Actually, I know some small to medium organisations that claim a NAT setup as sufficient security. Idiots, but there you are.
Anyway, the point he was making was that boundary security is insufficient, which you agree to. I don't think he was making a value judgement between firewalls & NATs, since he didn't compare the two at all.
The whole article seemed pretty free of any real push, to me. He described problems with and for IPv6, and he described problems with NAT. His only conclusion was that the US will be the last place to seriously implement IPv6, and I think he may well be right.
Well, if you RTFA, he actually goes on to say that you cannot secure a network by securing the boundary, so a simple firewall is just as bad as NAT. You are saying the same thing he is, you just haven't realised it.
It creates a false sense of security. People think their network is secure because it is NATed, so they spend less effort hardening each internal machine.
Well, I suspect that some kind of FTL communications were implied in the question. Without FTL, there's not much point in extending a single IPv6 network beyond a planet and its immediate satellites. Even ping times to Mars will kill effective comms if you're limited to lightspeed. Current comms roundtrip time to Mars is 20 minutes and 10 seconds, according to people I know tracking the Mars lander.
Even if this is simply a shameless ploy for votes, given the choice of pushing for a new space program, or attacking another country to save the world, I'm all for the space program.
Good things done for an evil cause are still good things.
" "The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?" "
"That doesn't matter. The USSC has THE final say on what is legal and Constitutional."
The USSC can't just declare off-hand that something doesn't fit within the constitution. They have to have reason why one part of the constitution overrides another. The supreme's court's power is to interpret the constitution, not to re-write it.
"YOUR point was that child pornography was censored, but that censorship did not fit my position on the first amendment.
"Despite my showing you the decision by the USSC."
No, you didn't show me the decision, you told me the result of the decision. Different things. The reasoning IS the decision.
As I said, US laws don't affect me, but the right of free speech enchrined in the first amendment is drawn from English common law, and Australian law also acknowledges the right of free speech. So I know about free speech, and I know it is intended to cover more than simply truth. After all, how can free speech allow flat earthers, creationists and scientists all to have the same rights to publish their viewpoints? How can the legal system determine "truth" in philosophy?
Yet all these things are covered by the right of free speech. Why can holocaust denial authors claim free speech rights? Why can the Ku Klux Klan publish their statements that one race is inherently superior to others? Why is the defining statement of free speech "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Surely that's a bit of a giveaway that free speech is not limited to anyone's definition of truth?
The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?
When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life.
And your IQ is three times mine? Wow. I've never met anyone with an IQ well over 400 before. You must be amazingly clever. Why aren't you off working in some useful field, rather than trolling on/.?
You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?
You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple. The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned. Free speech is not limited to truth. it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court.
I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I. Possibly Amendment VI, in the case of slander and libel. Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know. What is relevant is that slander and libel can only be found if the statements are BOTH harmful AND untrue. I could write on my blog that you have blue hair, and you couldn't sue me for libel, since it wouldn't harm you. (Hardly anyone reads my blog!)
So slander and libel depend on those two factors. What other laws limit the right of free speech? Incitement to riot, causing a public nuisance, public obscenity laws, etc. What do all these laws have in common? The concept that someone or something is harmed. Harm to another person or another person's property; that is the principle that is used when justifying any limitations to the right of free speech. Not truth.
Public indecency laws are a limitation on free speech/expression, and they certainly have nothing to do with truth.
Free speech is not limited by truth. I have the right to say untrue things, as long as I am not causing harm by doing so. I have a right to write and publish fiction if I choose. I can claim that the earth is flat one day, and spherical the next. One of those statements must be untrue, but I still have the right to say it.
In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional).
The limitation on libel and slander as regards to truth is a limitation of the scope of libel and slander laws, not a result of any limitation on the right of free speech.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you? In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality".
Not all true things are covered by free speech, either. Graphic child pornography is "true", in that the photographs are of real things and real events, but that doesn't prevent the government from banning them, due to the harm that has been done to the child, and an expected increase in similar or worse harm.
In part, I think it is a reaction to today's fast-paced cultural changes. Many people appreciate links back to what they see as a simpler time, regardless of the historical truths of disease and lawlessness.
It's all about traditions. It is our traditions that make our society what it is. For the British, the monarchy is a large part of that tradition. The actual personages aren't important so much as the symbol of security.
In a fast-changing society, many people like to hold onto something unchanging, to ground themselves.
Yes, an actual housebrick. A plain tan-coloured brick. Nicely wrapped up, though. I still have it, and it's one of the coolest and most memorable presents I ever got, because it came from someone who didn't have much money, but wanted to buy me a present anyway.
That's why all my e-books are from Gutenberg or Baen. No DRM. Baen are great, they realise that releasing e-books without any DRM hassles actually increases sales. When you get a book from them, you can get it in just about any format you want, inluding RTF and HTML, from which you should be able to convert to any format they don't provide. I've bought some e-books from them, and plan to buy more.
