This doesn't seem to be a "The man is restricting our rights", more of a "people are nicely asking for some attempt at privacy", and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can, even though you were nice enough to ask otherwise"
So when I politely ask you to stop selfishly keeping your entire paycheck, and instead give it to me... You are the asshole when you say no?
I mean you are just going against my wishes because you can, even though I was nice enough to ask otherwise.
I did just as you suggested and went to check the list on iana.org... Holy crap!
I stand very corrected. The info I was using hasn't been updated since May of 2009!
It seems their old text file list is now defunct. If you go to the old base URL in a web browser, it redirects you to a new XML formatted version, which you can then change the extension to.txt to get the current new text file (With the proper updated date at the top)
So thank you for pointing that out. The number of unreserved blocks was right (well off by one, oops) but none of the past year of updates are on the old file
Another detail i notice, the new txt file doesn't list status dates for the unallocated blocks any longer. Possibly a sign that reallocation is coming sooner than later? One of the original plans was to allocate them in order of how early they were reserved, making the higher number blocks go first. Now it seems some of the lower blocks are allocated out as well.
Looks like the 42./8 has moved up to #6 on the list, assuming they go in ascending order. I generally check 3-4 times a year for that very reason, as I know it's getting closer to crunch time and will have to deal with that soon on my end.
But on the whole, I wouldn't hire the guy who somehow thinks throwing in your neighbors windows is "acceptable" no matter your age.
I can't stand people who scream indoors, as it causes me a headache. When you were 5 years old, you most certainly screamed indoors, I bet more than once in an indoors public area such as a store, and yes public mischief and disturbing the peace are crimes. You should have known better.
I will never hire you, will never give you the time of day, never help you out or do you a favor... All because you feel you should have been more responsible at age 5 and was not. You failed to live up to your own standards.
See how silly that sounds? In fact, you should be thankful I don't mean it:P
I'd rather someone bust into my house with a shotgun and rob me than rape my children, yeah. I might even rather be murdered.
As you say it depends on the sex crime.
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
That's cute, you think DNS solves his problem. Hate to break it to ya but often in testing you don't want your host to have a name until it's ready for production
I'm kinda curious now what you do when the OS installer asks for the machines hostname to enable networking?
Machines should always have a name.
Typical 'best practices' is to always assign the machine a name for itself right away. Granted those of us that are lazy don't always put that in DNS right away, but the name must be assigned for networking to function. Then you cname your service name to it when you are ready to deploy.
So for example, you install the OS, give the machine the name 'fred' and add 'fred.example.com' to DNS. Do your setup, testing, playing, whatever.. Later, you add a CNAME for www or what have you to point to fred.
Sure, I too am lazy and don't always add things to DNS right away either, as it is an extra step. But lets be honest, it's being lazy, not being an excuse.
For things like vmware servers and such, where the machine may be provisioned and destoryed both long before the DNS request gets added, I just use copy/paste for the auto assigned IP. That's how we've done it on IPv4, and how it will be done on IPv6.
But yea, I'm not trying to convince you to change your ways, but I am honestly curious about your naming process if that step is that big of a deal
Third: you need to have IPv6 working in the next year. In 2011, all v4 addresses will be assigned.
I really don't see how we are going to allocate 15/8 netblocks in a single year, when only one has been allocated this year, and only, what, three last year? four?
Personally I am more worried because due to my shortsightedness a decade ago, I used one of those/8 blocks that has been 'reserved' and flagged as unallocated since 1985 for my home LAN. Granted, it is still flagged as unallocated today, but it will be one to go soonish, after they get up to it on the list of available and unallocated/8 blocks.
My LAN will probably need renumbered in the next two or three years at our current rate, but there are still PLENTY of/8 blocks above that one available before 'the internet' has to worry about anything.
Maybe I will get lucky, and this particular/8 will get assigned to a spammer country that I don't want/need a route to anyways;}
Do you know what the word 'aural' means? If not, here it is: of or relating to the ear.
Actually, in all fairness yes that is what I originally assumed it meant as well, being as that is the English definition of the word and all.
I was pretty shocked to see the courts decide time and time again that digital communications also falls under wire communications and wiretapping, although the shocked part was how many times the trial outcomes bounced back and forth on when interception of digital information did and did not require warrants and fall under existing wiretap rules and limitations.
The story at hand is another one of those that seems to reverse the past few years of case law.
