Yes, it's true that he was actually testing somebody else's system... however, it's not unreasonable to conclude, given what kind of software he was evidently trying to develop, that it would need to be fixed before he released his application or else the vulnerability might be exploited by anybody who used his app and happened to also discover it, as he originally did.
Well yes.... but I thought it was even more broad than that, going so far as to cover opinion, which is neither slander nor libel.
My point being that if something bad happens to a person, then repeating the fact that it happened isn't really any more defamatory than the fact that it actually happened in the first place.
Not sure if you're trying to be funny, sarcastic, or if you genuinely think that.
The reason we got stuck with 32 bits is because when that was decided upon, nobody ever expected that the internet protocol was going to become ubiquitous. That shortsighted view does not exist today.
That's only fine if you don't want any internet connectivity with those devices at all. If a NAT'ed connection would genuinely be good enough for a some proper subset of your network, then why use up globally visible IP's that could be better used on devices that actually *would* use them?
Sure, this might not seem like a problem given the large address space available with ipv6, but can you give me a single practical reason that we should be deliberately wasteful with that space when NAT accomplishes the goal with significantly less effort than configuring a firewall to accomplish the same thing? At least with ipv6, you still have the option of the deciding which devices you'd want to have globally visible IP's and which ones you might want to be collected under a single one. Please consider that NAT under ipv6 does not automatically mean that every device must use it*... it only means that the devices *YOU* choose can be collected together and treated as one by the outside.
*Heck, it doesn't even mean that with v4, as long as you have globally visible v4 IP's available for you to use. I've got an account with my ISP that allows me to have more than one (but a fixed number of) globally visible IP's, and I've configured my own home ipv4 router to give certain machines on my LAN globally visible IP's which are assigned by my ISP via DHCP, bypassing NAT for Internet connectivity, while putting all the other ones behind a NAT (I have over a dozen different devices on my LAN, but nowhere near enough global IP's from my ISP for even half of them). Granted, much of my incentive for setting it up this way is because of the limited number of globally visible IP addresses available from my ISP (and I am currently utilizing all of them), but even if the number were much larger than I have right now, I do not think I would substantially alter the basic configuration.
If you were searching for synonyms, in the context of "carrier grade NAT" you wouldn't be too far off with "large scale", "group", or "widely distributed".
NAT has problems at any level. On a small scale, such as home use, these may not insurmountable. At carrier grade level, however, it's very problematic.
Compare being hit by a bicycle to being hit by a bus. Neither is good, but the latter is more likely to cause lasting problems.
Absolutely no IPv6 proponent is suggesting that anyone adopt ipv6 at this time without having a dual ipv4/ipv6 stack. The point of having ipv6 is to be able to connect to future possible ipv6-only content... which will start proliferating once the norm became people having both stacks. Much like how windows-only apps started becoming the norm even while it was still essentially just a GUI over top of DOS.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you genuinely didn't understand, but I'm pretty sure that by "exclusively" the gp was only referring to the fact that you can't mix amd and intel on the *same* motherboard. In fact, that the gp even quite explicitly mentions this notion in the very sentence you quoted (saying he's "never seen an Intel board with an AMD socket").
Yes, I know that defamation isn't slander or libel, but I thought that defamation had to be something bad which was based on opinion, not provable facts.
... that the defamatory remark be something which cannot be unambiguously proven? If something bad happens to person X, reporting that fact doesn't really put person X in any more of a disparaging light than the fact that the bad thing had actually happened in the first place.
According to Patrick, it took him 120 hours to build the gauntlet â" and he wasnâ(TM)t working from plans of any kind. As with his past creations (such as a coilgun, flame-throwing glove, and rotary blade-shooting crossbow), heâ(TM)s not about to tell people how to build one of their own. If you contact him via his website, however, he might be willing to make you one... for the right price.
So...he's made his intent fairly clear that he intends to profit from this, even going so far as to create a form of scarcity by not disclosing to others how he did it. How long do you do you think it will take for the lawyers to descend?
Every time I see the phrase "Microsoft Surface", I always think of the table computing platform now called Pixelsense. It's like I always have to do a mental double-take to realize that they are talking about a tablet.
I'm not normally adverse to keeping up to date with technology and lingo, so I'm unsure why, long after I learned that they had renamed it, I'm still always stumbling over that expression and initially associating it only with MS's table computing platform.
Sorry.... sorta OT... But I'm starting to wonder if maybe I'm just getting too old to keep up with this stuff.
And I'll give you no argument that Linux has enjoyed quite a bit of commercial success in the server arena... but how on earth do you equate that with spelling probable success in the home user market?
I wasn't so much suggesting that OSX is a viable gaming platform as much as I was suggesting that several orders of magnitude more commercially successful games have been ported even to it than have been ported to Linux. The latter numbers considerably fewer than a hundred, which does not even account for 1% of the games available on steam.
Software sells hardware. Always. Every platform ever invented that has enjoyed some measure of commercial success has always had "killer apps" which weren't available elsewhere.
Even a windows 8 pc will play significantly more of their old titles than a steambox would.
Unless the end user just turned around and just installed windows on the steambox.
But if that's what they expect most people are going to do, then what's the point of shipping it with Linux in the first place other than to give geek woodies to Linux fanboys?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure dual stacking has any pain associated with it? It's completely transparent to the end user when you are accessing things by name.
Yes, it's true that he was actually testing somebody else's system... however, it's not unreasonable to conclude, given what kind of software he was evidently trying to develop, that it would need to be fixed before he released his application or else the vulnerability might be exploited by anybody who used his app and happened to also discover it, as he originally did.