I love reading novels on my Palm. The backlit screen means I can read in the dark; if I fall asleep while reading it just turns off and remembers my place; I can even read in the sauna if I put my Palm in a plastic ziplock bag. It carries a whole slew of books in less space than a single paperback, so when I finish the book I'm reading, I just have to go back to the list and pick a new one.
I never thought that e-books would be any good until I tried it. Now I'm a convert. If only I could walk into my local bookstore and ask to get a book beamed into my PDA.
It's well and good to say that users can only fuck up their own directory, but that can completely ruin your interface. Delete the Gnome or KDE config directories, and when you next login, you get a plain X interface. Hard to recover from there for a non-technical user.
It's a particularly interesting figure, given that the details on one of the defendants makes it clear that at least part of what the site was for was distributing DJ mixes, rather than just normal songs.
Perhaps they are calculating this figure on their expected profit if they signed up the DJs and they turned out to be very successful?
Does anyone know about this site? Did it have ripped MP3s on it as well, or was it all mixes?
That would be a paper by the Australian Copyright Council, a body formed of people who are interested in strong copyright protection. They are not an official body, and you can assume that that paper is a biased interpretation.
The official body in Australia that handles intellectual property issues is IP Australia, although realistically, copyright is a matter for the courts to decide.
AFAIK, time-shifting and format-shifting have NEVER BEEN TESTED in Australian courts. The legislation is just not that specific, and there's a lot of common law to be considered, which can over-ride legislation in Australia.
I strongly suspect that if anyone was brought to court in Australia for ripping their CDs to MP3s, or for taping things from the telly, that the court would find it to be fair use, as long as it is clearly being done for personal use.
Now why would they want to steer people towards a good alternative to Windows? There's always the chance they might want to get back into the home desktop market some day. The last thing they'll want then is to see everyone running Macs, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I know some small to medium organisations that claim a NAT setup as sufficient security. Idiots, but there you are.
Anyway, the point he was making was that boundary security is insufficient, which you agree to. I don't think he was making a value judgement between firewalls & NATs, since he didn't compare the two at all.
The whole article seemed pretty free of any real push, to me. He described problems with and for IPv6, and he described problems with NAT. His only conclusion was that the US will be the last place to seriously implement IPv6, and I think he may well be right.
Well, if you RTFA, he actually goes on to say that you cannot secure a network by securing the boundary, so a simple firewall is just as bad as NAT. You are saying the same thing he is, you just haven't realised it.
It creates a false sense of security. People think their network is secure because it is NATed, so they spend less effort hardening each internal machine.
I believe that was the point.
Well, I suspect that some kind of FTL communications were implied in the question. Without FTL, there's not much point in extending a single IPv6 network beyond a planet and its immediate satellites. Even ping times to Mars will kill effective comms if you're limited to lightspeed. Current comms roundtrip time to Mars is 20 minutes and 10 seconds, according to people I know tracking the Mars lander.
Even if this is simply a shameless ploy for votes, given the choice of pushing for a new space program, or attacking another country to save the world, I'm all for the space program.
Good things done for an evil cause are still good things.
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 0420&c=83
And check the rest of the free speech resources on their site.
Please do this. I shudder at the thought of an America where this sad belief of yours is prevalent.
" "The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?" "
"That doesn't matter. The USSC has THE final say on what is legal and Constitutional."
The USSC can't just declare off-hand that something doesn't fit within the constitution. They have to have reason why one part of the constitution overrides another. The supreme's court's power is to interpret the constitution, not to re-write it.
"YOUR point was that child pornography was censored, but that censorship did not fit my position on the first amendment.
"Despite my showing you the decision by the USSC."
No, you didn't show me the decision, you told me the result of the decision. Different things. The reasoning IS the decision.
As I said, US laws don't affect me, but the right of free speech enchrined in the first amendment is drawn from English common law, and Australian law also acknowledges the right of free speech. So I know about free speech, and I know it is intended to cover more than simply truth. After all, how can free speech allow flat earthers, creationists and scientists all to have the same rights to publish their viewpoints? How can the legal system determine "truth" in philosophy?
Yet all these things are covered by the right of free speech. Why can holocaust denial authors claim free speech rights? Why can the Ku Klux Klan publish their statements that one race is inherently superior to others? Why is the defining statement of free speech "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Surely that's a bit of a giveaway that free speech is not limited to anyone's definition of truth?
Oh, and grow up.
The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?
/.?
When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life.
And your IQ is three times mine? Wow. I've never met anyone with an IQ well over 400 before. You must be amazingly clever. Why aren't you off working in some useful field, rather than trolling on
You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?
You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple. The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned. Free speech is not limited to truth. it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court.
Making statements doesn't prove a point.
Some pornography is censored, eg Child pornography. How is that censorship related to truth?
Go look at censorship debates over fiction. They are about harm, not truth, obviously, since fiction is by definition untrue.
Free speech covers fiction. Therefore, free speech is not limited to truth.
"But a statement that is HARMFUL and TRUE is NOT slander nor libel nor perjury nor fraud."
Conversely, a statement that is NOT TRUE and HARMLESS is NOT slander nor libel, nor is it perjury unless made under oath.
