouble grasping is why that's an argument for adding GOTO to a language that never supported it. There's no legacy PHP code using GOTO because it didn't exist before...
If they take cues from the telcos, you'd be able to charge whereever you want; it'll just cost you 100 times more if you do it at via a competitor's network.
Either you're making a joke that went over my head, or you're mistaking the 2001 game with Wolfenstein 3D from 1992. Although Wikipedia does say that Wolf3D was released in 2007 on Steam, and a quick search reveals that it is indeed available there for $4.99.
If you're replicating data between all three offices (and a fourth backup system?) then you are making backups. The vitriol is aimed at people who set up a RAID-5 array and then say "hooray my data is protected forevermore!".
Tape systems, especially high capacity tapes, are very expensive, and even those are prone to failures. Online backups to other hard drives are the only affordable means of backing up today's high capacity, low cost hard drives. To do it properly though, you need to make sure you do have separate physical locations for protection from natural disasters, fires, etc. Which you have.
The only concern your system may have is: how do you handle corrupted data, or user error? If you've got a TB of data at each site it's unlikely that mistakes will be noticed quickly, so after the nightly synchronisation all your backups will now have the corrupt data and when someone realises in a month's time that someone deleted a file they shouldn't have or saved crap data over a file, how do you restore it? Hopefully your incremental backups can be used to recover the most recent good copy of the data, but how long do you keep those for?
What I think is particularly sad is that it sounds like IX Webhosting take it upon themselves to search their customer's files for possibly infringing content, i.e. We search such content on our customers sites.
Also it's a little sad (in a "is this the web of the future?" kind of way) that they automatically play a video of some chick when you visit their homepage. But I do like how she shakes her head whenever she says something positive about the company.
Well, his local hard drive was the backup. I guess he reasoned the likelihood of his driving failing at the same time his ISP lost the data was very small. Technically his ISP hasn't lost the data, either.
But yes; it seems very sloppy to only have one copy. I suppose if his contract with the ISP says that they're maintaining a proper backup scheme then using a local copy as a failsafe is reasonable. Except when the ISP decides not to give you your data, and your local drive happens to die at around the same time.
Another +1 Buy a better mouse. I've got a Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 2.0 optical and it last months without replacing the batteries. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I replace the batteries in the "Wireless Desktop Elite" keyboard more often than I replace the batteries in the mouse. 3 weeks is appalling, assuming that's for normal usage (a few hours a day).
Nice. One improvement if the original isn't hardcore scary enough:
This way, you get to sit there in suspense for a while as your hard drive goes berserk, hoping desperately that it comes back with "You live". (Replace /dev/md0 with your root.)
The main issue with running 65 thousand services on single IP is that we like having services listening on their customary ports. Both for aesthetic reasons -- most people don't want to advertise their site is www.example.com:3403, for example -- and for technical ones. For better or worse, most people restrict access to services based on well-known port numbers. If you run your website on anything but port 80 (or 443 for HTTPS) then quite a few people won't be able to access it.
So you do virtual hosting. But that either requires all your clients use the same basic server software, or you run yet another service in front to proxy the request to the appropriate server. All of this works and works well, and can provide a lot of flexibility. But if you don't need that flexibility, why do it?
I agree with those who say NAT is just a hack to work around the arbitrary shortage of IP addresses. I don't particularly dislike NAT -- although it does cause complications for some protocols -- but I see absolutely no reason to use it where it's not necessary. And it's only necessary to conserve IP addresses, which are an imaginary made-up resource to begin with. If we just imagined a bigger number to begin with, there'd be no reason to use NAT in the first place.
Well, Ford and Xerox use Akamai for hosting their website; so their actual web front-end(s) live on different IP addresses than those returned by "www". We use "origin.ourdomain.com" as suggested by Akamai, but none of the big players seem to.
129.42/16 is allocated to IBM as well, so they do in fact host their website within their own address space. They just have multiple address spaces.
Then of course there's the issue that the internet is useful for things other than hosting websites, and there's no particular reason why any of these companies would want to physically host their own public websites anyway. They're not web design or hosting companies, so it's perfectly reasonable for them to have a professional hosting company host their sites. Not saying they all do, just that it's pretty naive to say "their website isn't within their allocated block, therefore they're not using their block".
