Diesel engines (and gas engines) have an optimum RPM, where they are the most efficient.
In something that is fuel/electric hybrid, you can use the fuel section at an optimal way to produce power, and then regulate the electric how you want.
Same thing goes on I think in like an M1 tank.. a gas turbine (jet) engine runs at constant speed producing power.
The point of lifetime appointment is so that they don't have to worry about their decisions costing them their jobs due to political pressure; it's supposed to help them be impartial.
There are laws in the US regarding telemarketing to cellular phones. In short, you can't, because it costs the receiver money. It costs you money to answer your phone and say "Go away".
They were trying to contact you on a landline that does not cost you per-minute. You CHOSE to forward calls made to a service that wouldn't cost you money to one that would. That's your fault, not theirs.
Re:Shutting the stable door after the horse bolted
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 2
Umm.. okay. how about this.
They see you on a p2p network, and have reasonable proof that your IP address is sharing 100 gigs of their material. Now, of course, that's not proof, that's just evidence.
So they contact a judge, and your ISP, and find out who you are. Still no proof. But it's enough evidence to waltz into your house and sieze whatever is hooked up to the cable modem as evidence. Oh look, your computer is running kazaa, and sharing 100 gigs of files.
THAT is evidence.
Now, you are probably going to say they can't prove how many violations you did.. that may be true, but they can certainly show intent.
If they are sharing their whole drive unkowingly, who's fault is that? I doubt many people do it unkowingly. Maybe when they first get into it.. but come on. Are you trying to say that people sharing music online don't know they are doing it? Bollocks.
Overstepping? Fair use? I'm sorry. This is the one thing that makes SENSE to me. Rather than going after facilitators like napster, who aren't really doing anything, or rather than making new law, just go after those who are breaking the existing laws.
It's not immoral at all for him to request this, anymore than it's immoral for anyone else to request it.
He sold it to them, yes, but now they've effectively killed it, and don't plan to do anything with it.. so it's fair enough that the pgp using world want's to see it opened. Zimmerman is one of those.
Yeah.. but again, you can't see the response. Same boat as spoofing the connection in the first place.
yes, there are situations where you can do something nasty with it.. but they are rather specific ones, and rely on using unsecure protocols anyway.
TCP was not designed to be secure. It was designed to get packets reassembled in order, and to be able to dynamically change it's transmission properties to deal with congestion.
Sorry.. that doesn't add up. It doens't matter *WHAT* the department is....
You hire employees for some particular reason. Either you are getting what you expect out of them, or you aren't. Blocking or not blocking internet access to them will have no effect on that in most cases.
1) Make sure people are doing their jobs. You can tell this by looking at whether or not they produce what is required in the time they have to produce it. 2) You can make sure restrictions on computers are such that they can't install software and/or do what you don't want them to. 3) You can look over logs once in a while to find problem people.
TCP was not designed to be secure. It was designed to ensure data is put back in the proper order at the remote end, and to be able to adjust it's transmission to deal with congestion.
Yes, there is a security issue.... but any security breach through ip spoofing is really a fault of the higher layer application/protocol and NOT of the ability for a tcp session to be spoofed.
How does LVS help me use my calbe & dsl at the same time. I have 3 or four workstations on my network at home.. a mac, a couple windows boxes, and a linux box.
Now I want ot get DSL & Cable, and use both at the same time.
That's not a problem that LVS solves for you.
That's the kind of thing this box does.
This is about the home or small office user making use of multiple internet connections efficiently and easily for their networking needs. Yeah, of course you can do this with linux... but lvs isn't it.
Keep in mind it's still remarkably hard to spoof with each successive packet, even if you can predict sequence numbers.
The first is easy, the second likey, the third less likely, and so on. Spoofing a long conversation would be very difficult, if not practically impossible.
That's because you are using NAT. Don't blame firewalling. Firewalling != NAT. Not at all.
I have a firewalled network, and it works just fine.
This is what happens when we cross layer boundaries. Apps that don't play well with nat are apps that embed their IP address in higher layer data.. so layer 4 assumes it knows what's going on at layer 3. Bad idea.
optimizing network technology is not related to nat.
That is true, however, if they can show his intent was to produce something to circumvent a law... which is what the original poster is talking about, he'll have a hard time making a case for himself.
It's like if The CSS case.. they claimed they wanted to write a dvd player. Okay, they lost the case anyway, but if their website had said "Cool! Now we can copy all our DVDs and fuck and ignore the stupid RIAA morons." it would have been even harder to try to claim, right?
Slashdot Mirror
But then you look at the energy required to give that waste the proper velocity... is it worth it?
They cannot be overlooked, or ignored, certainly. But that's a GOOD thing.
It's easy to ignore the waste from a coal plant, or a diesel plant. We don't even KNOW the full environmental impact of these things.
The point is, with nuclear, at least we can bottle the waste and keep tabs on it.
Diesel engines (and gas engines) have an optimum RPM, where they are the most efficient.
In something that is fuel/electric hybrid, you can use the fuel section at an optimal way to produce power, and then regulate the electric how you want.
Same thing goes on I think in like an M1 tank.. a gas turbine (jet) engine runs at constant speed producing power.
The point of lifetime appointment is so that they don't have to worry about their decisions costing them their jobs due to political pressure; it's supposed to help them be impartial.
