In your illustration you may run into suboptimal routing near someone who is filtering your advert, but all your packets will likely get though. As long as C or F isn't filtering your adverts I don't see a problem.
OK, I'm A. I have PA space from B out of their PA space from C out of F's PI space, right? Let's say F has a/16 that they advertise as a/16. They give C a/17 out of that, and C in turn gives a/18 to B who gives me a/24.
If D is filtering on/19 they will potentially see: a/16 with AS path E -> D -> C -> F a/17 with AS path E -> D -> C a/18 with AS path E -> D -> C -> B
If they are filtering on/16 they will only see the prefix as advertised by F, but it doesn't really matter, because either an AS along that path will know the proper route (in this case C) or it will get to F (maybe D is peered with F) who will then pass it to C.
The router on the far end of the world doesn't need to know the full AS path, it really just needs to know a next hop who knows a next hop, etc. We would like it if ever router always had enough information to pick the best next hop, but most of the time any next hop will do. That's why filtering and aggregation work at all.
All of this is great, but filtering isn't a huge problem under most circumstances if you are using PA space, you may not get optimal or deisred routing, but the provider who gave you the space will always know how to get to you.
The issue is if you are multihomed with PA space, and your connection to the provider who's space it is goes down you have AS like E who may still send the traffic to F instead of your secondary provider. Hopefully F is well peered, isn't dropping your advertisements, and you'll still get your packets, but maybe not. The moral of the story is don't multihome with PA space and don't multihome with tier 3's and you won't have these problems.
Yeah, but that isn't the scenario you originally described.
You _can_ get lucky if you're _near_ the provider in question with the superblock you're in....
(But then, somewhere between THERE and you might be a network which doesn't pay attention and it heads back towards the/16 announcement.)
I don't know what your setup looks like, but I don't have any transit networks between me and my providers.
Example: Say you've got x.x.x.0/24 out of x.x.0.0/16. Now, if people ignore you're announcement they're going to send traffic towards the provider announcing x.x.0.0/16. Somewhere along the way a network in the path might actually be paying attention to your routes, and your traffic gets shuffled towards you.
I would say in this case the provider's advertisement is screwed up. Whay are they advertising a/16 if they don't have all the space under it?
Minor correction. You can probably get away with never filing a tax return, but you won't get away with never paying taxes. File a zero return all day long. Don't file any return. As long as your employer keeps witholding taxes from your paycheck you are paying taxes. Witholding is structured such that if you don't have a bunch of other income you should get a refund every year, in which case the only purpose of filing is to get your money back. Even if the IRS did eventually come knocking they'd proabably wind up owing you money after the audit.
What would I ask them? Their stated position is quite clear. They will support almost any civil liberties no matter how tenuously connected to reality so long as they don't involve guns.
The statement that they support "reasonable" regulation is also quite farcical considering the amount of totally unreasonable gun control legislation without so much as a peep from the ACLU. For example the ACLU has made no public statements about proposed national balistic fingerprinting; which in addition to not solving any crimes would be a total violation of not only the 2nd, but also the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments, which they actually purport to care about. Can you even imagine the furor they'd make if the Bradys were proposing we fingerprint all citizens which actually WOULD solve crimes? The ACLU also made no public statement when Ashcroft was under fire for insisting on destorying NICS records as required instead of turning the over to the FBI which in addition to being a massive violation of civil liberties would violate the existing federal law under which those records were generated.
So no, I haven't asked them, because as they and I know the majority of their members are Democrats and don't really support ALL civil liberties. I think they learned their lesson in Skokie: Support the liberties popular with their constituency.
I really genuinely would be a card carrying member if it weren't for this hypocrisy.
Their position is reasonably moderate, and exactly the constitution interpretation I'd expect from the Brady Campaign or similar groups, but it just doesn't jibe with the ACLU's rabid defense of the other civil liberties:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Compare to their general position on Criminal Justice:
For the past generation, state and federal crime control policies have been based on the belief that law enforcement can solve the problem; more police, harsher sentencing laws, greater use of the death penalty. But today, with an unprecedented number of people behind bars, we are no safer than before. We are, however, much less free.
