Yes, I'm perfectly aware of how DHCP works. But the fact remains that it does not grant authorisation -- it merely provides information that is necessary to make the network work.
The DHCP server decides whether to grant access, and the associated IP addressing information, on a request-by-request basis. It is actively assigning an IP address to the specific client.
Note the use of the word "may" -- this is a clear indication that it is possible for DHCP servers to respond to unauthorised clients.
No, it's an indication that you took "hosts that have been previously registered through some external mechanism" to be "authorised clients." The administrator can either authorize all clients or can be selective in who is authorized to use the network.
It also says:
The DHCP specification describes only the interactions between clients and servers when the clients and servers choose to interact; it is beyond the scope of the DHCP specification to describe all of the administrative controls that system administrators might want to use.
That "choose to interact" line is important. There is a choice here. If you configure your DHCP server to hand out IP addresses to any who ask, don't complain when they use them.
OK, so A is incredibly stupid. But that doesn't mean that B has a right to "borrow" his car like that.
No, it really isn't a great analogy because the router is acting as your agent. Someone who stumbles into your WiFi zone and wants to use your network has no way to ask for permission other than through your router. Someone who wants to borrow your car can ask you directly.
Err... no. Giving a DHCP response is not authorisation to use a network. DHCP is a means to gather technical information about how to connect to a network, not a way of getting permission to use it.
No, DHCP is not a "way to gather technical information." It's not some static repository of information available to all. It's a two-way protocol where the client system requests a unique IP address with which to communicate over the network. The router (which can act as a DHCP server) either provides an IP address or does not, depending on whether the owner has decided to leave his connection open to all.
Perhaps you should read RFC-1531, which defines the DHCP protocol:
1. Introduction
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides configuration
parameters to Internet hosts. DHCP consists of two components: a
protocol for delivering host-specific configuration parameters from a
DHCP server to a host and a mechanism for allocation of network
addresses to hosts.
DHCP is built on a client-server model, where designated DHCP server
hosts allocate network addresses and deliver configuration parameters
to dynamically configured hosts. Throughout the remainder of this
document, the term "server" refers to a host providing initialization
parameters through DHCP, and the term "client" refers to a host
requesting initialization parameters from a DHCP server.
A host should not act as a DHCP server unless explicitly configured
to do so by a system administrator.
Did you see that "host-specific configuration parameters" part? That means that the router is giving a specific, and unique, IP address to a client that has requested network connectivity.
My router is set up so that it will not give out IP addresses to random systems that attempt to connect -- only to specific MAC addresses which belong do systems that I own. If I had set it up to provide DHCP services and IP addresses to all who asked, then I would be giving those people permission to use my connection.
An analogy: Me: I'd like to use your car. Can I have the keys? You: Sure. Here's a key I made just for your use. Some time later... You: Officer, he hijacked my car! Officer: What do you mean, "hijacked"? You: He told me that he'd like to use my car, so I had a key made just for him. Then, later, I discovered that he had been using my car! Officer: Are you on any medications?
I've always thought that it would be a great legal defense if the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SIIA sued for copyright infringement. If your wireless network is open, how do they prove whether the person uploading/downloading the copyrighted material was you, a neighbor, or some guy in a van outside of your house?
The downside is that a criminal prosecution could mean the confiscation of every computer in your house and some computer forensics guy combing over every file and e-mail looking for something to implicate you. It could be months, or even years, before you got the systems back. Under this administration, they might just hold them forever without filing charges under some obscure provision of the PATRIOT Act.
Err.. no, it didn't. To connect to an unsecured wireless network, you just start sending packets. No request for consent to join the network is involved.
No, what you normally do is request an IP address from the router first using the DHCP protocol. That is a request to join the network and a reply from the router with an address, DNS server address, etc. is an acceptance of your request.
Instead of checking if the email comes from an IP address authorised by the domain owner, people want to limit what domain owners can authorise.
Yes, because we've already seen spammers who set up a domain with a totally open SPF record. Then they use zombie PCs all over the world to send their spam using a From: address in the domain that they set up. Any system which does an SPF test gets a "pass" on every one of those pieces of spam.
This is a very bad side effect of SPF, and eventually it would mean that all email users that are not limited to a single or a few sending IP addresses would have to relay their email using authenticated SMTP to one of a few servers of a service provider that would be listed in the SPF record for their domain.
That's not "very bad." It's quite good. If you're sending e-mail with an earthlink.net sender address, then it should come through Earthlink's servers. That way, I can know that the sender really is an earthlink.net user, rather than some random spammer.
SPF claims to not require huge changes in infrastructure, but its side effects do require a change in infrastructure that collectively would cost a lot.
Not at all. I implemented it on my domain and it required no changes at all. That's because I didn't have some Mickey Mouse setup where I sent through random servers all over the net. When I send e-mail from my domain it goes, and has always gone, through my domain's mail server.
If your PC+broadband connection is more reliable than your ISP's mail servers, then you should not use this ISP.
I'll get rid of the 5Mb down/ 2Mb up and go back to dial-up because a mail server that I don't use, and don't want to use, is less reliable than the connection that I do use. Good idea. Thanks for that.
Why would their connectivity be any better than their mail server?
Because they are two different services. It's like asking "why would the store's linens be any better than their VCRs?" The staff running the mail servers might be a totally different group than the ones who handle the routers and network connectivity.
A mail server can go down due to DDoS attacks, hardware failures, etc. that are totally unrelated to the reliability of network connectivity. In addition, it can be down due to internal network routing problems that would not affect my ability to access the Internet. It takes far fewer hops for my e-mail to go directly to an external mail server than to go from my system to my ISP's mail server and then from there to the destination mail server. Each hop is a potential failure point.
The ISP's mail server shold be running all the time, and should be backed up.
Right. Their OS and server applications should never crash. They should never have a UPS failure. CPU fans shouldn't fail. RAM should never go bad. Network cards should never fail. The system should not go down for OS upgrades or server application upgrades -- the upgrade faeries should magically make the upgrades happen.
If your ISP cannot provide SMTP email 24h a day it is a good indication that you cannot trust their reliability on anything.
Or might it be a good indication that an ISP can't get magic hardware and software which never fails or needs to go down for scheduled maintenance.
Rather than connecting directly to Yahoo's or Hotmail gateways, use your ISP's mail relay. That's what it's there for.
