The most important thing to come from this case may well be the "making available" jury instruction, as that will likely be a major issue for future cases.
If the defense doesn't succeed and "making available" becomes the standard for prosecution, I'm wondering what the limits will be.
I have a USB memory key that fits into an MP3 player. Back when MP3 players (and flash memory) were more expensive, I was able to buy the player for about $25 and use the 1GB memory key I already had.
I ripped a few albums onto the memory key and would listen to them on the plane when I was traveling. At a relatively low bit-rate, the MP3s took up very little space, so I just left them there as I used the memory key for moving data files to and from the clients I was working with.
At one point, I gave the memory key to a client to transfer a file. He took a long time to do it, so I checked back to see if something was wrong. I found him adding all my MP3's to his collection. I politely asked him to delete the files, and subsequently deleted the MP3's off my memory key.
So, did I "make [those files] available" to him by giving him a memory key that happened to have the files on it?
So it's just not a simple rendering bug... on random ocassions, it calculates further using the faulty value.
No, it's still a rendering bug. The occasions that it appears to calculate further using the faulty value is actually when it still triggers the rendering bug.
Of the 9.214*10^18 different floating point numbers that Excel 2007 can store, there are 6 floating point numbers (using binary representation) between 65534.99999999995 and 65535, and 6 between 65535.99999999995 and 65536 that cause this problem. You can't actually enter these numbers into Excel directly (since Excel will round to 15 digits on entry), but any calculation returning one of those results will display this issue if the results of the calculation are displayed in a cell.
It would also be interesting to know how much energy the Internet saves. For example instead of people flying around they talk on VoIP or have a teleconference. Documents are emailed rather than having to be flown around the world.
The 'Net has definitely changed my job. I used to spend most weeks traveling to various clients. Now, I only travel about one week a month, and work from home the rest of the time.
It isn't just email or VoIP. My typical assignment involves analysis of 10's or even 100's of megabytes of data. With FIOS into my house, the time to download that amount of data isn't even a consideration.
Of course, this kind of working arrangement has required a major "culture shift" among some of my clients. But, they rapidly embrace it when they realize how much they can save in travel expenses.
Wrong, the rules that govern the ISM band that 802.11 run on specifically prohibit the use of any external amplifier, so no you cannot hook up an amp legally.
The original poster didn't clarify it, but I have read claims that an amateur radio license lifts the prohibition (or raises the power limits) on external amplifiers for the ISM band. However, I haven't been able to find a direct cite -- anyone else?
If his 70 million dollar suit against CBS fails - he needs to stay in the public eye to pick up another job.
Hammer, meet nail.
This is nothing but a vain attempt by Rather to become "relevant" again. It's the equivalent of Britney Spear's "comeback" at the MTV awards show, and is just as likely to succeed.
I believe that bankruptcy law specifically exempts certain events/actions from being protected by bankruptcy proceedings, if the creditor can show that the person/entity engaged in a preparatory act (like borrowing additional money) with the expectation that the debt will be subsequently discharged.
Yes, I know that's a long and run-on statement. But as an example, pretend that:
You are already a candidate for bankruptcy, or considering it.
You go out and borrow a lot of money with no collateral, probably at a high interest rate to reflect the risk.
You declare bankruptcy, expecting that the debt will be discharged or at least reduced substantially.
Under US bankruptcy law, this is considered fraud -- and the creditor can ask the court to not discharge that particular debt.
SCO may have set themselves up by claiming they weren't going to file for bankruptcy, and then doing so. But, the bankruptcy court may have to decide if it was fraud -- and even then I don't know if it's a civil or criminal matter.
I do rather hope he's okay but the moral here is never go x-country without 'booking-out' first even if that means just telling your friend where you're going.
He did, at least to the extent possible. According to Yahoo's latest article:
Causes of the Great Depression are still a matter of active debate among economists. The specific economic events that took place during the Great Depression have been agreed upon since it was first studied: a deflationary spiral forced dramatic falls in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand and credit, and disruption of trade. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.
Nice troll, though.
In comparison to yours, maybe. But as trolls go, both are pretty lame.
Why are the security cameras on anything other than a closed circuit? It makes no sense for their cameras to be connected to the internet.
Read further in TFA:
Initially, the caller led employees to believe he was observing them.
