I think the following provision should be in the law: if a jury decides a lawsuit is frivolous, then the lawyers that started it should pay everything they got plus punitive damages to the part that got sued, where "punitive" means "enough to hurt". No lawyer should be allowed to get *any* profit from a frivolous lawsuit. And lawyers should know enough about the law to realize that they are embarking on a frivolous lawsuit, whose purpose is just to intimidate or send a political message.
And then you have a chilling effect on valid lawsuits that might, potentially, maybe be declared frivolous if the wrong jury or judge get a hold of it. And you'll have lawyers everywhere less willing to work on contingency, everyone will require a retainer.
The overall effect? Poor people with legitimate legal claims get fucked.
Though apparently American courts have ruled in favor of McDonalds several times over "Mc$WORD" businesses. While other countries appear to have (rightly) laughed them out of court. Wow our justice system is fucked.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
There is no "in effect." Trademarks must be registered. "Mc" is not a registered trademark, Microsoft is.
Post above should be modded redundant... Don't know what happened there.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
I see, you may have been referring to something like this schematic. It is in fact the crude abstraction.
VLANs are specified by port, not by wire. Between the port on the switch and the switching fabric/switch processor, there is no such concept as a VLAN. Once the switch has processed an incoming frame, it determines what VLAN the frame belongs to by which port it came in on. It then broadcasts it out to any other devices on that switch on the same VLAN and, if there are any VLAN trunk interfaces set up, it tags the frame with the VLAN ID and sends it out on the trunk.
That diagram is a rough schematic of data flow, not of the actual electronics behind the device. However it does roughly show the three components of the device--the switch on the bottom, the router on the top left, and the access point on the top right.
Note that there are exactly two interfaces on that device which would have a MAC address--eth0 of the router is one, the AP's wireless interface is the other.
They're designed to have every host attached to the native VLAN.
"Native VLAN" == VLAN001, BTW.
If you can find me some way to specify different VLANs for different ports on, say, a Linksys WRT54G with default firmware (in other words, like 98.75% of the home market), I'll cede the point.
Somebody who tells someone else to "open your home router and follow the traces from the Ethernet sockets, then come back and revise your statement about VLANs" should not be the one telling others to "read up or shut up."
As for my "crude network device abstraction," you might want to inform Linksys of that so they can stop advertising their WRT54G as:
The Linksys Wireless-G Broadband Router is really three devices in one box. First, there's the Wireless Access Point, which lets you connect both screaming fast Wireless-G (802.11g at 54Mbps) and Wireless-B (802.11b at 11Mbps) devices to the network. There's also a built-in 4-port full-duplex 10/100 Switch to connect your wired-Ethernet devices together. Connect four PCs directly, or attach more hubs and switches to create as big a network as you need. Finally, the Router function ties it all together and lets your whole network share a high-speed cable or DSL Internet connection.
If you already have enough information to convince me you're my net admin and get me to give you some unintelligible code from the bottom of my router, and/or I'm gullible enough to fall for it, what extra benefit will you get from possibly knowing what street I live on, if somebody has wardriven past me and logged it?
Hell, you can just do a geographic IP lookup and get close enough to fool most gullible people.
...thank you for saying the exact same thing I said but with more words?
VLANs don't even come into play in a typical home router/switch/wireless AP combo. They're designed to have every host attached to the native VLAN. I'm not sure what you mean about the interfaces being virtual (what interfaces?), but again, a switch doesn't have its own MAC address. Routers, APs, and hosts do, switches don't.
The article is not correct, because it presumes that there is some way for some random hacker across the globe to easily associate my MAC address with my e-mail address.
Unless you're inside my network, you don't know what my MAC address is. And if you're inside my network, I've got lots more to worry about than a weak phishing attack.
The typical wireless home router has three integrated networking devices, one for the external wired interface (a "router"), one for the internal wired network (a "switch") and one for the wireless network (an "access point"). A switch does not have its own MAC address, but a router and an AP do.
1. No steel builing has ever collapsed due to a fire.
The WTC is by a huge margin the tallest man-made structure ever to collapse. There's a huge difference between a 10-story steel building and a 100+ story one.