Problems:
1. Many ISPs won't relay mail unless the "From:" is in the ISP's domain. This prevents forgeries by zombies that try to relay through with random from addresses. More importantly for the ISP, they get to use viruses and spam as an excuse to force you to use their e-mail address, making it harder for you to switch ISPs.
1a. Yes, I know about "Reply-To:." Many brain-dead mail servers, list servers,
and even e-mail clients apparently don't.
2. ISPs often have limitations on attachment size. If I want to e-mail a 9MB file to a client or family member that can't deal with passworded FTP, I don't need my ISP's mail server rejecting the e-mail.
3. ISPs often disallow attachments which are executable. Again, not a hassle when dealing with computer-savvy recipients, but not all recipients are that sharp.
4. If the ISP ends up on a blacklist, your e-mail doesn't go through to mail servers that use that blacklist. I have a much better ability to control spam going through my server than to control spam going out through my ISP's mail server.
5. You're at the mercy of the ISP. It their mail server goes down or experiences other problems, your outgoing e-mail is either lost or delayed.
6. If there are e-mail delivery problems, your server won't have useful logs (since the actual delivery was attempted by your ISP's mail server. You won't be able to tell how many times a message was retried, whether something timed out in the protocol, etc.
7. I'd rather not have my ISP retaining copies of my e-mail, auto-scanning it with who-knows-what software, passing it on to the FBI for warrantless PATRIOT Act fishing expeditions, etc. While I know that they could do that with a port 25 snoop, chances are that they wouldn't routinely do that.
Yes, I know that there are inconvenient workarounds for some of the problems listed above, but, all in all, it's far preferable to use your own server.
That would be a wonderful way for Microsoft to destroy its profit base.
Look how many Linux distro vendors ended up in horrible financial trouble. Mandrakesoft filed for bankruptcy. Others got gobbled up when they were bleeding red ink. And those were firms selling an open source OS written by others.
Imagine the payroll costs for a staff large enough to write an entire modern GUI-based OS. Now someone is sugggesting the MS incur that cost, give the source code away, and then try to compete with all of the firms that would be selling it, but that have not incurred the expense of writing it.
It's like suggesting that GM engineer an entire car, make the CAD files and CNC files available at no cost, and then try to sell the car. Within six months, the U.S. would be flooded with Chinese and Korean copies of the car which sold for far less -- since those firms had not borne the cost of the design, R&D, engineering, testing, etc.
So, have you tried to tell the difference between the CD and LP with the RS-1S?
I've got the Grado HD-580 headphones. Very comfortable. Not so analytically revealing as the upper-end Grados, but I prefer the more laid-back presentation and the comfort.
You've got a very nice system and you seem to be a good guy. Enjoy your listening and don't take the audiophile discussions too seriously.
If I sat you in front of my system at home and played a record, and CD of the same recording, you'd think the record was the CD. I've done this nearly 50 times over the last 4 years, and only 3 people have ever guessed correctly.
Ever try that experiment using a high-end set of headphones?
CDs are only 16bit, and Vinyl has a MUCH higher frequency response range.
The number of bits has nothing to do with the frequency response -- that's the sampling rate (Nyquist's Theorem) that determines that. While LPs can theoretically deliver HF content at up to 40+khz, you can't hear that high and most recordings have no significant content above 20khz. Don't play Emperor's New Clothes by telling me how a true audiophile with a high enough resolution system can hear such HF content. Go to an audiologist and have them measure the upper limits of your hearing and then discuss that.
Vinyl has a much higher THD (total harmonic distortion), IM (inter-modulation) distortion, and noise floor. It also has a lower dynamic range (think noise floor to tracking limitations) and much worse frequency linearity over the range of human hearing. It is subject to microphonic pickup and feedback. It exhibits horrible overshoot as the stylus distorts the vinyl as resists changing direction thousands, or tens of thousands, of times per second. (If you were subjected to the G-forces that your stylus is, you'd be jello in seconds.) In almost every measured way, vinyl is inferior to CD. Granted, it can sound amazingly good given the limitations, but it doesn't take spectacular hearing to know that one is listening to an LP -- just the noise in quiet sections and between tracks makes it obvious.
Granted, I've got $20K+ into my system, and not everyone has an environment like that, but don't discount a technology because you don't understand it.
Linn turntable, cartridge, and arm, Rotel CD player with mods to power supply and output stage, VMPS speakers, Hafler recording studio studio MOSFET power amp, PS Audio phono stage with switchable input load (resistance and capacitance), custom-built Class-A unity gain preamp -- my system is no slouch either. I designed and built the preamp and created and implemented the mods to the CD player. I understand the technology intimately -- and I can tell you that, even when playing the finest quality vinyl (think Japanese import half-speed mastered stuff), the vinyl is inferior to an equally well-recorded CD. Just listen to the lead-in grooves, which are supposed to be silent, and that's your vinyl noise floor. It's horrendous. Listen to the 1.8 second pre-echo that results from distortions to the groove from the adjacent recorded section. Every bit of music that you are hearing has some component of what was recorded 1.8 seconds before and after it. That's bad.
I submit to you that you may have inadvertently tuned your system to work with vinyl. For example, perhaps your listening environment has a frequency response dip that corresponds to the microphonic feedback and a resonance point of your turntable. Maybe your environment rolls off the HF so as to mask some of the HF content of the vinyl noise. Perhaps your cartridge/preamp gracefully rolls it off. I'll bring over some high-end Grado or Sennheiser headphones to get the room and microphonic feedback out of the equation and then let's see how a blind test goes.
Why? It drives up the cost for hosting. Spam relies on cheap hosting. Drive the costs up and the.0x% response rate to spam no longer is enough for it to be profitable. It makes ISPs less willing to host spam sites. If Chinanet was seeing its bandwidth eaten up by DDoS attacks against the spammers it hosted, then it might stop hosting them.
The fact that you are not familiar with viable plans does not mean that none such exist.
I'm aware of plenty of plans which would be successful, but that doesn't mean that they are viable. Any plan which requires that administrators and users all over the world change servers and e-mail clients is not viable -- even though it would be a success if everyone went along with it.
There is no excuse for any combination of mail server and client to be showing ANY individual user more than one or two pieces of spam a week unless the user really wants to see the spam. The reason so many people have worse is that they use cheaply operated mail systems and garbage mail clients.