"After a while, it sounded like he was just taking a shot in the dark at what they might be doing, or what they looked like or how they were reacting to his call," Prescott police Lt. Ken Morley said.
Technically you get all that back, if you manage to live long enough and if they government can borrow enough to cover it.
It depends on your income bracket and of course, how long you live.
Assuming average life expectancy, taxpayers with the lowest incomes get their contributions, plus a reasonable rate of return.
As you continue to move up the scale to the maximum contribution (it tops out at a gross income of $95K this year, I think), the return gets much lower and even goes negative, depending on the other assumptions that are made.
If you compare it against the opportunity to earn at least a market rate of interest from US Treasury bonds, it's a pretty bad deal.
But they still have to pay sales tax, fuel tax, vehicle excise tax, 9-1-1 tax, etc. etc.
You forgot to mention the payroll tax (Social Security, Medicare). About half of US taxpayers (earning less than the median income of 44K/year) pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. The EITC was originally intended to mitigate this imbalance, but it only assists taxpayers with the lowest income.
Just a few years ago we did away with the inheritance tax.
Only for one year: 2010. In the years before that, the exemption increases in steps. In 2011, it returns to the 2003 level, unless additional legislation is enacted.
Indeed, and it's gone above and beyond the point of just "some moderator"--the whole discussion was downmodded, although not buried to -1. I haven't seen something like that for a long time, but when it used to happen back in the day it was usually due to editor intervention. Quite odd, though--tangential discussions are pretty much the norm around here and are tolerated unless they arise as total non-sequiturs.
Looking at it, I see what you mean. It's not like one guy with 5 mod points -- there are many more than that. Maybe a Slashdot editor got his panties in a bunch?
[....]I noted that "well-regulated" was also attested as meaning something like "in good working order". So if you had a well-regulated watch, for instance, it kept time accurately. Although I do like Doc Ruby's explanation as well, because it amuses me to think of the Founders deliberately poking fun at the King even in the Bill of Rights.
It is indeed an amusing idea, but I think it's unlikely. The Bill of Rights wasn't invented out of thin air -- the initial set was cobbled together from state constitutions by James Madison. In the case of the Second Amendment, there were actually some conflicts among the state constitutions, and the "collective vs. individual right" issue was among them. In the end, the concept of the "collective" right lost (it actually came to a vote in the Senate). This seems may seem like an arcane issue to us, but at the time it was very important: the Constitution and accompanying Bill of Rights had to be ratified by all of the states, and it was a very delicate balancing act to satisfy all the competing factions.
I posted a URL to an interesting article that studied this process, but I won't post it again because I'll probably just get mod-bombed again. But, if you browse at -1, you'll find it. And if you know of any similar articles that study the other significant provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the 1st, 4th, and 5th -- and maybe the 9th and 10th), I'd be interested. There was a lot of controversy at the time over whether the Bill of Rights was actually necessary, and it appears (to me) that the arguments put forth by both side turned out to be right.
Another interesting, and on-topic, archaic word from the Constitution is "misdemeanors". Demeanor used to mean "leadership" as well as "publicly presented appearance". While "looking bad in public" is still a serious crime in government ("appearance of improper conduct" laws govern most ethics rules), the original sense of "misleadership" was much more weighty when the founders signed the Constitution.
I knew that the meaning of "misdemeanor" has shifted, but the reality is that politics and precedent has effectively rendered it a moot point.
Andrew Johnson avoided being removed from office by one vote. The impeachment was certainly political: Johnson was a Southern Democrat who was promoted to the office after Lincoln was assassinated, and he wasn't pursuing Reconstruction the way that Republicans wanted (he vetoed several civil rights bills and opposed the 14th Amendment). But, although the law in question was partially repealed later and eventually found unconstitutional altogether, there doesn't seem to be much question that he did violate it.
Clinton's impeachment was also political. Although the circumstances were dubious, again there isn't much question that he did indeed commit one or more serious crimes (perjury, obstruction of justice) -- he was ultimately fined for contempt of court and suspended from the Arkansas bar. But, all the Republicans succeeded in doing was to raise the bar even higher, making it more difficult to remove future Presidents from office.