2. The WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and collapsed, according to NIST 'due to a fire'.
See above. It had significant structural damage from falling debris, which contributed (along with fire) to the collapse.
1. The government explicitly forbit independent investigation of ground zero basically shipping most of the evidence on the site to be smelted - possibly to make the burden of proof on conspiracy theorists to be especially burdensome.
The words "these are facts" should never, ever be followed by the word "possibly."
2. Several witnesses report hearing loud explosions on the WTC before any planes hit.
Okay so if the explosions happened before the planes hit, why didn't the buildings collapse immediately? I thought the bombs supposedly went off after the planes hit and caused the collapse? Were these first bombs duds?
3. The opinions ( not fact, cause I can distinguish between those two ) of many engineers and scientists - none paid by the government, in stark contrast to 'not all paid by' - that it looked the textbook case of controlled demolition.
I'd call it "several." But sure, call it "many" if you like.
4. The 9/11 Comission report didn't even acknowledge WTC 7's existence. In a healthy democracy, that would be as admission of guilt, in my opinion. Since it's obvious that that part of the disaster DID NOT go according to plan.
But you're suggesting that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished with explosives. Which obviously worked. So how did this "NOT go according to plan"?
Jesus effing Christ, at least keep your crackpot theories consistent with each other.
Really? Where did you get that from? The building did look fine before crashing.
Check the other WTC buildings that were REALLY hit by thousands of tons of debris, they're not hard to find with a Google search
A quick Wikipedia search takes a matter of seconds:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3]
But then, that report (including photographs) is from NIST, so I'm sure the truthers will completely disregard it.
The WTC 7 fell just like other two towers because of a fire.
WTC 7 fell just like the other towers because of structural damage. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, the structural damage was caused by a combination of impact from the jets and fire; in the case of WTC 7, it was caused by debris impact and fire.
And the Empire state building was hit by a military bomber and did not fall.
The pilot of the B-25 bomber was in a 17.5 ton prop aircraft, trying to avoid the building and climbing at the time. The pilots of the 767s on 9/11 were in 150-ton jet aircrafts flying on a direct course toward the buildings at full speed.
And there are also construction differences between the Empire State Building, which is steel-reinforced masonry, and the WTC, which was plain steel.
Different situations altogether in any case.
You think paper, wood and fabric burns hotter than jet fuel? Omg, why do I even bother????...
Are you sure you're not seeing "TN" or "TiN" and thinking that means tungsten?
It means titanium nitride, which is extremely hard and used to coat drill bits.
OTOH, as someone else pointed out, WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, and IT imploded right after its new owner was overheard on a cell phone by several people and a television news crew saying the words 'pull it', which is construction industry jargon for 'ignite the explosives'.
Indeed, it was not hit by a plane. It was, however, hit by thousands of tons of falling debris and set on fire.
Jet fuel isn't the only thing that burns. Office fires tend to be incredibly hot and hard to control because offices are full of extremely flammable stuff--fabric, wood, and paper. All of which burns significantly hotter than jet fuel, mind you.
Well I guess most of us are still in the bad old days, since the majority of browsers with high market share either don't support pipelining or have it disabled by default:
Implementation in web browsers
Internet Explorer as of version 7 doesn't support pipelining.
Mozilla Firefox 3.0 supports pipelining, but it's disabled by default. It uses some heuristics, especially to turn pipelining off for IIS servers. Instructions for enabling pipelining can be found at Firefox Help: Tips & Tricks. Camino does the same thing as Firefox.
Konqueror 2.0 supports pipelining, but it's disabled by default. Instructions for enabling it can be found at Konqueror: Tips & Tricks.
Opera has pipelining enabled by default. It uses heuristics to control the level of pipelining employed depending on the connected server. [1]
It's a common "hidden Firefox trick" to boost your speed by enabling pipelining. It's still not nearly universal, and it still relies on whatever site you're accessing to have pipelining enabled as well.
You don't have to do the SSL handshake once per page and image though. Because SSL is session-based, you only need to do the handshake once per session, not once per TCP connection. The SSL symmetric key lasts until the browser closes and the session ends.