I think you're mistaken. My ISP has recently set up an IPv6 broker for all their customers to use, and are in the process of working out how to neatly provide IPv6 along with v4 to their end-users. I think last I heard they can pretty much do this, but are waiting for router vendors to catch up and support it so it's just easy as IPv4 is today. Early adopters pave the way, and having to solve the problems they encounter makes it easier for those that follow.
It doesn't just rely on ISPs to be that forward-thinking or interested enough in the technology to implement it just for the fun of it all, though. Eventually lucrative customers of big ISPs will start saying they want native IPv6 connectivity, so there's a good business case even for large publicly-listed ISPs to make sure they can support it when their customers want it. Because if they don't, their customers will go to other ISPs that can.
You're right in that it won't happen overnight; it's an incremental process. That process is already underway though, and as more and more people start to prepare the barrier to entry will be reduced, and eventually most of the internet will be ready for IPv6, or even actively using it. It will take a long time before people are willing to set up IPv6-only websites, but it will eventually happen when the costs of reclaiming unused IPv4 addresses exceeds the potential cost of being unreachable to the ever decreasing IPv4-only internet.
I expect we'll be operating dual-stack nodes for a long, long time though.
or the class A loopback addresses, there because someone occasionally pings 127.0.0.2 just for variety.
Well, I do use different loopback addresses for different services. e.g. if I have several mail filters running on a single box, I'll often have them bound to different loopback IP addresses so I can have slightly more informative Received: lines in the headers. For example, inbound mail has headers like these:
Received: from a.mx.***** (clamsmtp.*-mx-01 [127.0.0.5])
by relay.*-mx-01 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136BF93B69;
Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:55:25 +0800 (WST)
Which is slightly more informative than all the internal handling being from "localhost" 127.0.0.1.
A whole /8 for it does seem a teeny bit excessive though; I think 127.0/16 would have been more reasonable.
Yeah, NAT is fantastic until you have to set up a VPN with another company who is using the same reserved IP space as you.
Maybe you should enlighten us as to why a home printer shouldn't have a public IP address, assuming there's no scarcity of IP addresses? What harm does it do? The answer is absolutely none, because NAT is not a firewall. Blocking access to IPs unless you've explicitly configured exceptions is just a side-effect of NAT, and the same can be achieved by a "default deny" firewall.
So what harm does putting devices on non-routable addresses do? In most cases, none. In some cases -- e.g. if you really do want to access that printer over the internet, or you want to set up a VPN with someone who just happens to be using the same private IP range as you -- then it causes lots of complications.
Therefore there's two options: let everything use public IP space and have no problems; or use private IP space and possibly have problems. I'm not sure why so many people are so eager to choose the option that may cause them problems down the road. Possibly it's because their only exposure to packet filtering is in the form of NAT, and have no idea that it's quite possible to filter traffic to public addresses at a central device without using NAT.
Yep, that's a problem. We'll be in a similar situation shortly. Funnily enough, we just moved to a new datacentre and asked the new one if they could give us around 64 IP addresses (which would be more than enough for the foreseeable future). We ended up being given 3 class Cs that they had just lying around. So now one of these ranges has 3 IPs in use for corporate services, and another has maybe 14 in use for websites we're hosting.
Reading comprehension problems? This thread is suggesting that all you have to do is update your router to support IPv6 and all your problems are over. You can keep using IPv4 internally and the router will do everything needed to talk to the IPv6 world and everything will be peachy.
The post you're responding to is suggesting that maybe, just maybe, that idea is complete bollocks for pretty obvious reasons. Your condescending post seems to be about something else entirely.
I agree with khyron664, it seems telling that they'd specifically say it was completely lag-free on the server side. To be honest, I'm a little confused about how you could possibly have server-side lag, but I guess they're referring to "lag" as "any time the game slows down" rather than network latency in particular. Even still, all that means is the server they were using was sufficiently beefy to handle that many clients, and tells you nothing about the gameplay experience for those clients.
Also, these comments were regarding the new stuff for WoW. There's nothing to say they're using the same networking code within D3, though I would expect at least some overlap. It is a somewhat different problem domain though.