Nixon was the only President that probably would have been removed from office after being impeached. But, he resigned after being told by senior Senate Republicans they would vote to convict him, and Nixon realized that he couldn't depend on partisan politics to save him.
As a result, impeachment and removal from office -- at least for a President -- is no longer about findings of fact and objective interpretation of the law. Actually, it probably never has been, with the possible exception of Nixon: the Republicans had enough votes in the Senate to keep Nixon in office, but they chose not to do so.
"Regulated" did indeed mean "supplied", as supplies of military materiel came from the king "regulus". The meaning of "regular" in "standard without exception" is also from the same: "as according to the king".
"Regulated" meant "properly disciplined" in the era that the Bill of Rights was written. And "disciplined", in the context of a militia, effectively meant "capable". In an unabridged Oxford English dictionary, you'll find examples of this usage dating back to the late 1600's and early 1700's, and also a notation that it is now considered archaic.
Doc, I hope you'll see this -- but I'm not sure anyone else will. Even though this tangent has generated a lot of discussion from a significant number of different people, someone apparently doesn't like the direction it is taking. I guess that challenging the Slashdot group-think is now considered "offtopic".
I do, however, stand by my accusation of illiteracy, because the framers could have saved us all so much trouble if they'd just killed a couple of blatantly-unnecessary commas.:)
Funny that you mention the commas, because different versions of the 2nd Amendment have as many as 3 commas in it. The original copies of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by hand, and there were apparently at least some style differences among them.
However, I believe the "official" version contains only a single comma.
It's an interesting question. The Miller standard of juriprudence, resulting from the last time the Supreme Court considered the Second Amendment, restricted individuals from owning sawed-off shotguns. Their rationale was that such weapons would not be applicable in a militia-like setting, and thus weren't covered by the Second Amendment. That has the effect of answering the usual "b...b...but what about nukes?" objection, but it doesn't explain why anyone is allowed to own any type of non-military weapon such as a common shotgun.
Actually, US v. Miller said the Court had been presented no evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was useful to a militia, so they couldn't rule that it was. If that sounds like a cop-out, it was. But, no one showed up to argue for the defendant, so the government was free to present their case without opposition.
I recently read a very interesting article that explains a great deal about the back story surrounding the decision: the defendants, the district judge, the public defender, and
the Supreme Court justice that authored the ruling.
The author's conclusion: the entire episode was a set-up to 'validate' the National Firearms Act of 1934 with a precedent. But the ruling was not exactly a shining example of clear writing, leaving us to scratch our heads over its effect on subsequent gun control legislation.
It's a stupid-ass Amendment written by drooling illiterates, as far as you can tell by reading it.
It was written and re-written by the House and the Senate at the time, starting with proposals by James Madison that he derived from the constitutions of the states in the US at the time. More interesting, the Senate specifically rejected a proposal to add the clause "for the common defense" (which was in a few state constitutions at the time). If original intent counts for anything, this would conclusively reject the notion of a collective right:
But, they were hardly illiterate. They just had a different perspective that you have today. One of the key words even had a different meaning that you associate with it today: "regulated" meant "properly functioning", rather than "constrained by government laws".
Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little fucking vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear.
There's nothing vague about it, when interpreted in the context and era in which it was written. A hint: "well-regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations.
Selling via the web may sound cool, but at least one state (Texas) requires that a retail automobile purchase be conducted through a brick-and-mortar dealer.
Police are allowed to look at anything in plain sight but need probable cause to look at anything else. Of course, that means nothing when simply having something not in plain sight is considered probable cause.
This seems to be the author's assertion, but I'm curious if it's been tested in court.
As most people know, law enforcement must have your permission to search your vehicle without a warrant. And to get a warrant, they need probable cause.
But, unless it's been superceded recently, it's settled law (by a US Court of Appeals, I believe) that refusal to grant permission for a search does not constitute probable cause for a warrant. I'd cite the case, but the website where I found the citation is no longer operational and the domain name is owned by a squatter.
If that's still true, it doesn't seem to be much of a leap to assume that encryption or obfuscation can not be the sole rationale for further investigation. Otherwise, simply using an encrypted connection to a proxy when using a public wireless network could be considered suspicious.
The author asks if there is already be a patent on his idea. There might be, but it would have already expired or could be invalidated by prior art.