In most cases it would not help loading Web pages. Thanks to TCP slow start, at the very beginning of a TCP connection the limiting factor in the transfer rate is latency, not bandwidth. You have to be transferring for a while before you manage to actually hit full bandwidth. Most Web pages are so tiny that the download is finished before your TCP window ever fully opens up. Same deal with most relatively small images--each image on a page is opened as a totally separate HTTP GET request.
Higher download speeds are only really useful for downloading large files and for streaming higher-bitrate audio/video content, but then you run into the cap issue.
If only there were some way to provide point-to-point connectivity between two locations that didn't involve laying wires in the ground...
Unless your mother lives in the mountains, her rural coop could get completely wired with plain old Wifi and a few Pringles cantennas. Well okay maybe at a range of a mile or two between residences you'd need to actually buy a beefy access point and a good directional antenna, but it wouldn't be a drastic investment.
Cellular Internet and satellite both have very serious performance issues. With satellite, it's mostly latency and also some availability issues; with cellular, it's both latency and jitter.
DSL, cable, FTTH, and WiMax all have much better performance profiles.
Except it's the monopolistic practices of Comcast that cause that situation.
They use exclusive provider deals with housing developments and apartment buildings to ensure they're the only company allowed to compete on the block. In lack of competition, they stagnate.
Fine. Then I and my neighbors will pool our resources to lease several lines from Comcast, and set up a bandwidth pool we all can access. Except then we get our asses sued.
Fine. Since Comcast isn't willing to provide better service, we'll have the city spin off a privately-funded municipal wireless ISP and force them to compete. Except then the city gets its ass sued.
It seems like all's fair in business when it's the customer getting fucked, but not when the business goes crying home to the government for protectionism and bailouts.
But that's the very heart of American "capitalism"--socialism for the rich.
Slashdot Mirror
...when you start to depend on third parties, how can you be sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature
"Provably secure" means exactly that, for the same reason a one-time pad is provably secure.
There are often reasons for silly things...
Because "Person A sues Company Y" makes the news, while "Person B doesn't sue Company Z" doesn't, perhaps?
I think the following provision should be in the law: if a jury decides a lawsuit is frivolous, then the lawyers that started it should pay everything they got plus punitive damages to the part that got sued, where "punitive" means "enough to hurt". No lawyer should be allowed to get *any* profit from a frivolous lawsuit. And lawyers should know enough about the law to realize that they are embarking on a frivolous lawsuit, whose purpose is just to intimidate or send a political message.
And then you have a chilling effect on valid lawsuits that might, potentially, maybe be declared frivolous if the wrong jury or judge get a hold of it. And you'll have lawyers everywhere less willing to work on contingency, everyone will require a retainer.
The overall effect? Poor people with legitimate legal claims get fucked.
Though apparently American courts have ruled in favor of McDonalds several times over "Mc$WORD" businesses. While other countries appear to have (rightly) laughed them out of court. Wow our justice system is fucked.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
There is no "in effect." Trademarks must be registered. "Mc" is not a registered trademark, Microsoft is.
Post above should be modded redundant... Don't know what happened there.
Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.
I see, you may have been referring to something like this schematic. It is in fact the crude abstraction.
VLANs are specified by port, not by wire. Between the port on the switch and the switching fabric/switch processor, there is no such concept as a VLAN. Once the switch has processed an incoming frame, it determines what VLAN the frame belongs to by which port it came in on. It then broadcasts it out to any other devices on that switch on the same VLAN and, if there are any VLAN trunk interfaces set up, it tags the frame with the VLAN ID and sends it out on the trunk.
That diagram is a rough schematic of data flow, not of the actual electronics behind the device. However it does roughly show the three components of the device--the switch on the bottom, the router on the top left, and the access point on the top right.
Note that there are exactly two interfaces on that device which would have a MAC address--eth0 of the router is one, the AP's wireless interface is the other.
LOL. You must have missed the part where I said:
They're designed to have every host attached to the native VLAN.
"Native VLAN" == VLAN001, BTW.