The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.
I guess they can reconcile these positions, but I can't.
I'd be happy to. I will join the ACLU the day they admit that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual right just like they claim the rest of the ammendments do.
The problem arises when you confuse issues and political parties with philosophies. Modern day liberals for the most part have very socialist philosophies (the state should take care of you) as opposed to modern day conservatives who lean much more towards the libertarian (the state should leave me alone). Due to the way these philosophies are manifested by certain political parties it's easy to become confused. The "libertarians" want to legalize drugs because they want to legalize everything. The "liberals" want to legalize drugs because they like to get high.
So it depends on what you are trying to graph. If the axis of your scale is freedom at one end and security at the other then socialism and facism would both be at the security end, since neither assigns any value to personal liberty. Libertarians would be at the freedom end since they are unwilling to compromise even a little. Republicans and Democrats are both in the middle of the scale constantly flip flopping who is closer to either end.
What seems to escape everyone is that the majority of Americans reject both extreme views, and we are really fighting for the more middle ground. While there are countries in the world where people genuinely have to fear for their lives if they say the wrong thing in an email there are no countries where the average citizen is more free than in the US.
If they read the article thier reaction was probably something like, "Wow, this story doesn't have anything to do with Forgent at all."
Now, St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. through the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi has successfully sued Sony claiming that the company's cameras infringe on four patents dating back to as long ago as 1992, which it purchased in 1995. The judgement was nowhere near the staggering $171.4 million dollars in royalties St. Clair felt it was owed on Sony's $3.01 billion in camera sales since 1998, but at $25 million on patents it obtained for only $65,000, the company is doubtless still laughing all the way to the bank.
Holy crap. You'd think you could at least check the spelling of your sig. I can forgive all the spelling errors in your unintelligble post, but if you are going to hurl insults at out President at least have the decency to proofread. Moron.
We could never get the scheme to work out... the main problem is figuring out how many dimensions such a space might have... and of course after that you have to run a massive prgram to put all of the "springs" into equilibrium...
Sorry, you have to have an functional implementaion to claim prior art or a patent.
Many, many, many, many, many of those "subscribers" aren't paying a dime. Remember all those CD's AOL sends out? AOL counts those people who use their free month and quit as subscribers.
Did you read the article? I don't think Chrisd even read the. The ISP's are expected to block the sites on the list given them by the state. The ISP's aren't complaining about freedoms being infringed, or being forced to do someone else's detective work. The only concerns expressed were how to deal with sites that use virtual hosts (many websites on the same IP). Nobody except the slashdot crowd and NAMBLA thinks it's OK to allow this trash because blocking it is hard.
All the comparisons to the phone company, PO, FEDEX etc. are moot because AFAIK ISP's have not yet been granted status as common carriers. As far as the law is concerned they are somewhat responsible for what they carry. The much reviled DMCA changed that so that ISP's would not be responsible for copyright infringement if they followed certain rules, but made no such allowances for other content.
Since your ISP could be charged with possesion of child pornigraphy if it exists on their equipment, proxys, etc. I think they would agree that it is in their intrest to block it.
A. Sending kiddie porn through the mail is a FEDERAL OFFENSE. There's no need for PA to do anything as there is already a branch of Federal Law Enforcement, the Postal Inspectors, who's job it is to police such things.
Child Porn isn't just disgusting, it's illegal. It is perfectly appropriate for the.gov to expect the ISP to block known sites. The only questionable thing is whether ISP's can be held criminally responsible for not blocking known sites.
When the Golden Gate Bridge was built, the plan was to only charge a toll until the cost of the bridge was completed. Once they met that mark, they said that they needed the money to pay for maintenance. We knew at the beginning that once they start charging us for something, they'll never stop.
And if you look at how much they collect per month on the GGB compared to what it costs to maintain it, you'll see that they collect much more than they need. So why don't they lower the toll? They aren't supposed to be making a profit. But that extra money is already being spent and they don't want to stop now.
Well, you are completly misinformed, and just plain wrong. The budget for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is available in.pdf online if you care to red it, but allow me to summarize.
