You also gain the bonus feature that with a single config line change, you can put one of your private "NATed" machines out in your DMZ and don't have to reconfigure anything else but one entry on the firewall
To people who care about security and know their stuff that is a bug not a feature. Think about what happens if one day someone fat-fingers the firewall config. The DMZ servers would be hardened so they might survive the exposure. The other machines on your private network are unlikely to be safe when accidentally exposed to the world. In many real world corporations there are usually servers that can't be locked down that tightly.
IPv6 proponents using such "features" as arguments for adopting IPv6 gives me the impression that the IPv6 proponents have no idea of how things really work in the real world. Heck the IPv6 bunch even took the trouble to reinvent DHCP poorly (talking about SLAAC and not DHCPv6)- they even left out DNS till 2007! Clueless idiots living in ivory towers.
24fps is a bit jerky? It's terrible. Especially on left-right pan shots I can see the whole thing being jerkily updated. And I often think, wow I can get far better fps than that on my old home PC.
The problem with motion blurring or any sort of blurring is it makes my eyes hurt when I try to focus on something that can not be in focus.
In real life when you are looking at something moving, the object you are looking at becomes sharp, at worst the background becomes motion blurred. If you look at the background, the background becomes sharp, and the object becomes blurry. So whatever I look at is sharp unless the object is moving really fast, or I'm having problems with my eyes.
As technology improves they should strive to have more stuff sharp. As you said let our eyes do the blurring. Only in a few cases should the director blur stuff for effect.
As long as the elections aren't being diebolded, the voters voted for those people, and so the voters should get what they voted for, however bad it is. That's what democracy is about - the majority getting what they deserve rather than worse (or extremely rarely- better) than what they deserve.
Using nonpeaceful ways of solving the problem is likely to give you a worse problem as I have already mentioned.
Revolution is unnecessary in a democracy if the voters do their duty responsibly. Because in a democracy the voters can change the entire leadership without any bloodshed- how much more of a revolution do you really need?
The USA has a diverse voter population, so it's going to be hard for a politician to please everyone on most things - they are just going to have to settle for being the least bad choice.
The metagovernment thing one poster goes on about isn't going to solve the problem when you have diverse irreconcilable opinions - people are going to be unhappy.
The problem I see is voters are poorly educated and do not take their responsibilities seriously - and just take the time to inform themselves once every few years.
By the way that's another reason why I think the libertarians are incompetent or malicious. If they think the voters are so stupid and can't even vote well every few years, what makes them think the voters would vote optimally with their wallets every day when the corporations are way more powerful than the Government? The libertarians obsession with quantity of Government rather than quality will not serve the people well.
So why aren't more people working on getting rid of the politicians
They need to vote to do that[1].
However given that >90% of those who actually vote, vote for one of the Two Parties, go figure. The people are voting for what they want. If the people actually want something different they should vote accordingly. Just because you think what the people want is stupid doesn't mean your vote should be worth more than theirs. You should educate and convince them to vote differently.
[1] And if you think people should use bullets instead, you'd just end up with a Dictatorship. When violence is the method of choosing leaders, you usually end up with a leader that has proven himself willing and capable of exerting the most violence. And not surprisingly no one else in the country can stop him from doing whatever he wants. And that is why most Communist Revolutions end up as Dictatorships.
It all depends on what you can teleport, how much, how far and how easy it was. If it was very easy to teleport a lot of stuff from the sun to the earth it would be the equivalent of the "Big Red Button that destroys everything(on Earth)".
As for the question- the dangerous lines of scientific inquiry are: 1) The ones that make those "Big Red Buttons" cheaper and more accessible to everyone - eventually some psycho/idiot will get one and press it. 2) The ones that force a future on societies that are not ready for yet. There are many things that we are not ready for. Our legal systems, cultures and societies are not ready for genuine Strong AI, or animals that are really as smart as us, or combinations of the two or more (human+animal+AI hybrid/cyborgs).
If remote involuntary mind reading was possible, with no cheap effective defences that could change a lot of things drastically. I doubt it would change things for the better.
A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously
I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it: http://cognitivefun.net/test/28 http://cognitivefun.net/test/7 http://cognitivefun.net/test/3 http://cognitivefun.net/test/4 http://cognitivefun.net/test/8 Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence". FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.
I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?