Well yes.... but I thought it was even more broad than that, going so far as to cover opinion, which is neither slander nor libel.
My point being that if something bad happens to a person, then repeating the fact that it happened isn't really any more defamatory than the fact that it actually happened in the first place.
oooh.... I *LIKE* that metaphor. Mind if steal it?
What's new that they could actually afford to offer more public IP's for home subscribers that actually want them.
And increased customer choice spells more opportunity for commercial gain, does it not?
Not sure if you're trying to be funny, sarcastic, or if you genuinely think that.
The reason we got stuck with 32 bits is because when that was decided upon, nobody ever expected that the internet protocol was going to become ubiquitous. That shortsighted view does not exist today.
Yes, we will run out of ipv6 space eventually... it's a given. But it's not going to happen before we go to the stars.
That's only fine if you don't want any internet connectivity with those devices at all. If a NAT'ed connection would genuinely be good enough for a some proper subset of your network, then why use up globally visible IP's that could be better used on devices that actually *would* use them?
Sure, this might not seem like a problem given the large address space available with ipv6, but can you give me a single practical reason that we should be deliberately wasteful with that space when NAT accomplishes the goal with significantly less effort than configuring a firewall to accomplish the same thing? At least with ipv6, you still have the option of the deciding which devices you'd want to have globally visible IP's and which ones you might want to be collected under a single one. Please consider that NAT under ipv6 does not automatically mean that every device must use it*... it only means that the devices *YOU* choose can be collected together and treated as one by the outside.
*Heck, it doesn't even mean that with v4, as long as you have globally visible v4 IP's available for you to use. I've got an account with my ISP that allows me to have more than one (but a fixed number of) globally visible IP's, and I've configured my own home ipv4 router to give certain machines on my LAN globally visible IP's which are assigned by my ISP via DHCP, bypassing NAT for Internet connectivity, while putting all the other ones behind a NAT (I have over a dozen different devices on my LAN, but nowhere near enough global IP's from my ISP for even half of them). Granted, much of my incentive for setting it up this way is because of the limited number of globally visible IP addresses available from my ISP (and I am currently utilizing all of them), but even if the number were much larger than I have right now, I do not think I would substantially alter the basic configuration.
"Carrier grade" has nothing to do with quality.
It has to do with policy.
If you were searching for synonyms, in the context of "carrier grade NAT" you wouldn't be too far off with "large scale", "group", or "widely distributed".
NAT has problems at any level. On a small scale, such as home use, these may not insurmountable. At carrier grade level, however, it's very problematic.
Compare being hit by a bicycle to being hit by a bus. Neither is good, but the latter is more likely to cause lasting problems.
ipv7 will not be necessary until we start colonizing other planets... *OUTSIDE* of our solar system.
Absolutely no IPv6 proponent is suggesting that anyone adopt ipv6 at this time without having a dual ipv4/ipv6 stack. The point of having ipv6 is to be able to connect to future possible ipv6-only content... which will start proliferating once the norm became people having both stacks. Much like how windows-only apps started becoming the norm even while it was still essentially just a GUI over top of DOS.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you genuinely didn't understand, but I'm pretty sure that by "exclusively" the gp was only referring to the fact that you can't mix amd and intel on the *same* motherboard. In fact, that the gp even quite explicitly mentions this notion in the very sentence you quoted (saying he's "never seen an Intel board with an AMD socket").
Yes, I know that defamation isn't slander or libel, but I thought that defamation had to be something bad which was based on opinion, not provable facts.
... that the defamatory remark be something which cannot be unambiguously proven? If something bad happens to person X, reporting that fact doesn't really put person X in any more of a disparaging light than the fact that the bad thing had actually happened in the first place.
Selling "Iron Man" replica merchandise.
So...he's made his intent fairly clear that he intends to profit from this, even going so far as to create a form of scarcity by not disclosing to others how he did it. How long do you do you think it will take for the lawyers to descend?
Every time I see the phrase "Microsoft Surface", I always think of the table computing platform now called Pixelsense. It's like I always have to do a mental double-take to realize that they are talking about a tablet.
I'm not normally adverse to keeping up to date with technology and lingo, so I'm unsure why, long after I learned that they had renamed it, I'm still always stumbling over that expression and initially associating it only with MS's table computing platform.
Sorry.... sorta OT... But I'm starting to wonder if maybe I'm just getting too old to keep up with this stuff.
That can't be right.... Did I misread the headline?
No... but troff was around for almost all of the 70's, and after 1977, TeX.
You know that troff existed in 1971, right?
Computerized typesetting isn't exactly new.
Are these pdf's clean copies, and not just scans of an aging rulebook or module?
How about I give you a link instead?
And I'll give you no argument that Linux has enjoyed quite a bit of commercial success in the server arena... but how on earth do you equate that with spelling probable success in the home user market?
I wasn't so much suggesting that OSX is a viable gaming platform as much as I was suggesting that several orders of magnitude more commercially successful games have been ported even to it than have been ported to Linux. The latter numbers considerably fewer than a hundred, which does not even account for 1% of the games available on steam.
Software sells hardware. Always. Every platform ever invented that has enjoyed some measure of commercial success has always had "killer apps" which weren't available elsewhere.
Even a windows 8 pc will play significantly more of their old titles than a steambox would.
Unless the end user just turned around and just installed windows on the steambox.
But if that's what they expect most people are going to do, then what's the point of shipping it with Linux in the first place other than to give geek woodies to Linux fanboys?
Theoretically can, perhaps.... but I was under the impression that Mega doesn't actually store both.