47% ($82 million) of the budget comes from GGB tolls 34% ($60 million) comes from government grants The rest comes from transit fares and other sources.
Far from making a profit, the tolls barely pay for the operating costs of the bridge and transit. Most of the funds used for capital improvement come from other sources.
Granted it's a poorly worded sentence, but his point is that when you hiccup the muscles contract in the same manner as when you are inhaling. In other words you start to inhale, and your muscles suddenly contract all the way. If the action were designed to prevent the entrance of fluid into the lungs you would expect the muscles to contract the other way as in a cough.
That may be an excellent article for someone who has never been told that secrecy != security, but he didn't really say anything new. He didn't even really support any of his points. It isn't even really an article, more like a blurb. It's like someone at CNET said, "Give us 1,000 words on why OSS is good."
To do power over Ethernet you need to be connected to a switch that supports it. Not many do and they aren't cheap. Since this device has to be connected to your audio equipment for output you will obviously have power available so why bother?
I know my taxes are right, I know where and what and why I'm paying what I am paying. Contrary to popular belief the system isn't that nonsensical, and the instruction booklets give you a nice step by step explanation of EVERYTHING.
If that is what makes you comfortable, great. You should know, however, that the instructions are based on the IRS's interpretation of the tax code, which is rarely the interpretation most favorable to the taxpayer. To a certain extent the software will do a better job of loking out for you, but because it intended for a wide audience it must toe the line fairly well. To get the most out of the tax code you really need to go to a person who understands the tax code and your particular situation.
The reality of paying taxes is that how much you pay is really dependant on your willingness to take risks. I'm not talking about breaking the law, but there are a lot of "defensable" ways to save money that the IRS wouldn't tell you about.
For people who just don't see the value in hiring someone to do something they can do themselves, the cost to use the software is really miniscule compare to the potential cost of royally screwing up.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Bit is a contraction of Binary Digit.
In your illustration you may run into suboptimal routing near someone who is filtering your advert, but all your packets will likely get though. As long as C or F isn't filtering your adverts I don't see a problem.
/16 that they advertise as a /16. They give C a /17 out of that, and C in turn gives a /18 to B who gives me a /24.
/19 they will potentially see: /16 with AS path E -> D -> C -> F /17 with AS path E -> D -> C /18 with AS path E -> D -> C -> B
/16 they will only see the prefix as advertised by F, but it doesn't really matter, because either an AS along that path will know the proper route (in this case C) or it will get to F (maybe D is peered with F) who will then pass it to C.
OK, I'm A. I have PA space from B out of their PA space from C out of F's PI space, right? Let's say F has a
If D is filtering on
a
a
a
If they are filtering on
The router on the far end of the world doesn't need to know the full AS path, it really just needs to know a next hop who knows a next hop, etc. We would like it if ever router always had enough information to pick the best next hop, but most of the time any next hop will do. That's why filtering and aggregation work at all.
All of this is great, but filtering isn't a huge problem under most circumstances if you are using PA space, you may not get optimal or deisred routing, but the provider who gave you the space will always know how to get to you.
The issue is if you are multihomed with PA space, and your connection to the provider who's space it is goes down you have AS like E who may still send the traffic to F instead of your secondary provider. Hopefully F is well peered, isn't dropping your advertisements, and you'll still get your packets, but maybe not. The moral of the story is don't multihome with PA space and don't multihome with tier 3's and you won't have these problems.
I don't know what your setup looks like, but I don't have any transit networks between me and my providers.
Example: Say you've got x.x.x.0/24 out of x.x.0.0/16.
/16 if they don't have all the space under it?
Now, if people ignore you're announcement they're going to send traffic towards the provider announcing x.x.0.0/16. Somewhere along the way a network in the path might actually be paying attention to your routes, and your traffic gets shuffled towards you.