As I said, I can claim that you have blue hair, or pink hair, and I have a right to do that. It is not harmful to you.
Explain how free speech is limited by truth when pornography is censored. Is pornography untrue?
I am not going to attempt to justify laws against "obscenity", since I disagree with most of them.
I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I. Possibly Amendment VI, in the case of slander and libel. Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know. What is relevant is that slander and libel can only be found if the statements are BOTH harmful AND untrue. I could write on my blog that you have blue hair, and you couldn't sue me for libel, since it wouldn't harm you. (Hardly anyone reads my blog!)
So slander and libel depend on those two factors. What other laws limit the right of free speech? Incitement to riot, causing a public nuisance, public obscenity laws, etc. What do all these laws have in common? The concept that someone or something is harmed. Harm to another person or another person's property; that is the principle that is used when justifying any limitations to the right of free speech. Not truth.
Public indecency laws are a limitation on free speech/expression, and they certainly have nothing to do with truth.
Free speech is not limited by truth. I have the right to say untrue things, as long as I am not causing harm by doing so. I have a right to write and publish fiction if I choose. I can claim that the earth is flat one day, and spherical the next. One of those statements must be untrue, but I still have the right to say it.
In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional).
The limitation on libel and slander as regards to truth is a limitation of the scope of libel and slander laws, not a result of any limitation on the right of free speech.
I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you? In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality".
Not all true things are covered by free speech, either. Graphic child pornography is "true", in that the photographs are of real things and real events, but that doesn't prevent the government from banning them, due to the harm that has been done to the child, and an expected increase in similar or worse harm.
Do I not have a right to say "The sky is pink" if I want to?
The right to free speech has nothing to do with truth. Limitations on the right of free speech are relevant to harm, not truth.
Otherwise, the government would be able to ban all fiction.
YEs he can, otherwise the BBC wouldn't be calling him "Sir Tim", would they?
The UK does have a constitution, it just doesn't have a written one.
Reference here for an explanation.
Sir Tim HAS been knighted. He didn't get an OBE or some other lesser award. The parent post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Knighthood today doesn't mean what it used to. Feudalism is long gone.
In part, I think it is a reaction to today's fast-paced cultural changes. Many people appreciate links back to what they see as a simpler time, regardless of the historical truths of disease and lawlessness.
It's all about traditions. It is our traditions that make our society what it is. For the British, the monarchy is a large part of that tradition. The actual personages aren't important so much as the symbol of security.
In a fast-changing society, many people like to hold onto something unchanging, to ground themselves.
That's funny, the article (BBC) certainly refers to him as "Sir Tim", and says he has been knighted.
Yes, an actual housebrick. A plain tan-coloured brick. Nicely wrapped up, though. I still have it, and it's one of the coolest and most memorable presents I ever got, because it came from someone who didn't have much money, but wanted to buy me a present anyway.
Sometimes, it really is the thought that counts.
That's why all my e-books are from Gutenberg or Baen. No DRM. Baen are great, they realise that releasing e-books without any DRM hassles actually increases sales. When you get a book from them, you can get it in just about any format you want, inluding RTF and HTML, from which you should be able to convert to any format they don't provide. I've bought some e-books from them, and plan to buy more.
I love reading novels on my Palm. The backlit screen means I can read in the dark; if I fall asleep while reading it just turns off and remembers my place; I can even read in the sauna if I put my Palm in a plastic ziplock bag. It carries a whole slew of books in less space than a single paperback, so when I finish the book I'm reading, I just have to go back to the list and pick a new one.
I never thought that e-books would be any good until I tried it. Now I'm a convert. If only I could walk into my local bookstore and ask to get a book beamed into my PDA.
It's well and good to say that users can only fuck up their own directory, but that can completely ruin your interface. Delete the Gnome or KDE config directories, and when you next login, you get a plain X interface. Hard to recover from there for a non-technical user.
It's a particularly interesting figure, given that the details on one of the defendants makes it clear that at least part of what the site was for was distributing DJ mixes, rather than just normal songs.
Perhaps they are calculating this figure on their expected profit if they signed up the DJs and they turned out to be very successful?
Does anyone know about this site? Did it have ripped MP3s on it as well, or was it all mixes?
That would be a paper by the Australian Copyright Council, a body formed of people who are interested in strong copyright protection. They are not an official body, and you can assume that that paper is a biased interpretation.
The official body in Australia that handles intellectual property issues is IP Australia, although realistically, copyright is a matter for the courts to decide.
AFAIK, time-shifting and format-shifting have NEVER BEEN TESTED in Australian courts. The legislation is just not that specific, and there's a lot of common law to be considered, which can over-ride legislation in Australia.
I strongly suspect that if anyone was brought to court in Australia for ripping their CDs to MP3s, or for taping things from the telly, that the court would find it to be fair use, as long as it is clearly being done for personal use.
Now why would they want to steer people towards a good alternative to Windows? There's always the chance they might want to get back into the home desktop market some day. The last thing they'll want then is to see everyone running Macs, eh?