In the late 70's, someone was selling a "one-handed keyboard" that implemented the concept, albeit a bit differently. The user pressed a combination of 4 keys with fingers, and then completed the operation by choosing one of 8 buttons with the thumb. This yielded only 128 unique combinations, but I believe there was 9th "shift" key that was pressed separately to select the remainder of the typical character set.
And the solution to zombies on broadband is really simple.
Blocking port 25 outbound is a strategic nuclear strike, where all that is needed is a carpenter's hammer.
However, I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as:
Applying for an exemption is as simple as filling out a online form, without talking to someone in an India call center and explaining why I want it done.
Third-party mail servers universally implement port 587 (the Mail Submission Agent port), while requiring username/password authentication.
I thought the USA was comparatively far down the list, despite being big. It's only information but this article from 2006 shows America down at 20.
Read your own article citation and look at the first graph. Penetration (percentage of internet users on broadband) is a substantially different metric from deployment (number of broadband users).
Hard to tell because all we have are screen shots, but it looks like nothing more than port scans.
Or P2P.
But, the important part is that he is showing nothing more than incoming frames, and conveniently obscures the destination port(s).
And to even get to the point where PeerGuardian (or whatever) can see the frame, it has to pass through his firewall -- presuming that he has one. And that means he either is explicitly allowing that port through or he made the connection himself.
Slashdot Mirror
If the defense doesn't succeed and "making available" becomes the standard for prosecution, I'm wondering what the limits will be.
I have a USB memory key that fits into an MP3 player. Back when MP3 players (and flash memory) were more expensive, I was able to buy the player for about $25 and use the 1GB memory key I already had.
I ripped a few albums onto the memory key and would listen to them on the plane when I was traveling. At a relatively low bit-rate, the MP3s took up very little space, so I just left them there as I used the memory key for moving data files to and from the clients I was working with.
At one point, I gave the memory key to a client to transfer a file. He took a long time to do it, so I checked back to see if something was wrong. I found him adding all my MP3's to his collection. I politely asked him to delete the files, and subsequently deleted the MP3's off my memory key.
So, did I "make [those files] available" to him by giving him a memory key that happened to have the files on it?
No, it's still a rendering bug. The occasions that it appears to calculate further using the faulty value is actually when it still triggers the rendering bug.
From http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/:
Of the 9.214*10^18 different floating point numbers that Excel 2007 can store, there are 6 floating point numbers (using binary representation) between 65534.99999999995 and 65535, and 6 between 65535.99999999995 and 65536 that cause this problem. You can't actually enter these numbers into Excel directly (since Excel will round to 15 digits on entry), but any calculation returning one of those results will display this issue if the results of the calculation are displayed in a cell.
The 'Net has definitely changed my job. I used to spend most weeks traveling to various clients. Now, I only travel about one week a month, and work from home the rest of the time.
It isn't just email or VoIP. My typical assignment involves analysis of 10's or even 100's of megabytes of data. With FIOS into my house, the time to download that amount of data isn't even a consideration.
Of course, this kind of working arrangement has required a major "culture shift" among some of my clients. But, they rapidly embrace it when they realize how much they can save in travel expenses.
The original poster didn't clarify it, but I have read claims that an amateur radio license lifts the prohibition (or raises the power limits) on external amplifiers for the ISM band. However, I haven't been able to find a direct cite -- anyone else?
Hammer, meet nail.
This is nothing but a vain attempt by Rather to become "relevant" again. It's the equivalent of Britney Spear's "comeback" at the MTV awards show, and is just as likely to succeed.
Or the three of them were asked to do something illegal or unethical, and declined.
Two resigned, but the third refused to resign -- and was fired.
Yes, I know that's a long and run-on statement. But as an example, pretend that:
- You are already a candidate for bankruptcy, or considering it.
- You go out and borrow a lot of money with no collateral, probably at a high interest rate to reflect the risk.
- You declare bankruptcy, expecting that the debt will be discharged or at least reduced substantially.
Under US bankruptcy law, this is considered fraud -- and the creditor can ask the court to not discharge that particular debt.SCO may have set themselves up by claiming they weren't going to file for bankruptcy, and then doing so. But, the bankruptcy court may have to decide if it was fraud -- and even then I don't know if it's a civil or criminal matter.
