The ISP bit is your interpretation, nowhere does his piece mention the word ISP or provider or whatever. It could also mean government regulators, or whatever, if you're of the tin foil hat crowd. In fact, one extremely strong point against your ISP conjecture is that broadband providers are starting to clamp down on NAT usage, instead wanting to lease you an IP address for every single machine on your home LAN. IOW, creating an artificially scarce IP address resource is about squeezing out cash from customers, not about limiting their internet usage paradigms. They would be most happy to sell you an IP address for each machine, along with the "right" to set up a server, etc., all for a very juicy monthly fee.
> Did you actually read the announcement? You might be interested in the > paragraph Why all the dramatics of an "end of life" announcement?
That's nothing but spin to make it seem like he's not pouting. But read the whole page carefully several times (I did), and the overwhelming message is that of disgust with NAT and a yearning for the good old every-man-and-his-analog-modem days. Everything else is just spin.
> You'd be on here ranting if he simply abandoned it.
Hardly. I've never used SF and probably never will, not for spite reasons or anything, I just never had a need for it.
> Heck, if you consider that kind of work to be so beneficial, > how about doing it yourself? It might be very worthwhile.
And how do you know that I'm not? Network communications is one of my main areas of interest, and session initiation in a world of NAT *is* a problem, but there are solutions other than proxy servers or just giving up. That's just plain nihilism.
> the purpose of nat [...] is to make computers unaddressable.
No, the purpose of NAT is to allow multiple computers to share one single public IP address. The firewalling is just a convenient side effect. You can still deny incoming packets even if they're addressed to a very specific machine, so just because internal machines are addressable doesn't mean you can't still have effective firewalling. It will just rely on other mechanisms.
Monitoring communications to intercept internal leaks or spies, and then trying to obtain the actual incriminating plaintext? Or merely trying to thwart such communications? The latter is much easier to accomplish than the former. They could simply set up their email gateways to recode all stegano transport data formats (pictures, sound etc) on the fly, thus most likely killing any embedded stegano content, without affecting the usability of non-malicious information too much--a JPEG of Bubba shooting Iraqis will still be viewable after recoding.
He hates NAT and that's pretty much it. Oh, the software has also degenerated into spaghetti code over the years, but if he didn't hate NAT so much it almost sounds like he would rewrite it from scratch. Now please, everyone, could we kill off NAT so Johnny Walker starts speaking freely again?
> As has been pointed out, what we really need are easier solutions such as port forwarding
What we really need is a generic method of sub-addressing machines. The public/private network paradigm is here to stay for various reasons, so we should shape our protocols to cope with that. We need another protocol between IP and TCP/UDP: IP addresses a point-of-presence on the internet, TCP/UDP a POP on a machine (i.e. an app), we need something that addresses a POP on an internal network. In fact, it could be a nestable protocol that replaces IP and allows for unlimited levels of private subdivision. That way a large company could have multiple internal NAT setups and you could still address a specific machine several levels down the hierarchy. I guess one could modify IP to be nestable, and IP stacks inside routers to be aware of it. Then you would address a private machine as a.b.c.d/e.f.g.h where a.b.c.d is the public IP address, and e.f.g.h the private one. The public NAT router would examine the next nested IP header (in this case e.f.g.h) and pass the packet to the correct internal machine (which could be another NAT box, ad infinitum).
The downside of course is that we're then back to the old UUCP days where you had to explicitly specify the route to the destination machine, making the network more fragile. Still, given that for the vast majority of setups it would be just a two-tiered setup (public internet and internal LAN), it should be workable.
> He's referring to ISPs NATing off their customers, not customers being restricted by their own routers
His rant gives no indication either way, I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Your own experience (and mine, and most others') tells you that you've never heard of ISP-level NAT, so why would he mean that? He's just bitter about NAT for whatever reasons and venting by the most dramatic means he has: EOL-ing a fairly popular piece of software. Well, I know why he hates NAT, but that's hardly NAT's fault, that's similar to getting angry at the color Yellow for being so bright. Instead of pouting, he could think about or work on some generic method to overcome NAT's inherent weaknesses.