Ah, yes, the old "spam ostrich." Hide the spam from the user and the user can pretend that it doesn't exist and that they didn't just pay for the bandwidth used by the spammer.
If all it takes is a worldwide upgrade of e-mail servers and clients, when will you get started on that? If you don't have a way to get people to do it, then it's not a viable plan.
Then you don't understand the economics of spam. Spammers rely on cheap hosting and cheap hosting relies on low bandwidth usage. Increase the traffic to the spammer's web site and the hosting costs ramp up quickly.
Again. How do we know it will work?
I don't know that it will work, but I think that it will. How do you know it won't work if no one tries it? It's not like the spam problem is being well-controlled now by existing methods.
I see you have a plan, I see no evidence it's viable. I suggest you stand aside...
That's the beauty of the Internet: People and organizations don't have to take an opinion poll every time they want to do something. You don't think it has much chance of working. The people behind it think that it will -- so they're trying it. If it has a positive effect, great. If not, you can say "I told you so."
This is just another form of spamming. Anyone who generates unnecessary network traffic is a menace to the Internet.
Policing the Internet and making it an unwelcoming place for spammers is not "unnecessary." It's necessary if e-mail is to remain a viable, cost-effective means of communication.
Spammers love the kind of prissy-assed, holier-than-thou, arguments about ethics that people like you put up every time someone actually tries to combat spam. Bullsh*t. Enough is enough. If two or three months of attacks on a spammer's servers could get him to stop pissing off a million or more people a day, then let the attacks begin! If it makes a Chinese ISP stop writing web hosting contracts for spammers, then let's get going. If you don't have a viable plan to combat the ever-increasing volume of spam, then get out of the way and let those who do take action.
Company's who wish to provide Hi-Def content to PCs won't want to do it if it gets stolen/copied easily.
Did all studios stopped offering DVDs once they could be easily copied? Did the easy extraction of content mean that CDs were no longer released? No. Of course not.
You are right that this is all about choices: It's about giving content owners the choice of whether you will be able to exercise your fair-use rights to copy, transcode, time-shift, loan, or sell the content that they provide.
The content providers want you to have to buy multiple copies of things that you should only have to buy once. They want you to purchase a hi-def copy of a movie for your media center PC. Then they want you to have to purchase another copy another copy to watch on your laptop when you go on a business trip. They want to be able to keep you from lending your copy to a friend without that friend paying them to watch it. They want to keep you from selling your used movie through Amazon or ebay (by refusing a license to the purchaser). And they want to decide whether their content will be available for rent. DRM gives them all of these capabilities.
We should all be very afraid, angry, and be politically active to prevent this massive power-shift from consumers to content providers.
I wonder if you'll keep saying that when all of these companies are gone and you're left in the stone age.
That's an absurd false dichotomy. No one in the U.S. is going to be "left in the stone age" because companies refused to tailor networking equipment for an oppressive regime. Computer and networking companies prospered before China was a significant market, so there will be plenty of them to meet the market demand in the free world.
Imagine the way these companies must feel when they see the largely untapped, rapidly growing Chinese marketplace. These businesses have a choice: do business the way the government wants, or risk being locked out of the Chinese market altogether. Making what seems like the obviously moral choice (don't make products, for instance, that arbitrarily censor debate and dissent regarding democracy and human rights) is not the profitable way to go.
I'm tired of profit being used as an excuse for unethical behavior. Who cares if Company X is locked out of the Chinese market? Who cares if they make more profit? The stockholders? Screw the f***ing stockholders! We're talking about a government that's using the technology to hunt down and jail people for what they read and write. If producing products for that market is critical to your company staying in business, then have the decency, principles, and ethics to go out of business.
You do realize that to 99.99% of Slashdot readers, including those who make their living as software engineers, that's completely incomprehensible, don't you? That's the reason why they invented comments.
You're a colony that rebelled, cost us goodness knows how much directly and lost us control of the world, grudgingly help us out a few times and you expect us to be grateful?
Yes. It's about time that you recognize that England was in the wrong at the time that the U.S. colonies revolted.
1763 - The Proclamation of 1763, signed by King George III of England, prohibited any English settlement west of the Appalachian mountains and required those already settled in those regions to return east. These were people eeking out an existence in an new land and the English government was requiring that they abandon their home, crops, and everything that they had worked so hard for.
1764 - The Sugar Act was passed by the English Parliament to offset the war debt brought on by the French and Indian War and to help pay for the expenses of running the colonies and newly acquired territories. This act increased the duties on imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wines and dye. It doubled the duties on foreign goods reshipped from England to the colonies and also forbade the import of foreign rum and French wines.
1764 - The English Parliament passed a measure to establish a court in Halifax, Nova Scotia which would have jurisdiction over all of the American colonies in trade matters.
1764 - The Currency Act prohibited the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. This act threatened to destabilize the entire colonial economy of both the industrial North and agricultural South, thus uniting the colonists against it.
1765 - In March, the Stamp Act was passed by the English Parliament, imposing the first direct tax on the American colonies, to offset the high costs of the British military organization in America. For the first time in the 150 year old history of the British colonies in America, the Americans were to pay tax not to their own local legislatures in America, but directly to England.
Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards. The American colonists quickly united in opposition, led by the most influential segments of colonial society - lawyers, publishers, land owners, ship builders and merchants - who are most affected by the Act, which was scheduled to go into effect on November 1.
1765 - Also in March, the Quartering Act required colonists to house British troops and supply them with food.
1766 - The English Parliament passed the Declaratory Act stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.
1774 - On May 13, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston and put Massachusetts under British military rule. He is followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
1774 - May 20, The English Parliament enacted the Quebec Act, greatly upsetting American colonists by extending the southern boundary of Canada into settled territories claimed by U.S. states.
1774 - In June, a new version of the 1765 Quartering Act is enacted by the English Parliament requiring all of the American colonies to provide housing for British troops in occupied houses and taverns and in unoccupied buildings.
Given the way that England treated the colonies, it's a damned good reflection on our character that we helped defend England at all in WWII.
Yeah, I remember. You didn't want to touch it until the US itself was attacked, even though without the nation being invaded (France) your country wouldn't exist.
It would have been easy for us to strike back at the Japanese and leave it at that. Instead, we entered Europe at a great cost to fight beside the Allied troops.