He did, at least to the extent possible. According to Yahoo's latest article:
"We understand that Steve Fossett was flying solo and he was carrying four full tanks of gas on board. He was searching for dry and empty lake beds which might be suitable for his plan to break the land speed record."
He didn't file a flight plan, because he didn't have a specific destination.
The causes of the Great Depression are still being debated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_D epression
The opening paragraph:
Causes of the Great Depression are still a matter of active debate among economists. The specific economic events that took place during the Great Depression have been agreed upon since it was first studied: a deflationary spiral forced dramatic falls in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand and credit, and disruption of trade. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.
Nice troll, though.
In comparison to yours, maybe. But as trolls go, both are pretty lame.
Read further in TFA:
Initially, the caller led employees to believe he was observing them.
"After a while, it sounded like he was just taking a shot in the dark at what they might be doing, or what they looked like or how they were reacting to his call," Prescott police Lt. Ken Morley said.
It depends on your income bracket and of course, how long you live.
Assuming average life expectancy, taxpayers with the lowest incomes get their contributions, plus a reasonable rate of return.
As you continue to move up the scale to the maximum contribution (it tops out at a gross income of $95K this year, I think), the return gets much lower and even goes negative, depending on the other assumptions that are made.
If you compare it against the opportunity to earn at least a market rate of interest from US Treasury bonds, it's a pretty bad deal.
You forgot to mention the payroll tax (Social Security, Medicare). About half of US taxpayers (earning less than the median income of 44K/year) pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. The EITC was originally intended to mitigate this imbalance, but it only assists taxpayers with the lowest income.
Just a few years ago we did away with the inheritance tax.
Only for one year: 2010. In the years before that, the exemption increases in steps. In 2011, it returns to the 2003 level, unless additional legislation is enacted.
Hmm, I didn't know that one.
Maybe you were joking, but I thought it was funny that I recognized ONE word ("luna" --> "moon"), and immediately realized what the phrase was.
Looking at it, I see what you mean. It's not like one guy with 5 mod points -- there are many more than that. Maybe a Slashdot editor got his panties in a bunch?
[....]I noted that "well-regulated" was also attested as meaning something like "in good working order". So if you had a well-regulated watch, for instance, it kept time accurately. Although I do like Doc Ruby's explanation as well, because it amuses me to think of the Founders deliberately poking fun at the King even in the Bill of Rights.
It is indeed an amusing idea, but I think it's unlikely. The Bill of Rights wasn't invented out of thin air -- the initial set was cobbled together from state constitutions by James Madison. In the case of the Second Amendment, there were actually some conflicts among the state constitutions, and the "collective vs. individual right" issue was among them. In the end, the concept of the "collective" right lost (it actually came to a vote in the Senate). This seems may seem like an arcane issue to us, but at the time it was very important: the Constitution and accompanying Bill of Rights had to be ratified by all of the states, and it was a very delicate balancing act to satisfy all the competing factions.
I posted a URL to an interesting article that studied this process, but I won't post it again because I'll probably just get mod-bombed again. But, if you browse at -1, you'll find it. And if you know of any similar articles that study the other significant provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the 1st, 4th, and 5th -- and maybe the 9th and 10th), I'd be interested. There was a lot of controversy at the time over whether the Bill of Rights was actually necessary, and it appears (to me) that the arguments put forth by both side turned out to be right.
I knew that the meaning of "misdemeanor" has shifted, but the reality is that politics and precedent has effectively rendered it a moot point.
Andrew Johnson avoided being removed from office by one vote. The impeachment was certainly political: Johnson was a Southern Democrat who was promoted to the office after Lincoln was assassinated, and he wasn't pursuing Reconstruction the way that Republicans wanted (he vetoed several civil rights bills and opposed the 14th Amendment). But, although the law in question was partially repealed later and eventually found unconstitutional altogether, there doesn't seem to be much question that he did violate it.
Clinton's impeachment was also political. Although the circumstances were dubious, again there isn't much question that he did indeed commit one or more serious crimes (perjury, obstruction of justice) -- he was ultimately fined for contempt of court and suspended from the Arkansas bar. But, all the Republicans succeeded in doing was to raise the bar even higher, making it more difficult to remove future Presidents from office.