I tried a quick Google but most case results that turn up are PDF links which is fairly annoying. A lot of law was set with the FBI carnivore tapping in this matter, which is a good keyword to search on. Both "internet wiretapping" and "electronic wiretapping" turn up a bunch of results too, although the latter has a whole ton of unrelated fluff mixed in.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the reasoning behind why some of our laws are the way they are, or even what is currently law or not down to those details. All I remember is the outcome of various trials that sparked my interest, and one consistent theme for awhile now is digital communications are included in wiretapping laws, ever since the telephone lost its status as the major and most advanced communications system available.
Why some cases like this one jump back to being legal with no good explanation is beyond me. But limited to voice communications it is decidedly not.
Just how do you think the pictures got from the laptops to the school administrators? Magic?
Ironically, taking a picture of a cop, where the picture never left the camera, fits your definition of not wire taping, while taking a picture of a cop fits your definition of wire taping.
The reason that Sweden's Pirate Party got political support in the first place was because Americans pushed political pressure on the Swedish government to take action,
Minor correction: The American GOVERNMENT did.
A lot of us Americans very much hate the actions of our government.
Sure there are plenty of stupid Americans, and dare say it might even be possible our government is an actual representation of the majority (Which I personally doubt), but please don't lump an entire nation of individuals together, especially when such a large number of us are very much against it.
By early 2011 these things are going to be everywhere, and it'll be fascinating to see how they fare."
According to slashdot, they will all fail because despite Apples sales records, no one on earth would want something that isn't a notebook or laptop and falls in between!
The Saudi, the Israeli, the North Korean, the Arab on the West Bank, would - quite rightly - regard any contact with Wikileaks as a death sentence.
So are you saying death sentences are not possible, thus it can't happen? Or just that they all have 100% loyalty and thus don't need such threats to stop leaks from happening?
I think both are clearly false. I don't see what other reason your post would serve though.
We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation
You put that in bold as if there was some sort of ongoing criminal investigation going on here.
Our constitution disagrees with you. For there to be a criminal investigation, you must be accused, charged with a crime, able to face your accuser, and be able to speak with representation.
NONE of those things happened (See, I can use bold too)
Thus, there was no criminal trial, or any trial of any sort going on.
This is pure illegal criminal harassment from the FBI, and every last person involved belongs in prison for undermining our countries highest laws.
Why not just take the literally 20 seconds to read what parts of the phone an app wants access to?
I don't see how that would even help.
So you are looking for a text messaging app, do a search and find a ton of them. My evil app is in the store listed as an SMS app, and listed with some neato features that look interesting to you. It's free, so you download it to give it a try.
Are you telling us that when the text messaging app requests permissions to send text messages, after spending 20 seconds reading the dialog box, you would be shocked and appalled at that and click to disallow it??
That is what they mean by hiding such 'trojan' (really just bad) behavior in an app that has otherwise useful and related features.
A judge with a brain won't let it fly that one side of the company supports the site and the other side of the company wants to sue it out of existence.
Fortunately a brain is not required. A judge is supposed to apply the law as-is, not use his brain to make it up as he goes.
The discovery channel gave him permission to use clips. Later, the same discovery channel said he did not have permission (libel) and accused him of copyright infringement (slander)
The discovery channel is a legal entity as a whole. Department names don't come into play here.
It's a real shame he can't afford to take this to court, it would be a 100% win, as the law is clear. Once you grant a license to use copyrighted material, the law does not let you retroactively revoke it, only revoke it from that point forward.
Now that copyright infringement is criminal, the accusation could very easily harm this person in future endeavors, which is exactly what slander charges are for, and why damages are awarded.
Slashdot Mirror
That's sort of like saying that you always find something you've lost in the last place you look. That's because once you find it you stop looking.
I always look another two or three places after I find what I am looking for, just to mess with peoples minds.
This doesn't seem to be a "The man is restricting our rights", more of a "people are nicely asking for some attempt at privacy", and this asshole (Jens Best) wants to say "FUCK YOU, I'm going to go against you because I can, even though you were nice enough to ask otherwise"
So when I politely ask you to stop selfishly keeping your entire paycheck, and instead give it to me... You are the asshole when you say no?
I mean you are just going against my wishes because you can, even though I was nice enough to ask otherwise.
So, so tired of zombies, pirates, ninjas, and robots.
The proper way to find things you wish to see, is to actually look for the things you wish to see.
Purposely going around to message boards of things you Don't want to see is called doing it wrong :P
By posting in a zombie thread, we can only conclude you really do want to hear about zombies, and are really really confused on the inside
There are no zombies?
You've clearly never been to a shopping mall, or a garth brooks concert ;P
Even Walmart has employed its share of zombies!
I'd say extraordinary claims such as yours require extraordinary proof!
I did just as you suggested and went to check the list on iana.org... Holy crap!
I stand very corrected. The info I was using hasn't been updated since May of 2009!