In fact, since--as he himself puts it--NAT will be with us for a long time, even after switching to IPv6, it might be very worthwhile for him to think about methods of addressing private computers below the transport level, but above the application level. A universal method of sub-addressing machines would be very useful, since not all machines will ever be on the public internet, whether for security or address limitation reasons. Port mapping works well enough for some things but has inherent limitations (16 bit, many apps assume fixed ranges etc.), and ports were really meant to identify applications on a single machine, not machines on a network. It's really a hack, and you don't build future technologies on hacks.
> we know some of you may not have liked recent versions of our player. > This release represents a much friendlier direction for us
I wonder if they'd admitted such things or even just the need for a "friendlier direction" yesterday, before they had a new product to push. It's easy to say that "yeah, our previous product was crap, here, use the new one instead, you'll like it much better" than to admit that your current product is crap and that you're working on doing better but have nothing to offer just yet. The former is just PR with a customer-friendly spin, the latter is a true change of heart.
It's also interesting to note that while kforeman claims they're keeping up with Slashdot and are responsive to users' complaints here, in the over 400 posts to his article there's only one single response from him, a defensive one-liner. So much for being responsive.
> just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe
I know what you mean, and I certainly don't disagree. But to expect perfection or even adequacy from any political process or entity is not learning anything from the past. One can only hope that in the long term the sum of all positive contributions outweighs the sum of all negative ones.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the EU is currently still run by old-time politicians that are still shackled by their nationalistic roots and don't necessarily "get" the pan-European spirit. I think younger generations, people that are now in their teens, twenties and thirties do mostly have a very different outlook on Europe, and once they enter the political machinery they will make a difference. I certainly hope so anyway. Amongst online Europeans that also speak English I definitely detect a sense of greater identity beyond the national boundaries. Within the next ten to thirty years these people could contribute to big changes in how Europe views and governs itself.
One of my high school teachers back in Australia used to tell us a story about how when he was a boy they used to sprinkle salt on cane toads, which made them swell up really big. They'd then place them on a sidewalk and hide, waiting for curious pedestrians to approach and take a gander at this curious creature. At that point they'd shoot a bb gun at the toad from their hideout, making the thing literally explode and splatter toad innards all over the pedestrians. Don't know if the story is true, but it sounded very amusing in an adolescently morbid way.
...in the same sentence is turning into a cliche. Australian history is full of failed attempts to correct past mistakes, only to make things worse. I'm surprised they're not engineering these fish to also be amphibian and attack the cane toad and rabbit while they're at it. Visions of the Land Carp anyone? I suggest they just get used to the taste of carp and let them be. I'd take carp over catfish anyday.
> It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France > can apparently do whatever they want
Despite your disclaimer I find this statement rather amusing. While France and Germany may have gained some notoriety with recent EU actions, and while the UK like profiling themselves as the big truly-free-market economy in Europe, I think you'll find that overall the UK are still much more Big Brother-like than most other European nations. Their attitude towards personal data privacy is making great strides towards American-style non-chalance and cynicism. As far as personal privacy in general is concerned, Orwell's country is doing a great job in covering every square inch with cameras.
If there is one thing the EU is kidding itself about, it's the whole notion that all member countries are equal. That's a joke, and only the ignorant are deluding themselves about it. If the big European economies aren't doing well, no-one is doing well. All the other members can hate and despise Germany all they want, but since nobody is going out of their way to do them any favours, they have to act in self interest every once in a while. Because--as the deepest pockets of the EU--if they don't, everyone else will suffer as well. Most of all Spain and Poland.
> This new Russian thing sounds flakey, but not fake. [...] > It sounds like they're fooling around with boundary layer control.
I think there's a bit of tunnel vision involved here. I read their "brochure", and they do mention that it's supposed to fly at 500-700 km/h at an altitude of 8-13 km, but the rest of the text only talks about ground effect flight and landing. Judging by the shape of the plane, its flat underside (it's definitely no lifting body), and the minuscule wing surface area, I'm convinced that whatever they've tried so far was a pure ground effect vehicle. Their thinking might have been, hey, once we've got that licked, we'll worry about getting higher up. Except that getting out of the boundary layer and high up into the atmosphere involves a very different type of flying, which would explain their lack of success so far.