A possible advantage of that interface is it could also allow "advanced" users to do stuff more quickly, maybe even faster than with a conventional CLI.
Maybe the would-be plaintiffs realize that they might sue the offending law firm "successfully", but so expensively that you and your lawyer "adversaries" can all have a very nice dinner on the new yacht, while laughing at the "winner" of the lawsuit.
Actually with solar panels getting better that options is actually pretty viable. You could charge up enough in an hour to get to another town most likely.
I don't think so. How many square metres of solar panels can you carry in your car? 1 hour * 1 square metre * 500 watts (energy from sun per square metre) * 20% (solar to electricity conversion efficiency) = 0.1kWh. OK let's say you amazingly have 3 square metres of panels. That's 0.3kWh. A Prius can travel up to 1.6 km using 0.3kWh (using Toyota's figures of up to 24 km on 4.4kWh).
If you can drive to a nearby town after a 1 hour solar charge, it's probably faster to walk there instead.
In other words, at the very least, the dynamic languages will have to do a table lookup and then call the function, as opposed to just calling the function.
Maybe someone should have a word with Intel/AMD. After all they seem to be running out of ideas on what to do with all those transistors.
I'm not sure about phones but at least in Desktop Windows you're less safe if you use Microsoft's certificate system.
As long as you have Microsoft's root cert (and you need it installed), whatever CA's cert that's signed by Microsoft's cert will get automatically installed by your browser.
You can try it for yourself, go to one of the CA's https websites. Delete the relevant certs from IE. Visit them again, look at the cert store - notice that the cert gets reinstalled silently. A similar thing happens for any CA certs in the trusted stores. So if Microsoft signs Entrust's cert and Entrust signs CNNIC's cert (China Gov), the CNNIC cert will be trusted.
So you may think you're only using self-signed certs but that's not how it works in practice.
Not sure whether it's the same thing for Windows or other phones, but you can go try it and probably should if you really care about security.
Fact is nobody really cares - they just want that scary warning to not be there and so they pay $$$ to CAs who do nothing really beneficial in terms of security. And the browser makers don't care either - otherwise they'd warn users if the CAs or certs have changed unexpectedly (I use certificate patrol for this - but it's not as good as if the browser does it properly).
At 0155, the captain made a mandatory position report with the Shanwick Oceanic control centre. This aroused the FO. The FO had rested for 75 minutes but reported not feeling altogether well. Coincidentally, an oppositeâ"direction United States Air Force Boeing Câ"17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.
Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.
You could poke directly into video RAM on the Apple II.
The Apple II was actually a very simple/primitive machine in terms of hardware - Wozniak managed to have most stuff done by the CPU and so reduce the number of supporting chips.
Wachovia admitted it didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That's the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product.
Must have been really difficult to notice the flow of 378 billion over 3 years?
Or maybe not:
"It's the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy," says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia's branch network.
If you're going to make those drugs illegal you should make the money laundering illegal AND enforce those laws. No wrist-slaps. You see the Feds doing anything that would make the Banks change?
"There's no capacity to regulate or punish them because they're too big to be threatened with failure," Blum says. "They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they're caught."
That's complete bullshit. All you have to do is throw those involved into prison. Keep the bank running and let others take over the jobs. I'm sure the bank can figure out who was involved in the 300 billion. If the bank can't then the people responsible for keeping track should go to prison, just for criminal negligence.
They seem able to throw the small fry into prison:
All three Oropezas pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Brownsville to drug and money-laundering charges in March and April 2008. Oscar Oropeza was sentenced to 15 years in prison; his wife was ordered to serve 10 months and his daughter got 6 months.
So in my opinion this shutting down of narcotics stores is just an expensive and pointless show.
That happens all the time because when everyone else is running away the crazy photographers are crouching/standing there clicking away and thinking of the shot.
Zap the parts that need to be zapped, not the entire brain! Sticking to zapping the whole brain because it works in many cases without trying to figure out which part you actually need to zap (and why it works) is "dark ages" science.
No, I don't get that funny feeling at all. Because with credit cards it's not my money - it's a CREDIT card after all! If there's card fraud it's usually the merchant's (or more rarely the bank's) money that's gone. And if the merchant doesn't deliver, I complain to my card issuer, and I don't have to pay for that transaction. It may take a while for some cases but meanwhile the scenario is: my money is with me, the bank says I owe them. It's in the interest of the bank to fix the situation. I can complain to the regulator too.