The fact is, you did elect him, under your own system, you can't blame us for judging you by the rulers you pick.
Gratitude ? if the Dutch and French had ignored Adam's please and NOT propped up the US dollar in the first place you guys wouldn't have had a hope in hell!
You're comparing a $2 million loan from a Dutch syndicate with the loss of over 400,000 American lives? Amazing.
I want to commend you for actually reading Pataki, and you argue your point well.
Thank you. I was impressed by what you wrote and only tried to do it justice in my reply.
Keep in mind the text you quoted isn't me, it's the federal judge who ruled in Cyberspace v Engler that Michigan can't impose its own rules on the internet.
I understand that and I believe that the federal judge in Cyberspace v Engler was overly broad in his language, not considering that, in the Pataki case, a primary concern was that the law attempted to regulate commerce in which neither party resided in NY. That does not appear to be the case with the Michigan law. The law even indemnifies those who simply move the message: A person does not violate this act because the person is an intermediary between the sender and recipient in the transmission of an electronic message that violates this act or unknowingly provides transmission of electronic messages over the person's computer network or facilities that violate this act.
One problem with the Michigan law is say somebody claiming to be 52 and from Hawaii emails you asking for something - cigarette coupon, voting registration form, just anything that would be verboten to a michigan 9 year old. Do you check the email against the Michigan list, for a fee, before replying? Or run the risk of being jailed in Michigan?
The Michigan law prohibits e-mails which advertise, directly or through links, products or services not legally accessible to Michigan minors. Answering an inquiry would not, to my mind, constitute advertising. From the Michigan law:
A person shall not send, cause to be sent, or conspire with a third party to send a message to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 calendar days with the department if the primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly, advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving.
It burdens commerce that is wholly outside Michican. If Michigan can do it, can your city? My trailer park association? If 0.07 cents is ok, is 25 cents ok? $25? You might be a Michigan minor; I have no way of knowing for sure.
That't the argument which is most likely to take it down. The fee aspect of it is a problem and will probably be its downfall. Were the service available at little to no charge, then it might well withstand a court challenge.
No-one uses the first version of these protocols any more. What we use now has been designed by a committee.
That is such an incredibly weak argument that I'm amazed you'd be willing to post it. Maybe that's why you're posting anonymously. It's like trying to say that the Wright Brothers are owed little credit because the airplane has since been improved upon by successive engineers.
If you drop the US of the internet, it will keep working just fine in Europe.
Then why are you so concerned about the root DNS servers remaining in the U.S.?
It was about 'inventing', not about building anything. Even if it was about building, ever heard of von Neumann or Turing? That a certain type of computer may or may not (it's disputed) have been made first in the US is quite uninteresting.
Inventing and theorizing are two very different things. Von Neumann didn't even publish his paper (First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC) until 1945. Turing thought of a "computer" as a person who carried out a computation. The theories that he published, though important in the history of computers, did not, by any means, constitute the invention of a computer.
Why do you think it's called an internet? Would you think it might have anything to do with it being a network between networks?
Of course, but when the original poster stated that "The Internet was funded with US taxpayer dollars...if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own." As in, go build your own Internet equivalent, as a standalone network with no reliance on U.S. Internet infrastructure. So my use of the term "network," referred to a worldwide network of networks equivalent to the Internet.
I congratulate you with your +4 post, scoring completely on Americans who want to keep in there dream that nationalism actually matters shit. Keep up the good work!
You really don't know who modded my comment up or down. Those who modded it up marked it as "interesting" and "insightful". That you could believe that only an American would find accomplishments of Americans to be of interest shows just how nationalistic you are.
Why should one country be entitled to control the accuracy of the system?
I didn't say that the U.S. should be entitled to control it. But having sole control of it is in our national interests, which is why the U.S. has been opposed to the Galileo cluster.
As far as Europe is concerned the US could just as easily be the bad guys. After all, recent events have hardly showed you as a non-aggressor.
How about a little gratitude? Remember WWII when the U.S. took up arms against European aggressors? Also, 49% of the US voters didn't elect that idiot that we have in office. Bear with us and maybe we can convince enough of the others of their mistake that we can remedy it in 2008.
If the design is genuine innovation from US funds, why isn't it patented?
Because the U.S. government doesn't normally patent taxpayer-funded inventions.
LOL, so because a protocol has been 'invented' somewhere (by committees often containing people from all over the world), you can not build a new network, because you use building blocks?
What an incredibly gross distortion of what I wrote. First off, TCP/IP was not invented by a committee "containing people from all over the world." It was invented in the 1970s by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Nor did I say that you could not build a new network because it used such building blocks. But you can't paste your computers onto the Internet and say "we built a network!" No, you didn't. You just attached to an existing one.
Okay, I'll extend your statement, and say that the US has never build any roads or buildings, because they have been invented in other places.
That's not an extension of my statement. I wrote: "You just attached computers to an existing network using the building blocks (TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc.) which were invented in the U.S. at U.S. taxpayer expense." The U.S. didn't attach roads to the ones in Europe. We built a complete, standalone system of roads. Every road in Europe could be shut down and it would not affect traffic flow in the U.S.
Also the US has never build any computers or networks, because those too have been invented outside of the US.
Your ignorance is showing. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42. Timesharing, the concept of linking a large numbers of users to a single computer via remote terminals, was developed at MIT in the late 50s and early 60s. In 1962, Paul Baran of RAND developed the idea of distributed, packet-switching networks. ARPANET, which later became the Internet, went online in 1969. So, computers were invented in the U.S. So was networking. And so was the Internet.
Again, you don't have to invent something to build an example of it. But neither can you claim that you built a network if all you built is just an extension to an existing network.
As root servers are computer too, the US has never build any root servers either.
Again, you don't seem to grasp the argument. I didn't say that the EU could not build a network because they did not invent the concept or protocols. But simply hooking into a network built in the U.S. does not constitute building a network.
The Commerce Clause precludes the application of state statutes to commerce that commences or occurs outside of a state's borders. American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160, 175 (S.D. N.Y. 1997).
Not so fast. In American Libraries Association v. Pataki, the court wrote:
Moreover, no user could avoid liability under the New York Act simply by directing his or her communications elsewhere, given that there is no feasible way to preclude New Yorkers from accessing a Web site, receiving a mail exploder message or a newsgroup posting, or participating in a chat room. Similarly, a user has no way to ensure that an e-mail does not pass through New York even if the ultimate recipient is not located there, or that a message never leaves New York even if both sender and recipient are located there.
