Comcast is not blocking this, at least for outbound packets. Maybe a lot of ISPs are blocking them incoming based on source addresses. But I think it is more likely a network issue at the piratpartiet.se end since I can reach thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se (194.14.56.29) but no further, from multiple ISPs.
It goes well beyond Comcast for me. But this only shows that Comcast is not blocking it on outbound packets. At some point it fails, which could be Comcast blocked by source routing it to a null interface, or it could be an issue at piratpartiet.se and their network. I believe the latter is likely the case since traceroutes also fail at the same place from two other networks that are not Comcast:
I'd have added the traceroutes, except that Slashdot's junk character filter is blocking them.
It depends on what parts of it you do the porting on. Where there is a piece of code that attacks some Windows exploit, you have to "port it" so that it attacks some Linux exploit. That's probably harder to do, but not impossible. Create enough incentive (like getting 100 million moms with credit cards to use Linux), and it will be solved in no time.
Another wrong understanding of what capitalism is and what free enterprise is. They are not the same thing, although usually found together in the USA. Free enterprise lets businesses do whatever they want to do to maximize profit. Total free enterprise would mean a lawless land (well, lawless if you are business). Capitalism is about invested ownership, which does tend to be a force of greed that inspires and drives the free enterprise.
And the certifications don't actually check any code, they just check that the processes chosen are the right ones, and can even miss if the processes don't get adhered to. Perfectly developed and certified software can still have a ton of bugs that will crash that 777 or shut off the heart monitor in a hospital.
Less on process and more on coder competency would help. Pick the best coders and double their pay.
Maybe because during the invitation phase they don't have all the servers installed, yet. In the case of just about anything Google does, they need a million servers. They tried to hire me three times to do this sysadmin stuff. Apparently the free roller blades isn't enough.
While I cheer the outcome of this ruling, the reasoning behind it is, IMHO, not the correct one to decide the issue if applicability of a trademark. The reasoning should be based on the fact that an established trademark is the reference to a specific party in trade (e.g. a company, or even an individual where that applies). Normally we expect that the reference is made by that party itself. However, reference can be made by another party... as long as the reference is the correct one.
The names of companies like Apple and Google, and the products of companies like Ipod or Windows, are trademarks that are established. As long as a reference to "Ipod" refers to the Apple product, and a reference to "Windows" refers to the Microsoft product, then they are correct usage of trademark. If I say "I own an Ipod", then I have committed no violation of that trademark (because I really do own one unit of that Apple product). If I blog about how "Windows is totally insecure", I may or may not be telling a truth about its security, but I'm still referring to the Microsoft product. It's not a trademark violation.
What I cannot do is make a misreference, especially if I am doing so as part of commerce. But it is already commonplace to make reference to competing products in a commercial context. It does get fuzzy here, because merely using the trademark icon may get out of context and be considered something that is attracting. If Pepsi were to put the CocaCola logo on the Pepsi web site in a very large image, and in smaller letters say "that product is not as good as ours", it could be mistaken as a use of the trademark to identify its own products. But if they keep the logo very small, especially with other soft drink logos around, and say things like "independent taste tests of all these products rank ours number one" then it can be clearly a statement of fact (which, if untrue, may be an issue of defamation... but is not a trademark violation).
The above opinions are NOT a statement of how the law in the USA is, but rather, how I believe it SHOULD be, and how I hope judges would rule to make it be so, if we can't get rid of the Republicans in Congress to make the right statutes.
What we should have had all along was a system by which ethernet could dynamically adjust its speed in smaller increments to match the existing wiring capacity, both in terms of bit signaling rate on a pair of wires, to how many pairs are used (e.g. if I use 16 pairs from 4 parallel Cat 7 cables, it should boost the speed as much as it can and use them all in parallel). Of course actual devices can have limits, too, and the standard should specify the minimums (like at least 4 pairs required, additional pairs optional).
Sure, we need some new tech to get 1000 gigabit/sec. Fiber, no doubt. Multiple fiber? Better modulation? But whatever is done, THIS TIME they need to not set limits. Set a minimum and define the means/protocol for working up to even higher levels. And make this protocol one that can retrofit into older PHY layers so my 1 gigabit/sec network can run at 1.6 gigabit/sec or better if my cables and connectors are nice and clean.
... when the ISPs have barely even scratched the surface of getting megabit to the home.