With digital or nondigital cash it's another story - it's MY money that's gone! If the merchant never delivers, I have to go after the merchant to get my money back. That's normally harder for most people especially for international transactions. It's not like the cops will help.
The costs of supporting credit cards are passed to the consumers, but where I live there's usually not a significant price difference when you pay with cash compared to when you pay with credit card. It's 0% to 5% more. Lots of merchants have realized that handling lots of cash does come with costs too. Many probably lose more from employees stealing stuff/money.
So please do a better job of showing how digital cash is better.
Could be many reasons. FWIW breaking AC is easier than breaking DC. And if you want to consistently break a circuit in a small space and have the breaker be able to keep doing it very many times without replacement it probably gets expensive.
How does digital cash solve the Nigerian scam problem? How does digital cash solve the problem of using a user's credentials to transfer money out? Which common computer crime problems does digital cash solve?
NAT by itself doesn't drop all incoming connections.
If there is no firewalling an attacker with access to the adjacent network "outside" the NAT router can access the internal network (assuming knowledge of the internal IP addresses - which isn't that hard). This risk is normally quite low, compared to the risk of someone "out there" trying to get in.
But thinking they can't get in just because there's NAT and they're the other side of the world is not true. Hackers have been able to subvert ISP routers and make packets take strange paths.
Slashdot Mirror
You also gain the bonus feature that with a single config line change, you can put one of your private "NATed" machines out in your DMZ and don't have to reconfigure anything else but one entry on the firewall
To people who care about security and know their stuff that is a bug not a feature. Think about what happens if one day someone fat-fingers the firewall config. The DMZ servers would be hardened so they might survive the exposure. The other machines on your private network are unlikely to be safe when accidentally exposed to the world. In many real world corporations there are usually servers that can't be locked down that tightly.
IPv6 proponents using such "features" as arguments for adopting IPv6 gives me the impression that the IPv6 proponents have no idea of how things really work in the real world. Heck the IPv6 bunch even took the trouble to reinvent DHCP poorly (talking about SLAAC and not DHCPv6)- they even left out DNS till 2007! Clueless idiots living in ivory towers.
24fps is a bit jerky? It's terrible. Especially on left-right pan shots I can see the whole thing being jerkily updated. And I often think, wow I can get far better fps than that on my old home PC.
The problem with motion blurring or any sort of blurring is it makes my eyes hurt when I try to focus on something that can not be in focus.
In real life when you are looking at something moving, the object you are looking at becomes sharp, at worst the background becomes motion blurred. If you look at the background, the background becomes sharp, and the object becomes blurry. So whatever I look at is sharp unless the object is moving really fast, or I'm having problems with my eyes.
As technology improves they should strive to have more stuff sharp. As you said let our eyes do the blurring. Only in a few cases should the director blur stuff for effect.
As long as the elections aren't being diebolded, the voters voted for those people, and so the voters should get what they voted for, however bad it is. That's what democracy is about - the majority getting what they deserve rather than worse (or extremely rarely- better) than what they deserve.
Using nonpeaceful ways of solving the problem is likely to give you a worse problem as I have already mentioned.
Revolution is unnecessary in a democracy if the voters do their duty responsibly. Because in a democracy the voters can change the entire leadership without any bloodshed- how much more of a revolution do you really need?
The USA has a diverse voter population, so it's going to be hard for a politician to please everyone on most things - they are just going to have to settle for being the least bad choice.
The metagovernment thing one poster goes on about isn't going to solve the problem when you have diverse irreconcilable opinions - people are going to be unhappy.
The problem I see is voters are poorly educated and do not take their responsibilities seriously - and just take the time to inform themselves once every few years.
By the way that's another reason why I think the libertarians are incompetent or malicious. If they think the voters are so stupid and can't even vote well every few years, what makes them think the voters would vote optimally with their wallets every day when the corporations are way more powerful than the Government? The libertarians obsession with quantity of Government rather than quality will not serve the people well.
So why aren't more people working on getting rid of the politicians
They need to vote to do that[1].
However given that >90% of those who actually vote, vote for one of the Two Parties, go figure. The people are voting for what they want. If the people actually want something different they should vote accordingly. Just because you think what the people want is stupid doesn't mean your vote should be worth more than theirs. You should educate and convince them to vote differently.