Nixon was the only President that probably would have been removed from office after being impeached. But, he resigned after being told by senior Senate Republicans they would vote to convict him, and Nixon realized that he couldn't depend on partisan politics to save him.
As a result, impeachment and removal from office -- at least for a President -- is no longer about findings of fact and objective interpretation of the law. Actually, it probably never has been, with the possible exception of Nixon: the Republicans had enough votes in the Senate to keep Nixon in office, but they chose not to do so.
"Regulated" meant "properly disciplined" in the era that the Bill of Rights was written. And "disciplined", in the context of a militia, effectively meant "capable". In an unabridged Oxford English dictionary, you'll find examples of this usage dating back to the late 1600's and early 1700's, and also a notation that it is now considered archaic.
Doc, I hope you'll see this -- but I'm not sure anyone else will. Even though this tangent has generated a lot of discussion from a significant number of different people, someone apparently doesn't like the direction it is taking. I guess that challenging the Slashdot group-think is now considered "offtopic".
Funny that you mention the commas, because different versions of the 2nd Amendment have as many as 3 commas in it. The original copies of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by hand, and there were apparently at least some style differences among them.
However, I believe the "official" version contains only a single comma.
Actually, US v. Miller said the Court had been presented no evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was useful to a militia, so they couldn't rule that it was. If that sounds like a cop-out, it was. But, no one showed up to argue for the defendant, so the government was free to present their case without opposition.
I recently read a very interesting article that explains a great deal about the back story surrounding the decision: the defendants, the district judge, the public defender, and the Supreme Court justice that authored the ruling.
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
The author's conclusion: the entire episode was a set-up to 'validate' the National Firearms Act of 1934 with a precedent. But the ruling was not exactly a shining example of clear writing, leaving us to scratch our heads over its effect on subsequent gun control legislation.
It's a stupid-ass Amendment written by drooling illiterates, as far as you can tell by reading it.
It was written and re-written by the House and the Senate at the time, starting with proposals by James Madison that he derived from the constitutions of the states in the US at the time. More interesting, the Senate specifically rejected a proposal to add the clause "for the common defense" (which was in a few state constitutions at the time). If original intent counts for anything, this would conclusively reject the notion of a collective right:
The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights
But, they were hardly illiterate. They just had a different perspective that you have today. One of the key words even had a different meaning that you associate with it today: "regulated" meant "properly functioning", rather than "constrained by government laws".
There's nothing vague about it, when interpreted in the context and era in which it was written. A hint: "well-regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations.
Selling via the web may sound cool, but at least one state (Texas) requires that a retail automobile purchase be conducted through a brick-and-mortar dealer.
This seems to be the author's assertion, but I'm curious if it's been tested in court.
As most people know, law enforcement must have your permission to search your vehicle without a warrant. And to get a warrant, they need probable cause.
But, unless it's been superceded recently, it's settled law (by a US Court of Appeals, I believe) that refusal to grant permission for a search does not constitute probable cause for a warrant. I'd cite the case, but the website where I found the citation is no longer operational and the domain name is owned by a squatter.
If that's still true, it doesn't seem to be much of a leap to assume that encryption or obfuscation can not be the sole rationale for further investigation. Otherwise, simply using an encrypted connection to a proxy when using a public wireless network could be considered suspicious.
In the late 70's, someone was selling a "one-handed keyboard" that implemented the concept, albeit a bit differently. The user pressed a combination of 4 keys with fingers, and then completed the operation by choosing one of 8 buttons with the thumb. This yielded only 128 unique combinations, but I believe there was 9th "shift" key that was pressed separately to select the remainder of the typical character set.
Blocking port 25 outbound is a strategic nuclear strike, where all that is needed is a carpenter's hammer.
However, I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as:
Read your own article citation and look at the first graph. Penetration (percentage of internet users on broadband) is a substantially different metric from deployment (number of broadband users).
Or P2P. But, the important part is that he is showing nothing more than incoming frames, and conveniently obscures the destination port(s).
And to even get to the point where PeerGuardian (or whatever) can see the frame, it has to pass through his firewall -- presuming that he has one. And that means he either is explicitly allowing that port through or he made the connection himself.
I wonder what Task Manager would show running?