The current Michigan law provides a means for determining whether an addressee is a minor in Michigan (an online database). Furthermore, it does not regulate communications which are simply passing through Michigan. Therefore, the central Commerce Clause argument in the American Libraries Association v. Pataki does not apply to the Michigan statute being discussed.
"[A] statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State
The commercial speech being regulated here does not occur "wholly outside the boundaries" of" Michigan. The only commercial speech being regulated by the Michigan law is that which would be transmitted to specific minors within the state of Michigan. It's analogous to the state laws making it illegal to ship air guns (pellet rifles) to California, Mississippi, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Slashdot Mirror
The DHCP server decides whether to grant access, and the associated IP addressing information, on a request-by-request basis. It is actively assigning an IP address to the specific client.
Note the use of the word "may" -- this is a clear indication that it is possible for DHCP servers to respond to unauthorised clients.
No, it's an indication that you took "hosts that have been previously registered through some external mechanism" to be "authorised clients." The administrator can either authorize all clients or can be selective in who is authorized to use the network.
It also says:That "choose to interact" line is important. There is a choice here. If you configure your DHCP server to hand out IP addresses to any who ask, don't complain when they use them.
OK, so A is incredibly stupid. But that doesn't mean that B has a right to "borrow" his car like that.
No, it really isn't a great analogy because the router is acting as your agent. Someone who stumbles into your WiFi zone and wants to use your network has no way to ask for permission other than through your router. Someone who wants to borrow your car can ask you directly.
No, DHCP is not a "way to gather technical information." It's not some static repository of information available to all. It's a two-way protocol where the client system requests a unique IP address with which to communicate over the network. The router (which can act as a DHCP server) either provides an IP address or does not, depending on whether the owner has decided to leave his connection open to all.
Perhaps you should read RFC-1531, which defines the DHCP protocol:
Did you see that "host-specific configuration parameters" part? That means that the router is giving a specific, and unique, IP address to a client that has requested network connectivity.
My router is set up so that it will not give out IP addresses to random systems that attempt to connect -- only to specific MAC addresses which belong do systems that I own. If I had set it up to provide DHCP services and IP addresses to all who asked, then I would be giving those people permission to use my connection.
An analogy:
Me: I'd like to use your car. Can I have the keys?
You: Sure. Here's a key I made just for your use.
Some time later...
You: Officer, he hijacked my car!
Officer: What do you mean, "hijacked"?
You: He told me that he'd like to use my car, so I had a key made just for him. Then, later, I discovered that he had been using my car!
Officer: Are you on any medications?
I've always thought that it would be a great legal defense if the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SIIA sued for copyright infringement. If your wireless network is open, how do they prove whether the person uploading/downloading the copyrighted material was you, a neighbor, or some guy in a van outside of your house?
The downside is that a criminal prosecution could mean the confiscation of every computer in your house and some computer forensics guy combing over every file and e-mail looking for something to implicate you. It could be months, or even years, before you got the systems back. Under this administration, they might just hold them forever without filing charges under some obscure provision of the PATRIOT Act.
Err.. no, it didn't. To connect to an unsecured wireless network, you just start sending packets. No request for consent to join the network is involved.
No, what you normally do is request an IP address from the router first using the DHCP protocol. That is a request to join the network and a reply from the router with an address, DNS server address, etc. is an acceptance of your request.
Instead of checking if the email comes from an IP address authorised by the domain owner, people want to limit what domain owners can authorise.
Yes, because we've already seen spammers who set up a domain with a totally open SPF record. Then they use zombie PCs all over the world to send their spam using a From: address in the domain that they set up. Any system which does an SPF test gets a "pass" on every one of those pieces of spam.
This is a very bad side effect of SPF, and eventually it would mean that all email users that are not limited to a single or a few sending IP addresses would have to relay their email using authenticated SMTP to one of a few servers of a service provider that would be listed in the SPF record for their domain.
That's not "very bad." It's quite good. If you're sending e-mail with an earthlink.net sender address, then it should come through Earthlink's servers. That way, I can know that the sender really is an earthlink.net user, rather than some random spammer.
SPF claims to not require huge changes in infrastructure, but its side effects do require a change in infrastructure that collectively would cost a lot.
Not at all. I implemented it on my domain and it required no changes at all. That's because I didn't have some Mickey Mouse setup where I sent through random servers all over the net. When I send e-mail from my domain it goes, and has always gone, through my domain's mail server.
If your PC+broadband connection is more reliable than your ISP's mail servers, then you should not use this ISP.
I'll get rid of the 5Mb down/ 2Mb up and go back to dial-up because a mail server that I don't use, and don't want to use, is less reliable than the connection that I do use. Good idea. Thanks for that.
Why would their connectivity be any better than their mail server?
Because they are two different services. It's like asking "why would the store's linens be any better than their VCRs?" The staff running the mail servers might be a totally different group than the ones who handle the routers and network connectivity.
A mail server can go down due to DDoS attacks, hardware failures, etc. that are totally unrelated to the reliability of network connectivity. In addition, it can be down due to internal network routing problems that would not affect my ability to access the Internet. It takes far fewer hops for my e-mail to go directly to an external mail server than to go from my system to my ISP's mail server and then from there to the destination mail server. Each hop is a potential failure point.
The ISP's mail server shold be running all the time, and should be backed up.
Right. Their OS and server applications should never crash. They should never have a UPS failure. CPU fans shouldn't fail. RAM should never go bad. Network cards should never fail. The system should not go down for OS upgrades or server application upgrades -- the upgrade faeries should magically make the upgrades happen.
If your ISP cannot provide SMTP email 24h a day it is a good indication that you cannot trust their reliability on anything.
Or might it be a good indication that an ISP can't get magic hardware and software which never fails or needs to go down for scheduled maintenance.
Rather than connecting directly to Yahoo's or Hotmail gateways, use your ISP's mail relay. That's what it's there for.
Problems:
1. Many ISPs won't relay mail unless the "From:" is in the ISP's domain. This prevents forgeries by zombies that try to relay through with random from addresses. More importantly for the ISP, they get to use viruses and spam as an excuse to force you to use their e-mail address, making it harder for you to switch ISPs.