[1] And if you think people should use bullets instead, you'd just end up with a Dictatorship. When violence is the method of choosing leaders, you usually end up with a leader that has proven himself willing and capable of exerting the most violence. And not surprisingly no one else in the country can stop him from doing whatever he wants. And that is why most Communist Revolutions end up as Dictatorships.
Alternate theory: even the spammers have given up on Hotmail.
It all depends on what you can teleport, how much, how far and how easy it was. If it was very easy to teleport a lot of stuff from the sun to the earth it would be the equivalent of the "Big Red Button that destroys everything(on Earth)".
As for the question- the dangerous lines of scientific inquiry are:
1) The ones that make those "Big Red Buttons" cheaper and more accessible to everyone - eventually some psycho/idiot will get one and press it.
2) The ones that force a future on societies that are not ready for yet. There are many things that we are not ready for. Our legal systems, cultures and societies are not ready for genuine Strong AI, or animals that are really as smart as us, or combinations of the two or more (human+animal+AI hybrid/cyborgs).
If remote involuntary mind reading was possible, with no cheap effective defences that could change a lot of things drastically. I doubt it would change things for the better.
And humans are not complex systems?
I wonder how abrasive this glass is. Would your wipers (or fingers) last about as long rubbing on this glass as compared to conventional glass?
A lot of neuroscientists reckon we can process about 4 separate things in our mind simultaneously
I think it depends on the sort of processing you need to do with those things and how long you have to do it:
http://cognitivefun.net/test/28
http://cognitivefun.net/test/7
http://cognitivefun.net/test/3
http://cognitivefun.net/test/4
http://cognitivefun.net/test/8
Apparently you can train yourself to do it better, and some research claims that "dual n-back" (and n-back) training can also increase your "fluid intelligence".
FWIW I've got much better at the single "n-back" where n=2, after just a few tries over a day or two. I haven't even bothered trying n=4 for that - won't be able to do it without significant practice! Whereas n=5 or more for the simpler tests are trivial.
I find another thing curious - either my reflexes have improved by 20-30ms or the first PC I tried it out on has 20-30ms more lag (screen+mouse+etc). I suspect the latter - could I really have improved my reflexes over a day or two?
I did propose this for "phone support": http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29001/
A possible advantage of that interface is it could also allow "advanced" users to do stuff more quickly, maybe even faster than with a conventional CLI.
Maybe the would-be plaintiffs realize that they might sue the offending law firm "successfully", but so expensively that you and your lawyer "adversaries" can all have a very nice dinner on the new yacht, while laughing at the "winner" of the lawsuit.
Read more carefully then you may understand more. The article AND summary say that Macs have 11% marketshare.
Actually with solar panels getting better that options is actually pretty viable. You could charge up enough in an hour to get to another town most likely.
I don't think so. How many square metres of solar panels can you carry in your car? 1 hour * 1 square metre * 500 watts (energy from sun per square metre) * 20% (solar to electricity conversion efficiency) = 0.1kWh. OK let's say you amazingly have 3 square metres of panels. That's 0.3kWh. A Prius can travel up to 1.6 km using 0.3kWh (using Toyota's figures of up to 24 km on 4.4kWh).
If you can drive to a nearby town after a 1 hour solar charge, it's probably faster to walk there instead.
Yeah most of those dangerous australian animals kill you relatively quickly.
Lawyers don't.
In other words, at the very least, the dynamic languages will have to do a table lookup and then call the function, as opposed to just calling the function.
Maybe someone should have a word with Intel/AMD. After all they seem to be running out of ideas on what to do with all those transistors.
I'm not sure about phones but at least in Desktop Windows you're less safe if you use Microsoft's certificate system.
As long as you have Microsoft's root cert (and you need it installed), whatever CA's cert that's signed by Microsoft's cert will get automatically installed by your browser.
You can try it for yourself, go to one of the CA's https websites. Delete the relevant certs from IE. Visit them again, look at the cert store - notice that the cert gets reinstalled silently. A similar thing happens for any CA certs in the trusted stores. So if Microsoft signs Entrust's cert and Entrust signs CNNIC's cert (China Gov), the CNNIC cert will be trusted.
So you may think you're only using self-signed certs but that's not how it works in practice.
Not sure whether it's the same thing for Windows or other phones, but you can go try it and probably should if you really care about security.