What the IEEE needs to work on is technology that makes it easier to bring a few hundred megabit to the home. Whoever it was that said no one needed any more than 640kbits to the home was an idiot.
It's time to change the whole basis of domain trust relationships. Or, in other words, let's try again to establish a completely separate domain infrastructure.
This is fully possible because there is nothing in the design of the internet protocols that confers power to ICANN and it's corporate teat suckers to own the domain name space. That trust relation exists in a combination of what domain name server each computer chooses to use (in/etc/resolv.conf for Unix/Linux users), and the root zone hints file in the domain name server itself.
Oh, but wait... the nay-sayers will argue that this will fragment the internet.
And I agree, it will fragment the internet. And that's a GOOD THING. Fragmenting the internet would mean we don't have to deal with corporate B.S. so much. This would then be the people's network. Let the corporates and all their loony lawyer types talk to themselves over the corporate network. We don't want to be bound by stupid rules (like trademarks, patents, and copyrights) that give others the power to take even our very thoughts away from us.
Just start a whole new root zone. Start over with the domain name space. Ban "dot com" entirely (or more precisely, leave "dot com" to the trademark peddlers).
When are we going to abandon the antique legacy structure known as a decimal addressed circuit switched telephone network and just start doing all voice communication purely over IP with IP addresses at each end point? We would not need Skype or anything else to communicate if we have this. Of course, for now, we won't have easy mobility (have to find an open wifi somewhere). But if we make this work on IP, and have enough people using it, it will get the attention of greedy people. And then, without them realizing what it all means, they will build services to provide mobile access to support it.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
All because THEY (the lazy law enforcement officials) have have long ago forgotten how, or even why, to do what used to be done... actually INVESTIGATE the crime. So what is their advice for cases where the router is buggy, or for trojans running on Windows that let others relay network access?
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast is not blocking this, at least for outbound packets. Maybe a lot of ISPs are blocking them incoming based on source addresses. But I think it is more likely a network issue at the piratpartiet.se end since I can reach thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se (194.14.56.29) but no further, from multiple ISPs.
It goes well beyond Comcast for me. But this only shows that Comcast is not blocking it on outbound packets. At some point it fails, which could be Comcast blocked by source routing it to a null interface, or it could be an issue at piratpartiet.se and their network. I believe the latter is likely the case since traceroutes also fail at the same place from two other networks that are not Comcast:
I'd have added the traceroutes, except that Slashdot's junk character filter is blocking them.
It depends on what parts of it you do the porting on. Where there is a piece of code that attacks some Windows exploit, you have to "port it" so that it attacks some Linux exploit. That's probably harder to do, but not impossible. Create enough incentive (like getting 100 million moms with credit cards to use Linux), and it will be solved in no time.
Windows bug number 1: Users.
Another wrong understanding of what capitalism is and what free enterprise is. They are not the same thing, although usually found together in the USA. Free enterprise lets businesses do whatever they want to do to maximize profit. Total free enterprise would mean a lawless land (well, lawless if you are business). Capitalism is about invested ownership, which does tend to be a force of greed that inspires and drives the free enterprise.
All your profit are belong to us.
Nope. This is not capitalism. Instead, this is free enterprise.
And the certifications don't actually check any code, they just check that the processes chosen are the right ones, and can even miss if the processes don't get adhered to. Perfectly developed and certified software can still have a ton of bugs that will crash that 777 or shut off the heart monitor in a hospital.
Less on process and more on coder competency would help. Pick the best coders and double their pay.
Maybe because during the invitation phase they don't have all the servers installed, yet. In the case of just about anything Google does, they need a million servers. They tried to hire me three times to do this sysadmin stuff. Apparently the free roller blades isn't enough.
Why not allow rsync to work (via ssh for security)?
While I cheer the outcome of this ruling, the reasoning behind it is, IMHO, not the correct one to decide the issue if applicability of a trademark. The reasoning should be based on the fact that an established trademark is the reference to a specific party in trade (e.g. a company, or even an individual where that applies). Normally we expect that the reference is made by that party itself. However, reference can be made by another party ... as long as the reference is the correct one.
The names of companies like Apple and Google, and the products of companies like Ipod or Windows, are trademarks that are established. As long as a reference to "Ipod" refers to the Apple product, and a reference to "Windows" refers to the Microsoft product, then they are correct usage of trademark. If I say "I own an Ipod", then I have committed no violation of that trademark (because I really do own one unit of that Apple product). If I blog about how "Windows is totally insecure", I may or may not be telling a truth about its security, but I'm still referring to the Microsoft product. It's not a trademark violation.