It seems their old text file list is now defunct. If you go to the old base URL in a web browser, it redirects you to a new XML formatted version, which you can then change the extension to .txt to get the current new text file (With the proper updated date at the top)
So thank you for pointing that out. The number of unreserved blocks was right (well off by one, oops) but none of the past year of updates are on the old file
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
Another detail i notice, the new txt file doesn't list status dates for the unallocated blocks any longer.
Possibly a sign that reallocation is coming sooner than later?
One of the original plans was to allocate them in order of how early they were reserved, making the higher number blocks go first. Now it seems some of the lower blocks are allocated out as well.
Looks like the 42./8 has moved up to #6 on the list, assuming they go in ascending order.
I generally check 3-4 times a year for that very reason, as I know it's getting closer to crunch time and will have to deal with that soon on my end.
he turned on me, falsely deciding I was "out to get him/sabotage his business"
*snip*
so I downloaded it and started soliciting the people directly
*snicker*
Guess he was right but for the wrong reasons
But on the whole, I wouldn't hire the guy who somehow thinks throwing in your neighbors windows is "acceptable" no matter your age.
I can't stand people who scream indoors, as it causes me a headache.
When you were 5 years old, you most certainly screamed indoors, I bet more than once in an indoors public area such as a store, and yes public mischief and disturbing the peace are crimes. You should have known better.
I will never hire you, will never give you the time of day, never help you out or do you a favor... All because you feel you should have been more responsible at age 5 and was not. You failed to live up to your own standards.
See how silly that sounds? :P
In fact, you should be thankful I don't mean it
Yeah, it'd be better if they just killed their victims.?
So you're saying that people who've been victims of sex crimes would be better off if they committed suicide?
If the person that did the sex crime killed them self? Of course that would be preferred!
Or are you just purposely redefining 'they' to be a different person, to somehow relate murder and suicide?
It depends on the sex crime.
I'd rather someone bust into my house with a shotgun and rob me than rape my children, yeah. I might even rather be murdered.
As you say it depends on the sex crime.
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
That's cute, you think DNS solves his problem. Hate to break it to ya but often in testing you don't want your host to have a name until it's ready for production
I'm kinda curious now what you do when the OS installer asks for the machines hostname to enable networking?
Machines should always have a name.
Typical 'best practices' is to always assign the machine a name for itself right away. Granted those of us that are lazy don't always put that in DNS right away, but the name must be assigned for networking to function.
Then you cname your service name to it when you are ready to deploy.
So for example, you install the OS, give the machine the name 'fred' and add 'fred.example.com' to DNS.
Do your setup, testing, playing, whatever.. Later, you add a CNAME for www or what have you to point to fred.
Sure, I too am lazy and don't always add things to DNS right away either, as it is an extra step. But lets be honest, it's being lazy, not being an excuse.
For things like vmware servers and such, where the machine may be provisioned and destoryed both long before the DNS request gets added, I just use copy/paste for the auto assigned IP. That's how we've done it on IPv4, and how it will be done on IPv6.
But yea, I'm not trying to convince you to change your ways, but I am honestly curious about your naming process if that step is that big of a deal
Third: you need to have IPv6 working in the next year. In 2011, all v4 addresses will be assigned.
I really don't see how we are going to allocate 15 /8 netblocks in a single year, when only one has been allocated this year, and only, what, three last year? four?
Personally I am more worried because due to my shortsightedness a decade ago, I used one of those /8 blocks that has been 'reserved' and flagged as unallocated since 1985 for my home LAN. Granted, it is still flagged as unallocated today, but it will be one to go soonish, after they get up to it on the list of available and unallocated /8 blocks.
My LAN will probably need renumbered in the next two or three years at our current rate, but there are still PLENTY of /8 blocks above that one available before 'the internet' has to worry about anything.
Maybe I will get lucky, and this particular /8 will get assigned to a spammer country that I don't want/need a route to anyways ;}
Do you know what the word 'aural' means? If not, here it is: of or relating to the ear.
Actually, in all fairness yes that is what I originally assumed it meant as well, being as that is the English definition of the word and all.
I was pretty shocked to see the courts decide time and time again that digital communications also falls under wire communications and wiretapping, although the shocked part was how many times the trial outcomes bounced back and forth on when interception of digital information did and did not require warrants and fall under existing wiretap rules and limitations.
The story at hand is another one of those that seems to reverse the past few years of case law.
I tried a quick Google but most case results that turn up are PDF links which is fairly annoying.
A lot of law was set with the FBI carnivore tapping in this matter, which is a good keyword to search on.