1a. Yes, I know about "Reply-To:." Many brain-dead mail servers, list servers,
and even e-mail clients apparently don't.
2. ISPs often have limitations on attachment size. If I want to e-mail a 9MB file to a client or family member that can't deal with passworded FTP, I don't need my ISP's mail server rejecting the e-mail.
3. ISPs often disallow attachments which are executable. Again, not a hassle when dealing with computer-savvy recipients, but not all recipients are that sharp.
4. If the ISP ends up on a blacklist, your e-mail doesn't go through to mail servers that use that blacklist. I have a much better ability to control spam going through my server than to control spam going out through my ISP's mail server.
5. You're at the mercy of the ISP. It their mail server goes down or experiences other problems, your outgoing e-mail is either lost or delayed.
6. If there are e-mail delivery problems, your server won't have useful logs (since the actual delivery was attempted by your ISP's mail server. You won't be able to tell how many times a message was retried, whether something timed out in the protocol, etc.
7. I'd rather not have my ISP retaining copies of my e-mail, auto-scanning it with who-knows-what software, passing it on to the FBI for warrantless PATRIOT Act fishing expeditions, etc. While I know that they could do that with a port 25 snoop, chances are that they wouldn't routinely do that.
Yes, I know that there are inconvenient workarounds for some of the problems listed above, but, all in all, it's far preferable to use your own server.
That would be a wonderful way for Microsoft to destroy its profit base.
Look how many Linux distro vendors ended up in horrible financial trouble. Mandrakesoft filed for bankruptcy. Others got gobbled up when they were bleeding red ink. And those were firms selling an open source OS written by others.
Imagine the payroll costs for a staff large enough to write an entire modern GUI-based OS. Now someone is sugggesting the MS incur that cost, give the source code away, and then try to compete with all of the firms that would be selling it, but that have not incurred the expense of writing it.
It's like suggesting that GM engineer an entire car, make the CAD files and CNC files available at no cost, and then try to sell the car. Within six months, the U.S. would be flooded with Chinese and Korean copies of the car which sold for far less -- since those firms had not borne the cost of the design, R&D, engineering, testing, etc.
So, have you tried to tell the difference between the CD and LP with the RS-1S?
I've got the Grado HD-580 headphones. Very comfortable. Not so analytically revealing as the upper-end Grados, but I prefer the more laid-back presentation and the comfort.
You've got a very nice system and you seem to be a good guy. Enjoy your listening and don't take the audiophile discussions too seriously.
If I sat you in front of my system at home and played a record, and CD of the same recording, you'd think the record was the CD. I've done this nearly 50 times over the last 4 years, and only 3 people have ever guessed correctly.
Ever try that experiment using a high-end set of headphones?
CDs are only 16bit, and Vinyl has a MUCH higher frequency response range.
The number of bits has nothing to do with the frequency response -- that's the sampling rate (Nyquist's Theorem) that determines that. While LPs can theoretically deliver HF content at up to 40+khz, you can't hear that high and most recordings have no significant content above 20khz. Don't play Emperor's New Clothes by telling me how a true audiophile with a high enough resolution system can hear such HF content. Go to an audiologist and have them measure the upper limits of your hearing and then discuss that.
Vinyl has a much higher THD (total harmonic distortion), IM (inter-modulation) distortion, and noise floor. It also has a lower dynamic range (think noise floor to tracking limitations) and much worse frequency linearity over the range of human hearing. It is subject to microphonic pickup and feedback. It exhibits horrible overshoot as the stylus distorts the vinyl as resists changing direction thousands, or tens of thousands, of times per second. (If you were subjected to the G-forces that your stylus is, you'd be jello in seconds.) In almost every measured way, vinyl is inferior to CD. Granted, it can sound amazingly good given the limitations, but it doesn't take spectacular hearing to know that one is listening to an LP -- just the noise in quiet sections and between tracks makes it obvious.
Granted, I've got $20K+ into my system, and not everyone has an environment like that, but don't discount a technology because you don't understand it.
Linn turntable, cartridge, and arm, Rotel CD player with mods to power supply and output stage, VMPS speakers, Hafler recording studio studio MOSFET power amp, PS Audio phono stage with switchable input load (resistance and capacitance), custom-built Class-A unity gain preamp -- my system is no slouch either. I designed and built the preamp and created and implemented the mods to the CD player. I understand the technology intimately -- and I can tell you that, even when playing the finest quality vinyl (think Japanese import half-speed mastered stuff), the vinyl is inferior to an equally well-recorded CD. Just listen to the lead-in grooves, which are supposed to be silent, and that's your vinyl noise floor. It's horrendous. Listen to the 1.8 second pre-echo that results from distortions to the groove from the adjacent recorded section. Every bit of music that you are hearing has some component of what was recorded 1.8 seconds before and after it. That's bad.
I submit to you that you may have inadvertently tuned your system to work with vinyl. For example, perhaps your listening environment has a frequency response dip that corresponds to the microphonic feedback and a resonance point of your turntable. Maybe your environment rolls off the HF so as to mask some of the HF content of the vinyl noise. Perhaps your cartridge/preamp gracefully rolls it off. I'll bring over some high-end Grado or Sennheiser headphones to get the room and microphonic feedback out of the equation and then let's see how a blind test goes.
Maybe someone jacked in the box before making your meal?
DDoS'ing spammers is not a viable plan
.0x% response rate to spam no longer is enough for it to be profitable. It makes ISPs less willing to host spam sites. If Chinanet was seeing its bandwidth eaten up by DDoS attacks against the spammers it hosted, then it might stop hosting them.
Why? It drives up the cost for hosting. Spam relies on cheap hosting. Drive the costs up and the
The fact that you are not familiar with viable plans does not mean that none such exist.
I'm aware of plenty of plans which would be successful, but that doesn't mean that they are viable. Any plan which requires that administrators and users all over the world change servers and e-mail clients is not viable -- even though it would be a success if everyone went along with it.
There is no excuse for any combination of mail server and client to be showing ANY individual user more than one or two pieces of spam a week unless the user really wants to see the spam. The reason so many people have worse is that they use cheaply operated mail systems and garbage mail clients.
Ah, yes, the old "spam ostrich." Hide the spam from the user and the user can pretend that it doesn't exist and that they didn't just pay for the bandwidth used by the spammer.
