This patent actually looks more like a NAT/DHCP hybrid rather than a rip of NAT.
However, it irks me that something like this can even be patented at all. This is a fairly simple concept that I am sure many a network tech have considered at one point or another. Its implementation would be fairly simple in a Linux box with a couple of NICs.
It really makes me feel that patents are starting to cause more conflicts than they solve. The patent system either needs some reform, or to be dissolved and replaced by something that fits the times.
If the intent of a programming project is to make allot of sales of a particular program, or to offer the technology out as a serivce, then open-sourcing early will probably hinder this situation.
On the other hand, if the intent of a project is to distribute a method or technology, then post it up on Source Forge the very first day. The more input and testing, the better and broader the project will reach.
I think these "holes" could also be called versatility. Trying to prevent these attack through hardware means, ruins versatility.
Also complaining that it's the i386's fault, doesn't accomplish much since everyone and their grandmother has 5 already.
I'm not so sure about having a compilier that fills these security holes, but I'm all for having a complier warning saying, "Stack securtiy comprimised (line: xxx)". This doesn't seem as if it would be all that difficult to implement, either...
I think it is scary that the motives of most (if not at all) big media distribution companies is to eliminate the ability to own a copy of anything. I don't want a pay-per-view life. Microsoft also wants to do this with it's.NET OS... Pay-per-use computing. It leaves consumers powerless. I hope they all go the way of the DivX (the Circuit City one, not the video compression method)
Sure, a one handed keyboard is great for PDAs and it better than mucking around trying to press a microscopic qwerty-based keyboard. But, it still doesn't help the fact that keyboards are just a ludcriously ineffective means of input.
I am just waiting for the day when I can talk (or even better, think) to my computer. I mean, talk about a bottle neck. (meaning my uncoordinated fingers)
I disagree. Most of the script kiddies know what their doing once they reach a certain point.
I think that the web page didn't not give enough credit to the abilities of many. Sure, some are incompetent, but many have a clue and are intentionally and knowledgably malicious.
What this article really shows is the lack of good security and monitoring on allot of systems. (apparently not the authors, but if the number of boxes that one of the kiddie's had root was true this fact is inherently obvious)
If all system security was effectively monitored, kiddies would be sitting around bored, DoSing random IRC users.
When is any industry going to learn this: If the intent of a medium is to distribute data, then it is inherently vunerable to being copied. The only way to prevent something from being copied is not to release it in the first place.
This whole thing (which is incredibly useless, in my eyes, considering that DVD-R holds more and will probably end up being cheaper) is just an attempt from Sony to force people into one-vendor solutions. It's almost as sad as the memory stick non-MP3 players.
Sony would be much better of if they stuck to providing what their customers want (ie PlayStation 2) instead of making up useless forms of media for self-interest purposes.
VIA did a good job with price and power consumption, but what, in terms of platform, is this useful for?
If I've got a socket 370 MoBo, I'm not going to put a Cyrix 3 in it.
I think if VIA wants to make a chip for low-end use, they should provide a low-end platform for it. Like an equally cheap MoBo, built in components that might run off 12v DC. Another with a TV tuner on MoBo. If they want to market these, I think they'll have to *make* a market for them.
Inside the college network isn't any better. Colleges really need to install switching hubs. It's not all that difficult to start a computer sniffing then grep out all the passwords. Encryption is necessary, "banning' FTP and Telnet is not.
I think that stating that most people don't read the contract is pushing it.
However, many people may think along the lines of "I am using a dialup ISP already, why not get something for it." Of course, there are many inherent problems with this.
* One can be locked into a shoddy service provider without means to switch out. * One cannot upgrade their bandwidth without paying for their old service. (Which makes me wonder why cable and DSL companies doing this? Probably because people actually *want* DSL and cable. Dialup is quickly going the way of the dodo.)
My one gripe about all this deceptive advertising, is not being to see the real price for something. It's ludicrous not to be able to know how much something costs. The story would be different if one or two items were offered this way, but virtually every computer now has this ridiculousness factored in.
Enough is enough. Everyone who is going to sign their life away has done so already.
Assuming that frequencies are assigned semi-intelligently lack of wireless bandwidth will not be a problem...
Granted, these few things would help:
1. Radio and TV broadcasts will eventually be migrated from air to internet 2. Other remote communications tools will also be converted to a standard (Wireless IP?) protocol. 3. An efficient Wireless IP protocol is implemented for Internet use.
Doing that frees a substantial amount of bandwidth. But if lack of bandwidth were going to be a problem, I think we'd be hearing more about problems already existing in areas of high population density.
I fully expect, however, that more bandwidth would be available in less populated areas (although it would have to be somewhat populated for the service to exist there in the first place).
As for a total wireless conversion, I don't see that ever happening. Fiber is too fast of a medium to throw away. Every building will receive fiber eventually. Perhaps the high speed wireless would be propogated that way through very low power connections from building to building.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but if it has already been introduce to the public, it is highly unethical to patent it. It's really intellectual property theft.
This patent actually looks more like a NAT/DHCP hybrid rather than a rip of NAT.