Mind you, Russia has taken ground effect flight further than anyone else with their Ekranoplans, particularly the KM. That was a pretty awesome vehicle, even though ten jet engines sounds a bit ridiculous.
> had used lift tables on their early gliders that had been made 30 years before by a German man
That "German man" was Otto Lilienthal, hardly an obscure figure. In fact, many consider him at least as important as the Wrights, since he pioneered controllable heavier-than-air flight and made further pursuits into and consideration of flight even acceptable. And he did it all alone.
No, more like the HEADLINE, which is usually a summary of what the article is all about. As the article alludes, sometimes what isn't said speaks louder than what is. But it's ok, you can walk away with whatever you prefer from the story.
> You may or may not have heard of this thing called DEFENSE. The U.S. military is pretty good at it.
This is purely to be pedantic, but the US has only proven they're good at ATTACKING, not defense. In fact, two rather monumental cases come to mind where the US didn't do particularly well at DEFENSE.
> While Halliburton does indeed have a huge role in post-war Iraq, I rather think you missed the implied point.
I don't think he did. While maybe France (though hardly Germany, they're much more interested in China) had interests in the Status Quo, the US were certainly not gaining anything from that and had definite interests in changing things. What will be interesting in the long run is to tally up overall gains over the next ten years and see who will come out most favorably of this Iraq deal. My pick is the US, they have a knack of always having things turn out in their favor, even if it's with a bit of help.
> Spain has had less losses but is also under political attack.
I wouldn't be so sure about their lack of losses. The pittance of contracts they're getting from the US in Iraq to much cheering in the US press is nothing compared to their trade with the EU. All EU contries do much more trade with each other than with external countries, so US attempts to favor and isolate certain countries with bribes or what have you will only lead to disappointment in the long run. I believe they're already missing out on some Airbus contracts. Let's also not forget that Spain blocked agreement on the EU constitution just last weekend, which will prompt much harsher punishment than for the Iraq thing. Even Blair joined the opinion that Spain and Poland deserve a swift kick in the rear.
> I was so disapointed at the number of people who had no interest > in the subject but doing it awayway. It seems that people think > you can get a high paying job in IT
That's no different from other fields. When I was briefly in med school a decade ago, the classes were full of such individuals--a lot of people gravitate to where the money is. I myself was there for that sole reason, at the urging of well-meaning friends and relatives to get into a "good field". Of course, instead of reading up on my cell biology and organic chemistry, I'd be programming all night. Eventually I woke up and smelled the coffee, changed the degree over to my real interests, and haven't regretted it for a day. Sadly, most of the other people in my classes probably kept going and are disinterested, golf-talking doctors somewhere out there.
Naturally, the same holds for our field. I remember this lady coming to me with a "bug" in her final project two weeks before graduation, wanting me to take a look at it. A quick glance at the code made it pretty clear that she had no clue about programming, it was a fascinating variation of copy-and-paste development. I don't think there was a single line of code in there that was her own, and her approach to debugging was commenting out random lines and seeing what the effect would be. This was eight years ago, I'm sure she's a "Programmer/Analyst" or project manager in some cushy job by now. I should be happy about people like her, because you'd think they make people like us look even better. But sadly most managers don't know the difference and are easily taken in by smooth talking about how malfunctioning software is the result of poor requirements specs or bugs in development tools. I wish I were a smooth talker, too...
This sounds like a high-tech extension of the programmable roadside traffic warning billboard (you know, those two-wheeled trailers with a big orange dot matrix billboard flashing useless info like "Men at work"). Extremely useful in theory, but in practice only as good as the information fed. In my town we have tons of these displays flashing information that's weeks out of date or so generic that you'd hardly need an expensive programmable display for that. The thing is, buying the equipment is only the first step. Actually using it meaningfully and consistently involves training people and extra work and money, and is less likely to happen long-term.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why would the "powers that be", such as ISPs
The ISP bit is your interpretation, nowhere does his piece mention the word ISP or provider or whatever. It could also mean government regulators, or whatever, if you're of the tin foil hat crowd. In fact, one extremely strong point against your ISP conjecture is that broadband providers are starting to clamp down on NAT usage, instead wanting to lease you an IP address for every single machine on your home LAN. IOW, creating an artificially scarce IP address resource is about squeezing out cash from customers, not about limiting their internet usage paradigms. They would be most happy to sell you an IP address for each machine, along with the "right" to set up a server, etc., all for a very juicy monthly fee.