If all it takes is a worldwide upgrade of e-mail servers and clients, when will you get started on that? If you don't have a way to get people to do it, then it's not a viable plan.
I see no evidence that it will.
Then you don't understand the economics of spam. Spammers rely on cheap hosting and cheap hosting relies on low bandwidth usage. Increase the traffic to the spammer's web site and the hosting costs ramp up quickly.
Again. How do we know it will work?
I don't know that it will work, but I think that it will. How do you know it won't work if no one tries it? It's not like the spam problem is being well-controlled now by existing methods.
I see you have a plan, I see no evidence it's viable. I suggest you stand aside...
That's the beauty of the Internet: People and organizations don't have to take an opinion poll every time they want to do something. You don't think it has much chance of working. The people behind it think that it will -- so they're trying it. If it has a positive effect, great. If not, you can say "I told you so."
This is just another form of spamming. Anyone who generates unnecessary network traffic is a menace to the Internet.
Policing the Internet and making it an unwelcoming place for spammers is not "unnecessary." It's necessary if e-mail is to remain a viable, cost-effective means of communication.
Spammers love the kind of prissy-assed, holier-than-thou, arguments about ethics that people like you put up every time someone actually tries to combat spam. Bullsh*t. Enough is enough. If two or three months of attacks on a spammer's servers could get him to stop pissing off a million or more people a day, then let the attacks begin! If it makes a Chinese ISP stop writing web hosting contracts for spammers, then let's get going. If you don't have a viable plan to combat the ever-increasing volume of spam, then get out of the way and let those who do take action.
Company's who wish to provide Hi-Def content to PCs won't want to do it if it gets stolen/copied easily.
Did all studios stopped offering DVDs once they could be easily copied? Did the easy extraction of content mean that CDs were no longer released? No. Of course not.
You are right that this is all about choices: It's about giving content owners the choice of whether you will be able to exercise your fair-use rights to copy, transcode, time-shift, loan, or sell the content that they provide.
The content providers want you to have to buy multiple copies of things that you should only have to buy once. They want you to purchase a hi-def copy of a movie for your media center PC. Then they want you to have to purchase another copy another copy to watch on your laptop when you go on a business trip. They want to be able to keep you from lending your copy to a friend without that friend paying them to watch it. They want to keep you from selling your used movie through Amazon or ebay (by refusing a license to the purchaser). And they want to decide whether their content will be available for rent. DRM gives them all of these capabilities.
We should all be very afraid, angry, and be politically active to prevent this massive power-shift from consumers to content providers.
I wonder if you'll keep saying that when all of these companies are gone and you're left in the stone age.
That's an absurd false dichotomy. No one in the U.S. is going to be "left in the stone age" because companies refused to tailor networking equipment for an oppressive regime. Computer and networking companies prospered before China was a significant market, so there will be plenty of them to meet the market demand in the free world.
Imagine the way these companies must feel when they see the largely untapped, rapidly growing Chinese marketplace. These businesses have a choice: do business the way the government wants, or risk being locked out of the Chinese market altogether. Making what seems like the obviously moral choice (don't make products, for instance, that arbitrarily censor debate and dissent regarding democracy and human rights) is not the profitable way to go.
I'm tired of profit being used as an excuse for unethical behavior. Who cares if Company X is locked out of the Chinese market? Who cares if they make more profit? The stockholders? Screw the f***ing stockholders! We're talking about a government that's using the technology to hunt down and jail people for what they read and write. If producing products for that market is critical to your company staying in business, then have the decency, principles, and ethics to go out of business.
You do realize that to 99.99% of Slashdot readers, including those who make their living as software engineers, that's completely incomprehensible, don't you? That's the reason why they invented comments.
You're a colony that rebelled, cost us goodness knows how much directly and lost us control of the world, grudgingly help us out a few times and you expect us to be grateful?
Yes. It's about time that you recognize that England was in the wrong at the time that the U.S. colonies revolted.
1763 - The Proclamation of 1763, signed by King George III of England, prohibited any English settlement west of the Appalachian mountains and required those already settled in those regions to return east. These were people eeking out an existence in an new land and the English government was requiring that they abandon their home, crops, and everything that they had worked so hard for.
1764 - The Sugar Act was passed by the English Parliament to offset the war debt brought on by the French and Indian War and to help pay for the expenses of running the colonies and newly acquired territories. This act increased the duties on imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wines and dye. It doubled the duties on foreign goods reshipped from England to the colonies and also forbade the import of foreign rum and French wines.
1764 - The English Parliament passed a measure to establish a court in Halifax, Nova Scotia which would have jurisdiction over all of the American colonies in trade matters.
1764 - The Currency Act prohibited the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. This act threatened to destabilize the entire colonial economy of both the industrial North and agricultural South, thus uniting the colonists against it.
1765 - In March, the Stamp Act was passed by the English Parliament, imposing the first direct tax on the American colonies, to offset the high costs of the British military organization in America. For the first time in the 150 year old history of the British colonies in America, the Americans were to pay tax not to their own local legislatures in America, but directly to England.
Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards. The American colonists quickly united in opposition, led by the most influential segments of colonial society - lawyers, publishers, land owners, ship builders and merchants - who are most affected by the Act, which was scheduled to go into effect on November 1.
1765 - Also in March, the Quartering Act required colonists to house British troops and supply them with food.
1766 - The English Parliament passed the Declaratory Act stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.
1774 - On May 13, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston and put Massachusetts under British military rule. He is followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
1774 - May 20, The English Parliament enacted the Quebec Act, greatly upsetting American colonists by extending the southern boundary of Canada into settled territories claimed by U.S. states.
1774 - In June, a new version of the 1765 Quartering Act is enacted by the English Parliament requiring all of the American colonies to provide housing for British troops in occupied houses and taverns and in unoccupied buildings.
Given the way that England treated the colonies, it's a damned good reflection on our character that we helped defend England at all in WWII.
Yeah, I remember. You didn't want to touch it until the US itself was attacked, even though without the nation being invaded (France) your country wouldn't exist.
It would have been easy for us to strike back at the Japanese and leave it at that. Instead, we entered Europe at a great cost to fight beside the Allied troops.
The fact is, you did elect him, under your own system, you can't blame us for judging you by the rulers you pick.