Fact is nobody really cares - they just want that scary warning to not be there and so they pay $$$ to CAs who do nothing really beneficial in terms of security. And the browser makers don't care either - otherwise they'd warn users if the CAs or certs have changed unexpectedly (I use certificate patrol for this - but it's not as good as if the browser does it properly).
Read this instead: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp
At 0155, the captain made a mandatory position report with the Shanwick Oceanic control centre. This aroused the FO. The FO had rested for 75 minutes but reported not feeling altogether well. Coincidentally, an oppositeâ"direction United States Air Force Boeing Câ"17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.
Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.
You could poke directly into video RAM on the Apple II.
The Apple II was actually a very simple/primitive machine in terms of hardware - Wozniak managed to have most stuff done by the CPU and so reduce the number of supporting chips.
The drug dealers still need to pay their rent and buy their groceries, and they cannot do that with Bitcoin.
The big boys just use stuff like Wachovia/Wells Fargo and Bank of America: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
A few more details here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Wachovia admitted it didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That's the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product.
Must have been really difficult to notice the flow of 378 billion over 3 years?
Or maybe not:
"It's the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy," says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia's branch network.
If you're going to make those drugs illegal you should make the money laundering illegal AND enforce those laws. No wrist-slaps. You see the Feds doing anything that would make the Banks change?
"There's no capacity to regulate or punish them because they're too big to be threatened with failure," Blum says. "They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they're caught."
That's complete bullshit. All you have to do is throw those involved into prison. Keep the bank running and let others take over the jobs. I'm sure the bank can figure out who was involved in the 300 billion. If the bank can't then the people responsible for keeping track should go to prison, just for criminal negligence.
They seem able to throw the small fry into prison:
All three Oropezas pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Brownsville to drug and money-laundering charges in March and April 2008. Oscar Oropeza was sentenced to 15 years in prison; his wife was ordered to serve 10 months and his daughter got 6 months.
So in my opinion this shutting down of narcotics stores is just an expensive and pointless show.
That happens all the time because when everyone else is running away the crazy photographers are crouching/standing there clicking away and thinking of the shot.
Sure but zapping the whole brain nowadays is still "dark ages" stuff.
We should be looking more into stuff like this:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/09/04/tns-electrical-stimulation-helps-depression/17732.html
TMS, TDCT or similar.
Zap the parts that need to be zapped, not the entire brain! Sticking to zapping the whole brain because it works in many cases without trying to figure out which part you actually need to zap (and why it works) is "dark ages" science.
No, I don't get that funny feeling at all. Because with credit cards it's not my money - it's a CREDIT card after all! If there's card fraud it's usually the merchant's (or more rarely the bank's) money that's gone. And if the merchant doesn't deliver, I complain to my card issuer, and I don't have to pay for that transaction. It may take a while for some cases but meanwhile the scenario is: my money is with me, the bank says I owe them. It's in the interest of the bank to fix the situation. I can complain to the regulator too.
With digital or nondigital cash it's another story - it's MY money that's gone! If the merchant never delivers, I have to go after the merchant to get my money back. That's normally harder for most people especially for international transactions. It's not like the cops will help.
The costs of supporting credit cards are passed to the consumers, but where I live there's usually not a significant price difference when you pay with cash compared to when you pay with credit card. It's 0% to 5% more. Lots of merchants have realized that handling lots of cash does come with costs too. Many probably lose more from employees stealing stuff/money.
So please do a better job of showing how digital cash is better.
Could be many reasons. FWIW breaking AC is easier than breaking DC. And if you want to consistently break a circuit in a small space and have the breaker be able to keep doing it very many times without replacement it probably gets expensive.
We are still sluggish on deploying digital cash
How does digital cash solve the Nigerian scam problem?
How does digital cash solve the problem of using a user's credentials to transfer money out?
Which common computer crime problems does digital cash solve?
NAT by itself doesn't drop all incoming connections.
If there is no firewalling an attacker with access to the adjacent network "outside" the NAT router can access the internal network (assuming knowledge of the internal IP addresses - which isn't that hard). This risk is normally quite low, compared to the risk of someone "out there" trying to get in.
But thinking they can't get in just because there's NAT and they're the other side of the world is not true. Hackers have been able to subvert ISP routers and make packets take strange paths.