I would say in this case the provider's advertisement is screwed up. Whay are they advertising a
Minor correction. You can probably get away with never filing a tax return, but you won't get away with never paying taxes. File a zero return all day long. Don't file any return. As long as your employer keeps witholding taxes from your paycheck you are paying taxes. Witholding is structured such that if you don't have a bunch of other income you should get a refund every year, in which case the only purpose of filing is to get your money back. Even if the IRS did eventually come knocking they'd proabably wind up owing you money after the audit.
What would I ask them? Their stated position is quite clear. They will support almost any civil liberties no matter how tenuously connected to reality so long as they don't involve guns.
The statement that they support "reasonable" regulation is also quite farcical considering the amount of totally unreasonable gun control legislation without so much as a peep from the ACLU. For example the ACLU has made no public statements about proposed national balistic fingerprinting; which in addition to not solving any crimes would be a total violation of not only the 2nd, but also the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments, which they actually purport to care about. Can you even imagine the furor they'd make if the Bradys were proposing we fingerprint all citizens which actually WOULD solve crimes? The ACLU also made no public statement when Ashcroft was under fire for insisting on destorying NICS records as required instead of turning the over to the FBI which in addition to being a massive violation of civil liberties would violate the existing federal law under which those records were generated.
So no, I haven't asked them, because as they and I know the majority of their members are Democrats and don't really support ALL civil liberties. I think they learned their lesson in Skokie: Support the liberties popular with their constituency.
I really genuinely would be a card carrying member if it weren't for this hypocrisy.
They do, but you have to search for it.
Their position is reasonably moderate, and exactly the constitution interpretation I'd expect from the Brady Campaign or similar groups, but it just doesn't jibe with the ACLU's rabid defense of the other civil liberties:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Compare to their general position on Criminal Justice:
For the past generation, state and federal crime control policies have been based on the belief that law enforcement can solve the problem; more police, harsher sentencing laws, greater use of the death penalty. But today, with an unprecedented number of people behind bars, we are no safer than before. We are, however, much less free.
The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.
I guess they can reconcile these positions, but I can't.
I'd be happy to. I will join the ACLU the day they admit that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual right just like they claim the rest of the ammendments do.
The problem arises when you confuse issues and political parties with philosophies. Modern day liberals for the most part have very socialist philosophies (the state should take care of you) as opposed to modern day conservatives who lean much more towards the libertarian (the state should leave me alone). Due to the way these philosophies are manifested by certain political parties it's easy to become confused. The "libertarians" want to legalize drugs because they want to legalize everything. The "liberals" want to legalize drugs because they like to get high.
So it depends on what you are trying to graph. If the axis of your scale is freedom at one end and security at the other then socialism and facism would both be at the security end, since neither assigns any value to personal liberty. Libertarians would be at the freedom end since they are unwilling to compromise even a little. Republicans and Democrats are both in the middle of the scale constantly flip flopping who is closer to either end.
What seems to escape everyone is that the majority of Americans reject both extreme views, and we are really fighting for the more middle ground. While there are countries in the world where people genuinely have to fear for their lives if they say the wrong thing in an email there are no countries where the average citizen is more free than in the US.
Hitler was a socialist. He has much more in common with modern day liberals than conservatives.
If they read the article thier reaction was probably something like, "Wow, this story doesn't have anything to do with Forgent at all."
Now, St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. through the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi has successfully sued Sony claiming that the company's cameras infringe on four patents dating back to as long ago as 1992, which it purchased in 1995. The judgement was nowhere near the staggering $171.4 million dollars in royalties St. Clair felt it was owed on Sony's $3.01 billion in camera sales since 1998, but at $25 million on patents it obtained for only $65,000, the company is doubtless still laughing all the way to the bank.
The boy has obviously been removed from the second photograph. It isn't even well done.
Um, did you miss the link to the pictures in the above story?
Holy crap. You'd think you could at least check the spelling of your sig. I can forgive all the spelling errors in your unintelligble post, but if you are going to hurl insults at out President at least have the decency to proofread. Moron.
There must be a way to keep profits high while getting the drugs out to the poorer of the bunch.
Why must there be? Because you want it to be true?
We could never get the scheme to work out... the main problem is figuring out how many dimensions such a space might have... and of course after that you have to run a massive prgram to put all of the "springs" into equilibrium...