> Did you actually read the announcement? You might be interested in the
> paragraph Why all the dramatics of an "end of life" announcement?
That's nothing but spin to make it seem like he's not pouting. But read the whole page carefully several times (I did), and the overwhelming message is that of disgust with NAT and a yearning for the good old every-man-and-his-analog-modem days. Everything else is just spin.
> You'd be on here ranting if he simply abandoned it.
Hardly. I've never used SF and probably never will, not for spite reasons or anything, I just never had a need for it.
> Heck, if you consider that kind of work to be so beneficial,
> how about doing it yourself? It might be very worthwhile.
And how do you know that I'm not? Network communications is one of my main areas of interest, and session initiation in a world of NAT *is* a problem, but there are solutions other than proxy servers or just giving up. That's just plain nihilism.
> the purpose of nat [...] is to make computers unaddressable.
No, the purpose of NAT is to allow multiple computers to share one single public IP address. The firewalling is just a convenient side effect. You can still deny incoming packets even if they're addressed to a very specific machine, so just because internal machines are addressable doesn't mean you can't still have effective firewalling. It will just rely on other mechanisms.
Monitoring communications to intercept internal leaks or spies, and then trying to obtain the actual incriminating plaintext? Or merely trying to thwart such communications? The latter is much easier to accomplish than the former. They could simply set up their email gateways to recode all stegano transport data formats (pictures, sound etc) on the fly, thus most likely killing any embedded stegano content, without affecting the usability of non-malicious information too much--a JPEG of Bubba shooting Iraqis will still be viewable after recoding.
He hates NAT and that's pretty much it. Oh, the software has also degenerated into spaghetti code over the years, but if he didn't hate NAT so much it almost sounds like he would rewrite it from scratch. Now please, everyone, could we kill off NAT so Johnny Walker starts speaking freely again?
> As has been pointed out, what we really need are easier solutions such as port forwarding
What we really need is a generic method of sub-addressing machines. The public/private network paradigm is here to stay for various reasons, so we should shape our protocols to cope with that. We need another protocol between IP and TCP/UDP: IP addresses a point-of-presence on the internet, TCP/UDP a POP on a machine (i.e. an app), we need something that addresses a POP on an internal network. In fact, it could be a nestable protocol that replaces IP and allows for unlimited levels of private subdivision. That way a large company could have multiple internal NAT setups and you could still address a specific machine several levels down the hierarchy. I guess one could modify IP to be nestable, and IP stacks inside routers to be aware of it. Then you would address a private machine as a.b.c.d/e.f.g.h where a.b.c.d is the public IP address, and e.f.g.h the private one. The public NAT router would examine the next nested IP header (in this case e.f.g.h) and pass the packet to the correct internal machine (which could be another NAT box, ad infinitum).
The downside of course is that we're then back to the old UUCP days where you had to explicitly specify the route to the destination machine, making the network more fragile. Still, given that for the vast majority of setups it would be just a two-tiered setup (public internet and internal LAN), it should be workable.
> He's referring to ISPs NATing off their customers, not customers being restricted by their own routers
His rant gives no indication either way, I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Your own experience (and mine, and most others') tells you that you've never heard of ISP-level NAT, so why would he mean that? He's just bitter about NAT for whatever reasons and venting by the most dramatic means he has: EOL-ing a fairly popular piece of software. Well, I know why he hates NAT, but that's hardly NAT's fault, that's similar to getting angry at the color Yellow for being so bright. Instead of pouting, he could think about or work on some generic method to overcome NAT's inherent weaknesses.
In fact, since--as he himself puts it--NAT will be with us for a long time, even after switching to IPv6, it might be very worthwhile for him to think about methods of addressing private computers below the transport level, but above the application level. A universal method of sub-addressing machines would be very useful, since not all machines will ever be on the public internet, whether for security or address limitation reasons. Port mapping works well enough for some things but has inherent limitations (16 bit, many apps assume fixed ranges etc.), and ports were really meant to identify applications on a single machine, not machines on a network. It's really a hack, and you don't build future technologies on hacks.