If you can find me some way to specify different VLANs for different ports on, say, a Linksys WRT54G with default firmware (in other words, like 98.75% of the home market), I'll cede the point.
Somebody who tells someone else to "open your home router and follow the traces from the Ethernet sockets, then come back and revise your statement about VLANs" should not be the one telling others to "read up or shut up."
As for my "crude network device abstraction," you might want to inform Linksys of that so they can stop advertising their WRT54G as:
The Linksys Wireless-G Broadband Router is really three devices in one box. First, there's the Wireless Access Point, which lets you connect both screaming fast Wireless-G (802.11g at 54Mbps) and Wireless-B (802.11b at 11Mbps) devices to the network. There's also a built-in 4-port full-duplex 10/100 Switch to connect your wired-Ethernet devices together. Connect four PCs directly, or attach more hubs and switches to create as big a network as you need. Finally, the Router function ties it all together and lets your whole network share a high-speed cable or DSL Internet connection.
The key word was "easily."
If you already have enough information to convince me you're my net admin and get me to give you some unintelligible code from the bottom of my router, and/or I'm gullible enough to fall for it, what extra benefit will you get from possibly knowing what street I live on, if somebody has wardriven past me and logged it?
Hell, you can just do a geographic IP lookup and get close enough to fool most gullible people.
...thank you for saying the exact same thing I said but with more words?
VLANs don't even come into play in a typical home router/switch/wireless AP combo. They're designed to have every host attached to the native VLAN. I'm not sure what you mean about the interfaces being virtual (what interfaces?), but again, a switch doesn't have its own MAC address. Routers, APs, and hosts do, switches don't.
The article is not correct, because it presumes that there is some way for some random hacker across the globe to easily associate my MAC address with my e-mail address. Unless you're inside my network, you don't know what my MAC address is. And if you're inside my network, I've got lots more to worry about than a weak phishing attack.
The typical wireless home router has three integrated networking devices, one for the external wired interface (a "router"), one for the internal wired network (a "switch") and one for the wireless network (an "access point"). A switch does not have its own MAC address, but a router and an AP do.
Who modded this informative? Shit.
1. No steel builing has ever collapsed due to a fire.
The WTC is by a huge margin the tallest man-made structure ever to collapse. There's a huge difference between a 10-story steel building and a 100+ story one.
2. The WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and collapsed, according to NIST 'due to a fire'.
See above. It had significant structural damage from falling debris, which contributed (along with fire) to the collapse.
1. The government explicitly forbit independent investigation of ground zero basically shipping most of the evidence on the site to be smelted - possibly to make the burden of proof on conspiracy theorists to be especially burdensome.
The words "these are facts" should never, ever be followed by the word "possibly."
2. Several witnesses report hearing loud explosions on the WTC before any planes hit.
Okay so if the explosions happened before the planes hit, why didn't the buildings collapse immediately? I thought the bombs supposedly went off after the planes hit and caused the collapse? Were these first bombs duds?
3. The opinions ( not fact, cause I can distinguish between those two ) of many engineers and scientists - none paid by the government, in stark contrast to 'not all paid by' - that it looked the textbook case of controlled demolition.
I'd call it "several." But sure, call it "many" if you like.
4. The 9/11 Comission report didn't even acknowledge WTC 7's existence. In a healthy democracy, that would be as admission of guilt, in my opinion. Since it's obvious that that part of the disaster DID NOT go according to plan.
But you're suggesting that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished with explosives. Which obviously worked. So how did this "NOT go according to plan"? Jesus effing Christ, at least keep your crackpot theories consistent with each other.
Really? Where did you get that from? The building did look fine before crashing.
Check the other WTC buildings that were REALLY hit by thousands of tons of debris, they're not hard to find with a Google search
A quick Wikipedia search takes a matter of seconds:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3]
But then, that report (including photographs) is from NIST, so I'm sure the truthers will completely disregard it.
The WTC 7 fell just like other two towers because of a fire.
WTC 7 fell just like the other towers because of structural damage. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, the structural damage was caused by a combination of impact from the jets and fire; in the case of WTC 7, it was caused by debris impact and fire.
And the Empire state building was hit by a military bomber and did not fall.