Sorry, you have to have an functional implementaion to claim prior art or a patent.
Many, many, many, many, many of those "subscribers" aren't paying a dime. Remember all those CD's AOL sends out? AOL counts those people who use their free month and quit as subscribers.
Did you read the article? I don't think Chrisd even read the. The ISP's are expected to block the sites on the list given them by the state. The ISP's aren't complaining about freedoms being infringed, or being forced to do someone else's detective work. The only concerns expressed were how to deal with sites that use virtual hosts (many websites on the same IP). Nobody except the slashdot crowd and NAMBLA thinks it's OK to allow this trash because blocking it is hard.
All the comparisons to the phone company, PO, FEDEX etc. are moot because AFAIK ISP's have not yet been granted status as common carriers. As far as the law is concerned they are somewhat responsible for what they carry. The much reviled DMCA changed that so that ISP's would not be responsible for copyright infringement if they followed certain rules, but made no such allowances for other content.
Since your ISP could be charged with possesion of child pornigraphy if it exists on their equipment, proxys, etc. I think they would agree that it is in their intrest to block it.
A. Sending kiddie porn through the mail is a FEDERAL OFFENSE. There's no need for PA to do anything as there is already a branch of Federal Law Enforcement, the Postal Inspectors, who's job it is to police such things.
.gov to expect the ISP to block known sites. The only questionable thing is whether ISP's can be held criminally responsible for not blocking known sites.
Child Porn isn't just disgusting, it's illegal. It is perfectly appropriate for the
I know /. gets a commission if we click on that link to buy the book from B&N, but Amazon has it for $10 less.
When the Golden Gate Bridge was built, the plan was to only charge a toll until the cost of the bridge was completed. Once they met that mark, they said that they needed the money to pay for maintenance. We knew at the beginning that once they start charging us for something, they'll never stop.
.pdf online if you care to red it, but allow me to summarize.
And if you look at how much they collect per month on the GGB compared to what it costs to maintain it, you'll see that they collect much more than they need. So why don't they lower the toll? They aren't supposed to be making a profit. But that extra money is already being spent and they don't want to stop now.
Well, you are completly misinformed, and just plain wrong. The budget for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
and Transportation District is available in
47% ($82 million) of the budget comes from GGB tolls
34% ($60 million) comes from government grants
The rest comes from transit fares and other sources.
Far from making a profit, the tolls barely pay for the operating costs of the bridge and transit. Most of the funds used for capital improvement come from other sources.
Granted it's a poorly worded sentence, but his point is that when you hiccup the muscles contract in the same manner as when you are inhaling. In other words you start to inhale, and your muscles suddenly contract all the way. If the action were designed to prevent the entrance of fluid into the lungs you would expect the muscles to contract the other way as in a cough.
That may be an excellent article for someone who has never been told that secrecy != security, but he didn't really say anything new. He didn't even really support any of his points. It isn't even really an article, more like a blurb. It's like someone at CNET said, "Give us 1,000 words on why OSS is good."
To do power over Ethernet you need to be connected to a switch that supports it. Not many do and they aren't cheap. Since this device has to be connected to your audio equipment for output you will obviously have power available so why bother?
I know my taxes are right, I know where and what and why I'm paying what I am paying.
Contrary to popular belief the system isn't that nonsensical, and the instruction booklets give you a nice step by step explanation of EVERYTHING.
If that is what makes you comfortable, great. You should know, however, that the instructions are based on the IRS's interpretation of the tax code, which is rarely the interpretation most favorable to the taxpayer. To a certain extent the software will do a better job of loking out for you, but because it intended for a wide audience it must toe the line fairly well. To get the most out of the tax code you really need to go to a person who understands the tax code and your particular situation.
The reality of paying taxes is that how much you pay is really dependant on your willingness to take risks. I'm not talking about breaking the law, but there are a lot of "defensable" ways to save money that the IRS wouldn't tell you about.
For people who just don't see the value in hiring someone to do something they can do themselves, the cost to use the software is really miniscule compare to the potential cost of royally screwing up.