> we know some of you may not have liked recent versions of our player.
> This release represents a much friendlier direction for us
I wonder if they'd admitted such things or even just the need for a "friendlier direction" yesterday, before they had a new product to push. It's easy to say that "yeah, our previous product was crap, here, use the new one instead, you'll like it much better" than to admit that your current product is crap and that you're working on doing better but have nothing to offer just yet. The former is just PR with a customer-friendly spin, the latter is a true change of heart.
It's also interesting to note that while kforeman claims they're keeping up with Slashdot and are responsive to users' complaints here, in the over 400 posts to his article there's only one single response from him, a defensive one-liner. So much for being responsive.
> just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe
I know what you mean, and I certainly don't disagree. But to expect perfection or even adequacy from any political process or entity is not learning anything from the past. One can only hope that in the long term the sum of all positive contributions outweighs the sum of all negative ones.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the EU is currently still run by old-time politicians that are still shackled by their nationalistic roots and don't necessarily "get" the pan-European spirit. I think younger generations, people that are now in their teens, twenties and thirties do mostly have a very different outlook on Europe, and once they enter the political machinery they will make a difference. I certainly hope so anyway. Amongst online Europeans that also speak English I definitely detect a sense of greater identity beyond the national boundaries. Within the next ten to thirty years these people could contribute to big changes in how Europe views and governs itself.
One of my high school teachers back in Australia used to tell us a story about how when he was a boy they used to sprinkle salt on cane toads, which made them swell up really big. They'd then place them on a sidewalk and hide, waiting for curious pedestrians to approach and take a gander at this curious creature. At that point they'd shoot a bb gun at the toad from their hideout, making the thing literally explode and splatter toad innards all over the pedestrians. Don't know if the story is true, but it sounded very amusing in an adolescently morbid way.
...in the same sentence is turning into a cliche. Australian history is full of failed attempts to correct past mistakes, only to make things worse. I'm surprised they're not engineering these fish to also be amphibian and attack the cane toad and rabbit while they're at it. Visions of the Land Carp anyone? I suggest they just get used to the taste of carp and let them be. I'd take carp over catfish anyday.
> It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France
> can apparently do whatever they want
Despite your disclaimer I find this statement rather amusing. While France and Germany may have gained some notoriety with recent EU actions, and while the UK like profiling themselves as the big truly-free-market economy in Europe, I think you'll find that overall the UK are still much more Big Brother-like than most other European nations. Their attitude towards personal data privacy is making great strides towards American-style non-chalance and cynicism. As far as personal privacy in general is concerned, Orwell's country is doing a great job in covering every square inch with cameras.
If there is one thing the EU is kidding itself about, it's the whole notion that all member countries are equal. That's a joke, and only the ignorant are deluding themselves about it. If the big European economies aren't doing well, no-one is doing well. All the other members can hate and despise Germany all they want, but since nobody is going out of their way to do them any favours, they have to act in self interest every once in a while. Because--as the deepest pockets of the EU--if they don't, everyone else will suffer as well. Most of all Spain and Poland.
> It's unlikely to do much to boast the british space industry.
> This [...] will limit any boast British space projects might get.
Judging by all the Slashdot posts there's absolutely no shortage in the boasting department. Oh, you meant BOOST?!
> This new Russian thing sounds flakey, but not fake. [...]
> It sounds like they're fooling around with boundary layer control.
I think there's a bit of tunnel vision involved here. I read their "brochure", and they do mention that it's supposed to fly at 500-700 km/h at an altitude of 8-13 km, but the rest of the text only talks about ground effect flight and landing. Judging by the shape of the plane, its flat underside (it's definitely no lifting body), and the minuscule wing surface area, I'm convinced that whatever they've tried so far was a pure ground effect vehicle. Their thinking might have been, hey, once we've got that licked, we'll worry about getting higher up. Except that getting out of the boundary layer and high up into the atmosphere involves a very different type of flying, which would explain their lack of success so far.
Mind you, Russia has taken ground effect flight further than anyone else with their Ekranoplans, particularly the KM. That was a pretty awesome vehicle, even though ten jet engines sounds a bit ridiculous.