The pilot of the B-25 bomber was in a 17.5 ton prop aircraft, trying to avoid the building and climbing at the time. The pilots of the 767s on 9/11 were in 150-ton jet aircrafts flying on a direct course toward the buildings at full speed.
And there are also construction differences between the Empire State Building, which is steel-reinforced masonry, and the WTC, which was plain steel.
Different situations altogether in any case.
You think paper, wood and fabric burns hotter than jet fuel? Omg, why do I even bother????...
Well, an office fire spikes at 1300C (~2400F) and levels off at 1100C (~2000F), while jet fuel burns at 290C (550F). So yes, yes I do.
Are you sure you're not seeing "TN" or "TiN" and thinking that means tungsten? It means titanium nitride, which is extremely hard and used to coat drill bits.
OTOH, as someone else pointed out, WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, and IT imploded right after its new owner was overheard on a cell phone by several people and a television news crew saying the words 'pull it', which is construction industry jargon for 'ignite the explosives'.
Indeed, it was not hit by a plane. It was, however, hit by thousands of tons of falling debris and set on fire. Jet fuel isn't the only thing that burns. Office fires tend to be incredibly hot and hard to control because offices are full of extremely flammable stuff--fabric, wood, and paper. All of which burns significantly hotter than jet fuel, mind you.
Implementation in web browsers
Internet Explorer as of version 7 doesn't support pipelining.
Mozilla Firefox 3.0 supports pipelining, but it's disabled by default. It uses some heuristics, especially to turn pipelining off for IIS servers. Instructions for enabling pipelining can be found at Firefox Help: Tips & Tricks. Camino does the same thing as Firefox.
Konqueror 2.0 supports pipelining, but it's disabled by default. Instructions for enabling it can be found at Konqueror: Tips & Tricks.
Opera has pipelining enabled by default. It uses heuristics to control the level of pipelining employed depending on the connected server. [1]
It's a common "hidden Firefox trick" to boost your speed by enabling pipelining. It's still not nearly universal, and it still relies on whatever site you're accessing to have pipelining enabled as well.
You don't have to do the SSL handshake once per page and image though. Because SSL is session-based, you only need to do the handshake once per session, not once per TCP connection. The SSL symmetric key lasts until the browser closes and the session ends.
Don't forget the have belonging to all other country.
In most cases it would not help loading Web pages. Thanks to TCP slow start, at the very beginning of a TCP connection the limiting factor in the transfer rate is latency, not bandwidth. You have to be transferring for a while before you manage to actually hit full bandwidth. Most Web pages are so tiny that the download is finished before your TCP window ever fully opens up. Same deal with most relatively small images--each image on a page is opened as a totally separate HTTP GET request.
Higher download speeds are only really useful for downloading large files and for streaming higher-bitrate audio/video content, but then you run into the cap issue.
If only there were some way to provide point-to-point connectivity between two locations that didn't involve laying wires in the ground...
Unless your mother lives in the mountains, her rural coop could get completely wired with plain old Wifi and a few Pringles cantennas. Well okay maybe at a range of a mile or two between residences you'd need to actually buy a beefy access point and a good directional antenna, but it wouldn't be a drastic investment.
Cellular Internet and satellite both have very serious performance issues. With satellite, it's mostly latency and also some availability issues; with cellular, it's both latency and jitter. DSL, cable, FTTH, and WiMax all have much better performance profiles.
Except it's the monopolistic practices of Comcast that cause that situation.
They use exclusive provider deals with housing developments and apartment buildings to ensure they're the only company allowed to compete on the block. In lack of competition, they stagnate.
Fine. Then I and my neighbors will pool our resources to lease several lines from Comcast, and set up a bandwidth pool we all can access. Except then we get our asses sued.
Fine. Since Comcast isn't willing to provide better service, we'll have the city spin off a privately-funded municipal wireless ISP and force them to compete. Except then the city gets its ass sued.
It seems like all's fair in business when it's the customer getting fucked, but not when the business goes crying home to the government for protectionism and bailouts.
But that's the very heart of American "capitalism"--socialism for the rich.