Is it because YouTube only returns results that it hosts?
Pretty much. Basically we don't tend to think of site-specific search as being a "search engine" in the way that Google or Yahoo! or MSN Windows Live Search (or whatever the fuck it's called these days) is a "search engine".
The main differentiator I guess is that a real "search engine" indexes materials which aren't under the direct control of the operator of the search engine. The distinction is meaningful because it's a fair bit easier to provide a useful search facility over data which is under your complete control, than it is to provide a useful search facility over a whole bunch of other people's data.
Another distinction could be that sending people to other's people sites for information is a specialised field of endeavour. It's useful for just about everyone to provide relevant search results for information on their own site; but a search engine is specifically trying to get people to go to other websites. (Replace "website" as appropriate; search engines aren't specific to the web.)
Ok, following that logic, if grep returned results from other people's computers would it be considered a search engine?
That probably depends if the other people's computers were under your control or not. I wouldn't be inclined to call it a "search engine" if it was also finding information in files mounted via NFS or something. Although if it was an ad-hoc network of other people's computers (e.g. at a big LAN party) then it would probably be considered as being a specialised search engine, like those on some P2P networks.
Does response time play into the classification as a search engine?
I don't think so; that would more play into the classification as being a "good" search engine.
That's my thinking as well. The article doesn't say exactly how many people are allegedly involved, but does mention a few names: Jody Michael Smith; Lance Thomas Atkinson, his brother, and a business partner.
So that's at least 5 people, making it $80k a month. Not bad going. However there's obviously more people involved in that, as those referenced were only from the US, New Zealand and one from Australia. The article says their web sites were operated in China, and credit card processing was in Georgia and Cyprus; then there's the link to India mentioned in the summary.
Assuming at least 10 people were involved, that's $40k a month each. But that doesn't take into account expenses -- they were shipping products out, after all, and probably paying money for website and hosting and certainly for credit card processing. Acquiring the botnet probably wasn't cheap either, however they got it.
I would guess the $200k fine might amount to around a year's profitable income from the activity.
There are lots of hacked computers and ISPs just don't have enough resources to contact every user, convince them that there really is something wrong with their PC (most users would see it as an annoying intrusion at best, and insulting at worst), and then walk them through fixing it. Maybe governments could step up here and provide funding for ISPs to perform this function, so it would become a profitable exercise and therefore something ISPs would want to actively engage in. That then raises the question of how much money taxpayers would be willing to put into such a scheme. A lot of people will argue that it's a waste of money because most computers are in other countries so it won't make any difference to spam etc.
STALKER: Clear Sky is marked on Steam as using additional copy protection, I think TAGES. If you've got STEAM just go look at the product page for it, I think it's in the bottom right corner under the other specifications.
Don't really know, just did a bit of basic Googling and found the following references.
Engadget's report of the 2006 ruling says:
Considering their recent victory, CSIRO's pending cases against Intel, Dell, Microsoft, HP, and Netgear definitely have roots now, and if judges continue to rule in the Aussies' favor, the big boys could be shelling out "hundreds of millions of dollars" in back pay to cover their wrongs.
This suggests that the CSIRO already has cases pending against various manufacturers, and the Buffalo ruling added some legitimacy.
But, a CSIRO press release regarding the 2006 ruling says:
The court has said that patent cases brought against CSIRO by Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear should be transferred to the court which is already familiar with the CSIRO patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.
So apparently the CSIRO may have been on the receiving end of legal action from those companies, not the initiator of it:
[CSIRO Chief Executive] Dr Garrett said that the California cases started in May 2005 because Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear sued CSIRO, asking the court to declare that their products did not infringe CSIRO's US WLAN patent and that CSIRO's patent was invalid.
I'm not sure whether CSIROs action against Buffalo was taken before or after the MSFT/Intel/Dell/HP/Netgear attempt. But I guess they're hoping the Buffalo case will give their claims some strong legal legitimacy which they can then use in the larger case.
I don't think we will not see a Nobel prize
I think you mean "I don't think we won't not see a Nobel prize".
It was due to dfetter's signature: What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand? You might have sigs disabled.