There are laws in the US regarding telemarketing to cellular phones. In short, you can't, because it costs the receiver money. It costs you money to answer your phone and say "Go away".
They were trying to contact you on a landline that does not cost you per-minute. You CHOSE to forward calls made to a service that wouldn't cost you money to one that would. That's your fault, not theirs.
Umm.. okay. how about this.
They see you on a p2p network, and have reasonable proof that your IP address is sharing 100 gigs of their material. Now, of course, that's not proof, that's just evidence.
So they contact a judge, and your ISP, and find out who you are. Still no proof. But it's enough evidence to waltz into your house and sieze whatever is hooked up to the cable modem as evidence. Oh look, your computer is running kazaa, and sharing 100 gigs of files.
THAT is evidence.
Now, you are probably going to say they can't prove how many violations you did.. that may be true, but they can certainly show intent.
If they are sharing their whole drive unkowingly, who's fault is that?
I doubt many people do it unkowingly. Maybe when they first get into it.. but come on. Are you trying to say that people sharing music online don't know they are doing it? Bollocks.
Overstepping? Fair use? I'm sorry. This is the one thing that makes SENSE to me. Rather than going after facilitators like napster, who aren't really doing anything, or rather than making new law, just go after those who are breaking the existing laws.
That's what they should have done in the first place.
Sue those actually breaking the law by distruting copyrighted material in violation of existing copyright laws....
It's not immoral at all for him to request this, anymore than it's immoral for anyone else to request it.
He sold it to them, yes, but now they've effectively killed it, and don't plan to do anything with it.. so it's fair enough that the pgp using world want's to see it opened. Zimmerman is one of those.
Please ignore me. I haven't had my coffee yet. I don't know what I'm saying.
I am totally wrong.
Seems like a neat experiment.. but....
one can quite easily envision a map such that 4 colors is not adequate.
As long as one region has more than 3 others touching it, 4 colors is not adequate.
If you mean any current geopolitical map of the earth, depicting officially recognized countries, sure, maybe 4 is enough.
Yeah.. but again, you can't see the response. Same boat as spoofing the connection in the first place.
yes, there are situations where you can do something nasty with it.. but they are rather specific ones, and rely on using unsecure protocols anyway.
TCP was not designed to be secure. It was designed to get packets reassembled in order, and to be able to dynamically change it's transmission properties to deal with congestion.
Well, perhaps they wanted to spread it to dumb home users but not to anyone more professional. Perhaps they wanted to go longer without being caught.
Perhaps it's actually a DNS issues, and it's directing some people to a dummy server.
Sorry.. that doesn't add up. It doens't matter *WHAT* the department is....
You hire employees for some particular reason. Either you are getting what you expect out of them, or you aren't. Blocking or not blocking internet access to them will have no effect on that in most cases.
Contrast it against large heat sinks with huge blower fans.. very noisy.
COmpared to your average PC, this is no quieter.. even a bit louder.
In the overclocking world, it'll be relatively quiet.
Babysitters? Why?
1) Make sure people are doing their jobs. You can tell this by looking at whether or not they produce what is required in the time they have to produce it.
2) You can make sure restrictions on computers are such that they can't install software and/or do what you don't want them to.
3) You can look over logs once in a while to find problem people.
Care to fill us in?
Before everyone goes off about security.
TCP was not designed to be secure. It was designed to ensure data is put back in the proper order at the remote end, and to be able to adjust it's transmission to deal with congestion.
Yes, there is a security issue.... but any security breach through ip spoofing is really a fault of the higher layer application/protocol and NOT of the ability for a tcp session to be spoofed.
Well..
that's why you don't run any services that depend on the IP layer for authentication.
How does LVS help me use my calbe & dsl at the same time. I have 3 or four workstations on my network at home.. a mac, a couple windows boxes, and a linux box.
Now I want ot get DSL & Cable, and use both at the same time.
That's not a problem that LVS solves for you.
That's the kind of thing this box does.
This is about the home or small office user making use of multiple internet connections efficiently and easily for their networking needs.
Yeah, of course you can do this with linux... but lvs isn't it.
This is not a load balancer for server farms.
This is for, say, having 2 internet connections and using them both. Getting cable & dsl at home and making use of both of them.
Yeah.
Only a use of this attack is to get around IP filters, or to hide the origin of a communication.
And you can't receive data.
So attack is feasible.. but not that useful.
Keep in mind it's still remarkably hard to spoof with each successive packet, even if you can predict sequence numbers.
The first is easy, the second likey, the third less likely, and so on. Spoofing a long conversation would be very difficult, if not practically impossible.
That's because you are using NAT. Don't blame firewalling. Firewalling != NAT. Not at all.
I have a firewalled network, and it works just fine.
This is what happens when we cross layer boundaries. Apps that don't play well with nat are apps that embed their IP address in higher layer data.. so layer 4 assumes it knows what's going on at layer 3. Bad idea.
optimizing network technology is not related to nat.
That is true, however, if they can show his intent was to produce something to circumvent a law... which is what the original poster is talking about, he'll have a hard time making a case for himself.
It's like if The CSS case.. they claimed they wanted to write a dvd player. Okay, they lost the case anyway, but if their website had said "Cool! Now we can copy all our DVDs and fuck and ignore the stupid RIAA morons." it would have been even harder to try to claim, right?