What I cannot do is make a misreference, especially if I am doing so as part of commerce. But it is already commonplace to make reference to competing products in a commercial context. It does get fuzzy here, because merely using the trademark icon may get out of context and be considered something that is attracting. If Pepsi were to put the CocaCola logo on the Pepsi web site in a very large image, and in smaller letters say "that product is not as good as ours", it could be mistaken as a use of the trademark to identify its own products. But if they keep the logo very small, especially with other soft drink logos around, and say things like "independent taste tests of all these products rank ours number one" then it can be clearly a statement of fact (which, if untrue, may be an issue of defamation ... but is not a trademark violation).
The above opinions are NOT a statement of how the law in the USA is, but rather, how I believe it SHOULD be, and how I hope judges would rule to make it be so, if we can't get rid of the Republicans in Congress to make the right statutes.
What we should have had all along was a system by which ethernet could dynamically adjust its speed in smaller increments to match the existing wiring capacity, both in terms of bit signaling rate on a pair of wires, to how many pairs are used (e.g. if I use 16 pairs from 4 parallel Cat 7 cables, it should boost the speed as much as it can and use them all in parallel). Of course actual devices can have limits, too, and the standard should specify the minimums (like at least 4 pairs required, additional pairs optional).
Sure, we need some new tech to get 1000 gigabit/sec. Fiber, no doubt. Multiple fiber? Better modulation? But whatever is done, THIS TIME they need to not set limits. Set a minimum and define the means/protocol for working up to even higher levels. And make this protocol one that can retrofit into older PHY layers so my 1 gigabit/sec network can run at 1.6 gigabit/sec or better if my cables and connectors are nice and clean.
... when the ISPs have barely even scratched the surface of getting megabit to the home.
What the IEEE needs to work on is technology that makes it easier to bring a few hundred megabit to the home. Whoever it was that said no one needed any more than 640kbits to the home was an idiot.
Of course, eventually the ICANN idiots will end up in charge of that, and break it, too.
But at least that will give us a few years of freedom on the net. When it happens, rinse, lather, repeat.
It's time to change the whole basis of domain trust relationships. Or, in other words, let's try again to establish a completely separate domain infrastructure.
This is fully possible because there is nothing in the design of the internet protocols that confers power to ICANN and it's corporate teat suckers to own the domain name space. That trust relation exists in a combination of what domain name server each computer chooses to use (in /etc/resolv.conf for Unix/Linux users), and the root zone hints file in the domain name server itself.
Oh, but wait ... the nay-sayers will argue that this will fragment the internet.
And I agree, it will fragment the internet. And that's a GOOD THING. Fragmenting the internet would mean we don't have to deal with corporate B.S. so much. This would then be the people's network. Let the corporates and all their loony lawyer types talk to themselves over the corporate network. We don't want to be bound by stupid rules (like trademarks, patents, and copyrights) that give others the power to take even our very thoughts away from us.
Just start a whole new root zone. Start over with the domain name space. Ban "dot com" entirely (or more precisely, leave "dot com" to the trademark peddlers).
When are we going to abandon the antique legacy structure known as a decimal addressed circuit switched telephone network and just start doing all voice communication purely over IP with IP addresses at each end point? We would not need Skype or anything else to communicate if we have this. Of course, for now, we won't have easy mobility (have to find an open wifi somewhere). But if we make this work on IP, and have enough people using it, it will get the attention of greedy people. And then, without them realizing what it all means, they will build services to provide mobile access to support it.
Do it. You know you want to.
... would you trust a big greedy corporation to be your email provider?
... needs to match his long time friend's funding.
This probably makes it a Streisand effect on a national scale.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
All because THEY (the lazy law enforcement officials) have have long ago forgotten how, or even why, to do what used to be done ... actually INVESTIGATE the crime. So what is their advice for cases where the router is buggy, or for trojans running on Windows that let others relay network access?
... and have time of day measured in powers of 10, too?
Once there are IPv6-only websites ... and it eventually will happen ... then it will be time for you to RTFM.
... all the pr0n, warez, tunez, and moveez sites were to allow free access for non-tunnel IPv6 users.
... by Stephen Hawking? I'd be impressed if so.