However, it irks me that something like this can even be patented at all. This is a fairly simple concept that I am sure many a network tech have considered at one point or another. Its implementation would be fairly simple in a Linux box with a couple of NICs.
It really makes me feel that patents are starting to cause more conflicts than they solve. The patent system either needs some reform, or to be dissolved and replaced by something that fits the times.
If the intent of a programming project is to make allot of sales of a particular program, or to offer the technology out as a serivce, then open-sourcing early will probably hinder this situation.
On the other hand, if the intent of a project is to distribute a method or technology, then post it up on Source Forge the very first day. The more input and testing, the better and broader the project will reach.
I think these "holes" could also be called versatility. Trying to prevent these attack through hardware means, ruins versatility.
Also complaining that it's the i386's fault, doesn't accomplish much since everyone and their grandmother has 5 already.
I'm not so sure about having a compilier that fills these security holes, but I'm all for having a complier warning saying, "Stack securtiy comprimised (line: xxx)". This doesn't seem as if it would be all that difficult to implement, either...
I think it is scary that the motives of most (if not at all) big media distribution companies is to eliminate the ability to own a copy of anything. I don't want a pay-per-view life. Microsoft also wants to do this with it's .NET OS... Pay-per-use computing. It leaves consumers powerless. I hope they all go the way of the DivX (the Circuit City one, not the video compression method)
I am stuck weighing how drunk one would need to be to take the pics and make a page, versus how drunk one would need to be to post it.
::shrugs::
Sure, a one handed keyboard is great for PDAs and it better than mucking around trying to press a microscopic qwerty-based keyboard. But, it still doesn't help the fact that keyboards are just a ludcriously ineffective means of input.
I am just waiting for the day when I can talk (or even better, think) to my computer. I mean, talk about a bottle neck. (meaning my uncoordinated fingers)
I disagree. Most of the script kiddies know what their doing once they reach a certain point.
I think that the web page didn't not give enough credit to the abilities of many. Sure, some are incompetent, but many have a clue and are intentionally and knowledgably malicious.
What this article really shows is the lack of good security and monitoring on allot of systems. (apparently not the authors, but if the number of boxes that one of the kiddie's had root was true this fact is inherently obvious)
If all system security was effectively monitored, kiddies would be sitting around bored, DoSing random IRC users.
When is any industry going to learn this: If the intent of a medium is to distribute data, then it is inherently vunerable to being copied. The only way to prevent something from being copied is not to release it in the first place.
This whole thing (which is incredibly useless, in my eyes, considering that DVD-R holds more and will probably end up being cheaper) is just an attempt from Sony to force people into one-vendor solutions. It's almost as sad as the memory stick non-MP3 players.
Sony would be much better of if they stuck to providing what their customers want (ie PlayStation 2) instead of making up useless forms of media for self-interest purposes.
VIA did a good job with price and power consumption, but what, in terms of platform, is this useful for?
If I've got a socket 370 MoBo, I'm not going to put a Cyrix 3 in it.
I think if VIA wants to make a chip for low-end use, they should provide a low-end platform for it. Like an equally cheap MoBo, built in components that might run off 12v DC. Another with a TV tuner on MoBo. If they want to market these, I think they'll have to *make* a market for them.
Inside the college network isn't any better. Colleges really need to install switching hubs. It's not all that difficult to start a computer sniffing then grep out all the passwords. Encryption is necessary, "banning' FTP and Telnet is not.
Sun is now busy removing all their previously GPLed source code that they stole from elsewhere. :) They're just dodging an GNU faux-paux. :)
I think that stating that most people don't read the contract is pushing it.
However, many people may think along the lines of "I am using a dialup ISP already, why not get something for it." Of course, there are many inherent problems with this.
* One can be locked into a shoddy service provider without means to switch out.
* One cannot upgrade their bandwidth without paying for their old service. (Which makes me wonder why cable and DSL companies doing this? Probably because people actually *want* DSL and cable. Dialup is quickly going the way of the dodo.)
My one gripe about all this deceptive advertising, is not being to see the real price for something. It's ludicrous not to be able to know how much something costs. The story would be different if one or two items were offered this way, but virtually every computer now has this ridiculousness factored in.
Enough is enough. Everyone who is going to sign their life away has done so already.
Assuming that frequencies are assigned semi-intelligently lack of wireless bandwidth will not be a problem...
:)
Granted, these few things would help:
1. Radio and TV broadcasts will eventually be migrated from air to internet
2. Other remote communications tools will also be converted to a standard (Wireless IP?) protocol.
3. An efficient Wireless IP protocol is implemented for Internet use.
Doing that frees a substantial amount of bandwidth. But if lack of bandwidth were going to be a problem, I think we'd be hearing more about problems already existing in areas of high population density.
I fully expect, however, that more bandwidth would be available in less populated areas (although it would have to be somewhat populated for the service to exist there in the first place).
As for a total wireless conversion, I don't see that ever happening. Fiber is too fast of a medium to throw away. Every building will receive fiber eventually. Perhaps the high speed wireless would be propogated that way through very low power connections from building to building.
Your house will be a mini cell-tower... fun!