No, *I* didn't elect him. I didn
Gratitude ? if the Dutch and French had ignored Adam's please and NOT propped up the US dollar in the first place you guys wouldn't have had a hope in hell!
You're comparing a $2 million loan from a Dutch syndicate with the loss of over 400,000 American lives? Amazing.
Thank you. I was impressed by what you wrote and only tried to do it justice in my reply.
Keep in mind the text you quoted isn't me, it's the federal judge who ruled in Cyberspace v Engler that Michigan can't impose its own rules on the internet.
I understand that and I believe that the federal judge in Cyberspace v Engler was overly broad in his language, not considering that, in the Pataki case, a primary concern was that the law attempted to regulate commerce in which neither party resided in NY. That does not appear to be the case with the Michigan law. The law even indemnifies those who simply move the message: A person does not violate this act because the person is an intermediary between the sender and recipient in the transmission of an electronic message that violates this act or unknowingly provides transmission of electronic messages over the person's computer network or facilities that violate this act.
One problem with the Michigan law is say somebody claiming to be 52 and from Hawaii emails you asking for something - cigarette coupon, voting registration form, just anything that would be verboten to a michigan 9 year old. Do you check the email against the Michigan list, for a fee, before replying? Or run the risk of being jailed in Michigan?
The Michigan law prohibits e-mails which advertise, directly or through links, products or services not legally accessible to Michigan minors. Answering an inquiry would not, to my mind, constitute advertising. From the Michigan law:
It burdens commerce that is wholly outside Michican. If Michigan can do it, can your city? My trailer park association? If 0.07 cents is ok, is 25 cents ok? $25? You might be a Michigan minor; I have no way of knowing for sure.
That't the argument which is most likely to take it down. The fee aspect of it is a problem and will probably be its downfall. Were the service available at little to no charge, then it might well withstand a court challenge.
No-one uses the first version of these protocols any more. What we use now has been designed by a committee.
That is such an incredibly weak argument that I'm amazed you'd be willing to post it. Maybe that's why you're posting anonymously. It's like trying to say that the Wright Brothers are owed little credit because the airplane has since been improved upon by successive engineers.
If you drop the US of the internet, it will keep working just fine in Europe.
Then why are you so concerned about the root DNS servers remaining in the U.S.?
It was about 'inventing', not about building anything. Even if it was about building, ever heard of von Neumann or Turing? That a certain type of computer may or may not (it's disputed) have been made first in the US is quite uninteresting.
Inventing and theorizing are two very different things. Von Neumann didn't even publish his paper (First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC) until 1945. Turing thought of a "computer" as a person who carried out a computation. The theories that he published, though important in the history of computers, did not, by any means, constitute the invention of a computer.
Why do you think it's called an internet? Would you think it might have anything to do with it being a network between networks?
Of course, but when the original poster stated that "The Internet was funded with US taxpayer dollars...if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own." As in, go build your own Internet equivalent, as a standalone network with no reliance on U.S. Internet infrastructure. So my use of the term "network," referred to a worldwide network of networks equivalent to the Internet.
I congratulate you with your +4 post, scoring completely on Americans who want to keep in there dream that nationalism actually matters shit. Keep up the good work!
You really don't know who modded my comment up or down. Those who modded it up marked it as "interesting" and "insightful". That you could believe that only an American would find accomplishments of Americans to be of interest shows just how nationalistic you are.
Why should one country be entitled to control the accuracy of the system?
I didn't say that the U.S. should be entitled to control it. But having sole control of it is in our national interests, which is why the U.S. has been opposed to the Galileo cluster.
As far as Europe is concerned the US could just as easily be the bad guys. After all, recent events have hardly showed you as a non-aggressor.
How about a little gratitude? Remember WWII when the U.S. took up arms against European aggressors? Also, 49% of the US voters didn't elect that idiot that we have in office. Bear with us and maybe we can convince enough of the others of their mistake that we can remedy it in 2008.
If the design is genuine innovation from US funds, why isn't it patented?
Because the U.S. government doesn't normally patent taxpayer-funded inventions.
LOL, so because a protocol has been 'invented' somewhere (by committees often containing people from all over the world), you can not build a new network, because you use building blocks?
What an incredibly gross distortion of what I wrote. First off, TCP/IP was not invented by a committee "containing people from all over the world." It was invented in the 1970s by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Nor did I say that you could not build a new network because it used such building blocks. But you can't paste your computers onto the Internet and say "we built a network!" No, you didn't. You just attached to an existing one.
Okay, I'll extend your statement, and say that the US has never build any roads or buildings, because they have been invented in other places.
That's not an extension of my statement. I wrote: "You just attached computers to an existing network using the building blocks (TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc.) which were invented in the U.S. at U.S. taxpayer expense." The U.S. didn't attach roads to the ones in Europe. We built a complete, standalone system of roads. Every road in Europe could be shut down and it would not affect traffic flow in the U.S.
Also the US has never build any computers or networks, because those too have been invented outside of the US.
Your ignorance is showing. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42. Timesharing, the concept of linking a large numbers of users to a single computer via remote terminals, was developed at MIT in the late 50s and early 60s. In 1962, Paul Baran of RAND developed the idea of distributed, packet-switching networks. ARPANET, which later became the Internet, went online in 1969. So, computers were invented in the U.S. So was networking. And so was the Internet.
Again, you don't have to invent something to build an example of it. But neither can you claim that you built a network if all you built is just an extension to an existing network.
As root servers are computer too, the US has never build any root servers either.
Again, you don't seem to grasp the argument. I didn't say that the EU could not build a network because they did not invent the concept or protocols. But simply hooking into a network built in the U.S. does not constitute building a network.
Not so fast. In American Libraries Association v. Pataki, the court wrote:
The current Michigan law provides a means for determining whether an addressee is a minor in Michigan (an online database). Furthermore, it does not regulate communications which are simply passing through Michigan. Therefore, the central Commerce Clause argument in the American Libraries Association v. Pataki does not apply to the Michigan statute being discussed.
"[A] statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State
The commercial speech being regulated here does not occur "wholly outside the boundaries" of" Michigan. The only commercial speech being regulated by the Michigan law is that which would be transmitted to specific minors within the state of Michigan. It's analogous to the state laws making it illegal to ship air guns (pellet rifles) to California, Mississippi, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.