> had used lift tables on their early gliders that had been made 30 years before by a German man
That "German man" was Otto Lilienthal, hardly an obscure figure. In fact, many consider him at least as important as the Wrights, since he pioneered controllable heavier-than-air flight and made further pursuits into and consideration of flight even acceptable. And he did it all alone.
> Is this the section you were referring to?
No, more like the HEADLINE, which is usually a summary of what the article is all about. As the article alludes, sometimes what isn't said speaks louder than what is. But it's ok, you can walk away with whatever you prefer from the story.
The Guardian
> "We will have to do lots of PR to reassure the public," said Tanaka.
Actually, my first thought when reading that was, that's a nice way of overcoming past problems, through spin rather than an improved track record.
> As much as I like Slashdot this place is definitely ultra liberal and has an agenda to go with that..
Why, THANK YOU!!! Not quite enough so to the most liberal and agenda-ish of us, but hey, it's a start.
> You may or may not have heard of this thing called DEFENSE. The U.S. military is pretty good at it.
This is purely to be pedantic, but the US has only proven they're good at ATTACKING, not defense. In fact, two rather monumental cases come to mind where the US didn't do particularly well at DEFENSE.
> plus there is practically zero population.
Or desire in anyone to live there, nerds or otherwise. Never mind the complete and utter lack of water and Pizza Huts.
> While Halliburton does indeed have a huge role in post-war Iraq, I rather think you missed the implied point.
I don't think he did. While maybe France (though hardly Germany, they're much more interested in China) had interests in the Status Quo, the US were certainly not gaining anything from that and had definite interests in changing things. What will be interesting in the long run is to tally up overall gains over the next ten years and see who will come out most favorably of this Iraq deal. My pick is the US, they have a knack of always having things turn out in their favor, even if it's with a bit of help.
> Spain has had less losses but is also under political attack.
I wouldn't be so sure about their lack of losses. The pittance of contracts they're getting from the US in Iraq to much cheering in the US press is nothing compared to their trade with the EU. All EU contries do much more trade with each other than with external countries, so US attempts to favor and isolate certain countries with bribes or what have you will only lead to disappointment in the long run. I believe they're already missing out on some Airbus contracts. Let's also not forget that Spain blocked agreement on the EU constitution just last weekend, which will prompt much harsher punishment than for the Iraq thing. Even Blair joined the opinion that Spain and Poland deserve a swift kick in the rear.
> I was so disapointed at the number of people who had no interest
> in the subject but doing it awayway. It seems that people think
> you can get a high paying job in IT
That's no different from other fields. When I was briefly in med school a decade ago, the classes were full of such individuals--a lot of people gravitate to where the money is. I myself was there for that sole reason, at the urging of well-meaning friends and relatives to get into a "good field". Of course, instead of reading up on my cell biology and organic chemistry, I'd be programming all night. Eventually I woke up and smelled the coffee, changed the degree over to my real interests, and haven't regretted it for a day. Sadly, most of the other people in my classes probably kept going and are disinterested, golf-talking doctors somewhere out there.
Naturally, the same holds for our field. I remember this lady coming to me with a "bug" in her final project two weeks before graduation, wanting me to take a look at it. A quick glance at the code made it pretty clear that she had no clue about programming, it was a fascinating variation of copy-and-paste development. I don't think there was a single line of code in there that was her own, and her approach to debugging was commenting out random lines and seeing what the effect would be. This was eight years ago, I'm sure she's a "Programmer/Analyst" or project manager in some cushy job by now. I should be happy about people like her, because you'd think they make people like us look even better. But sadly most managers don't know the difference and are easily taken in by smooth talking about how malfunctioning software is the result of poor requirements specs or bugs in development tools. I wish I were a smooth talker, too...
This sounds like a high-tech extension of the programmable roadside traffic warning billboard (you know, those two-wheeled trailers with a big orange dot matrix billboard flashing useless info like "Men at work"). Extremely useful in theory, but in practice only as good as the information fed. In my town we have tons of these displays flashing information that's weeks out of date or so generic that you'd hardly need an expensive programmable display for that. The thing is, buying the equipment is only the first step. Actually using it meaningfully and consistently involves training people and extra work and money, and is less likely to happen long-term.