Both "internet wiretapping" and "electronic wiretapping" turn up a bunch of results too, although the latter has a whole ton of unrelated fluff mixed in.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the reasoning behind why some of our laws are the way they are, or even what is currently law or not down to those details. All I remember is the outcome of various trials that sparked my interest, and one consistent theme for awhile now is digital communications are included in wiretapping laws, ever since the telephone lost its status as the major and most advanced communications system available.
Why some cases like this one jump back to being legal with no good explanation is beyond me.
But limited to voice communications it is decidedly not.
Taking pictures is not an 'aural transfer'
Just how do you think the pictures got from the laptops to the school administrators? Magic?
Ironically, taking a picture of a cop, where the picture never left the camera, fits your definition of not wire taping, while taking a picture of a cop fits your definition of wire taping.
The reason that Sweden's Pirate Party got political support in the first place was because Americans pushed political pressure on the Swedish government to take action,
Minor correction: The American GOVERNMENT did.
A lot of us Americans very much hate the actions of our government.
Sure there are plenty of stupid Americans, and dare say it might even be possible our government is an actual representation of the majority (Which I personally doubt), but please don't lump an entire nation of individuals together, especially when such a large number of us are very much against it.
Thanks
By early 2011 these things are going to be everywhere, and it'll be fascinating to see how they fare."
According to slashdot, they will all fail because despite Apples sales records, no one on earth would want something that isn't a notebook or laptop and falls in between!
The Saudi, the Israeli, the North Korean, the Arab on the West Bank, would - quite rightly - regard any contact with Wikileaks as a death sentence.
So are you saying death sentences are not possible, thus it can't happen?
Or just that they all have 100% loyalty and thus don't need such threats to stop leaks from happening?
I think both are clearly false. I don't see what other reason your post would serve though.
We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation
You put that in bold as if there was some sort of ongoing criminal investigation going on here.
Our constitution disagrees with you. For there to be a criminal investigation, you must be accused, charged with a crime, able to face your accuser, and be able to speak with representation.
NONE of those things happened (See, I can use bold too)
Thus, there was no criminal trial, or any trial of any sort going on.
This is pure illegal criminal harassment from the FBI, and every last person involved belongs in prison for undermining our countries highest laws.
And yet, you have the freedom to say what I just quoted without being thrown in some secret prison.
The man in the article proves otherwise.
Prove that NO ONE went to a secret prison for saying what you quoted. Yes I realize you can't prove a negative, and that is my point.
At least one person would have, and you are totally unable to prove anyone hasn't.
Why not just take the literally 20 seconds to read what parts of the phone an app wants access to?
I don't see how that would even help.
So you are looking for a text messaging app, do a search and find a ton of them.
My evil app is in the store listed as an SMS app, and listed with some neato features that look interesting to you. It's free, so you download it to give it a try.
Are you telling us that when the text messaging app requests permissions to send text messages, after spending 20 seconds reading the dialog box, you would be shocked and appalled at that and click to disallow it??
That is what they mean by hiding such 'trojan' (really just bad) behavior in an app that has otherwise useful and related features.
Yahoo already taught us that one illegal download is equal in value to three and one third dead family members...
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6486/valuemusicvslife.jpg
Yes, because news reporters don't know how to be accurate or consistent, lets just ignore and discredit the real scientists work :/
A judge with a brain won't let it fly that one side of the company supports the site and the other side of the company wants to sue it out of existence.
Fortunately a brain is not required. A judge is supposed to apply the law as-is, not use his brain to make it up as he goes.
The discovery channel gave him permission to use clips.
Later, the same discovery channel said he did not have permission (libel) and accused him of copyright infringement (slander)
The discovery channel is a legal entity as a whole. Department names don't come into play here.
It's a real shame he can't afford to take this to court, it would be a 100% win, as the law is clear.
Once you grant a license to use copyrighted material, the law does not let you retroactively revoke it, only revoke it from that point forward.
Now that copyright infringement is criminal, the accusation could very easily harm this person in future endeavors, which is exactly what slander charges are for, and why damages are awarded.
"We know you have no choice but to develop for us...
Do you need any of us to call the police about the guy from Apple standing behind you with a gun to your head?
Slashdot, it saves lives, if not web servers!
I not against jail breaking, but I don't like the idea that PDFs can be used to exploit iOS4.
It's pretty ironic actually. There is a fix for the PDF exploit, but your device needs to be jailbroken to be able to install it.
http://www.redmondpie.com/fix-pdf-exploit-in-safari-after-jailbreaking-with-jailbreakme-using-pdf-loading-warner/
But really, how bad does it have to get before you start suspecting that someone might have planted an explosive on your car?
One reeeeally crazy ex bad?