He goes on to explain that the ashtray costs $400 to research and to make; however, whenever you are in a sub, the ashtray won't break into millions of bits during combat action.
--Very interesting. How does this relate to Microsoft software? *ducks*
Simple, Al Gore is going to go on David Letterman carrying a hammer, nail, piece of wood and a CDRom with Office on it. Then he is going to nail the CDRom to the piece of wood, thus demonstrating that the hole in the center works.
In defference to Al's position with Apple they will use the version of Office for the Mac.
Don't get me wrong, I actually watch FOXNews. But it disturbs me that many people don't recognize or admit the slanted nature of the news they provide (and MSNBC as well), and that FOXNews encourages this.
My parents came over and were somewhat surprised to find that I have FoxNews and the Christian channels blocked with the child filtering features of my satellite box. On the other hand none of the porn channels is blocked.
I explained this by saying I don't let offensive content in the house. I find biggotry and lies to be offensive.
I strongly suspect that this was actually a defensive patent filing. Of course such filings frequently fall into the wrong hands. I suspect that the real issue here would be interference between the mirror image patent and the Akamai patents. Both are in my view unenforceable, both because of prior art and in the case of the Akamai patents failure to disclose relevant information.
Yet again we see the old patent lawyer trick of stating large amounts of prior art in the description then making claims that dircetly cover the prior art. Essentially the inventive step here is claiming ownership of all possible embodiments of an idea that have not already been invented - the fact that the contributions of the inventor are miniscule not being considered relevant in the corrupt USPTO system.
If this would affect squid, it would be a very strong case of prior art.
There are much earlier examples of prior art. Tim Berners-Lee described the basic concept of Web caches in his CHEP/Annecy address in 1992. CERN distributed a caching Web proxy in 1993, the HTTP specifications were extensively adapted in 1995 to support cache use with input from Jeff Moghul and Jim Gettys. People can also find W3C notes that were published arround that time that describe extended cache architectures by Phill Hallam-Baker. This was the original purpose of the W3C log format.
The Akamai scheme is also compromised by prior art. The W3C deployed a system for serving web pages from multiple servers in 1995. Requests from Europe went to the French server, first at CERN, then Inria. This is a particularly important piece of prior art since I told the alleged inventor about it and it was in any case operating out of the same floor as one of the alleged inventors. Rohit Khare and myself had extensive discussions concerning the alleged invention but we are not listed as inventors, another probloem for the Akamai patent.
Looking at the later claims some would appear to be pe-empted by the Open-Market patent application several years earlier, this was an EU patent filing that was hastily withdrawn after a ton of prior art was dumped on the applicants.
The idea of transparent web caching is not new either. TIS created a transparent Web proxy sometime before 1998, the concept of web proxies and web caches have always been closely related. The combination is both obvious and covered by prior art.
Also there are extensive discussions on the HTTP WG mailoing list and the www-talk list before that on the topic of transparent caches. These are generally considered a bad thing.
What should happen here is prosecution of the USPTO under RICO. Their activities resemble a protection racket more closely with every corrupt patent they issue.
Folk seem to be failing to see the wood for the trees here. The APNIC statement was actually a declaration that Asia is going to consider itself as having equal rights to IPv4 address space as the US.
Under the existing rules the US has grabbed a lot of the potential space and allocated it to folk who don't use it very efficiently - take MIT for example which is sitting on a whole/8.
Up till now a lot of folk have been thinking that this is not a problem for the US because it already has such a lot of space allocated. APNIC is basically saying that they have the same rights to the unallocated address space. So the US is going to run out of new allocations at the same time the US does.
The statement about the number of unalocated/As is somewhat larger than is normally quoted. It appears to count as 'unallocated' the under-used US class As of old.
Basically this is a declaration that APNIC does not see a problem of address exhaustion as it is going to raid whatever it needs.
My guess is that they want to market the Pocket PC OS on "won't fit in my pocket" mobile electronics, like Tablet PCs.
More likely on GPS receivers that are designed for in-car use and are not really pocket ready.
If you try to buy an in-car navigation system from the likes of garmin you end up paying $1500 by the time you have a usable system, the devicde costs $$$ then the maps cost $$$$ then there are updates, the car install kit and so on. Compared to that the cost of pocketPC plus software + GPS CF looks cheap.
I would be seriously peaved if it was not real USB-480, but fortunately it is. Whew!
IANAL but it appears to me that if USB 1.1 was renamed in the way suggested for the purpose of confusing customers a company that took advantage of the change could well be breaking the law.
The point is that users have been led to expect a certain set of capabilities from USB 2.0 which cannot be changed retrospectively by fudging the spec.
This is a pretty elementary point of contract law, if a confusion is created by one side the confusion is ruled against them, particularly if they deliberately created the confusion.
This being so I very much doubt that the standards group did any such thing that is being suggested here. It just makes no sense from a legal perspective, it is false advertising.
Zeinfeld - I am calling you out as a fake expert, as you do not appear to understand the significance of the House of Lords in the UK parliamentary system.
One of my cousin's is a member.
You might disagree with my views but attacking someone as uninformed simply for disagreeing with you makes you sound a little arrogant.
The Lords has been a joke for at least a century. Far from being more representative than the commons it has failed to put a stop to any of the Tory party's reactionary measures such as the poll tax and it was the origin of their anti-gay legislation. The Lords failed to stop the dangerous dogs bill - despite the fact that it had been passed in a single day and as was subsequently demonstrated was to legislation what MFI was to the fine furniture industry.
The Lords is like any unelected chamber unaccountable. It represents itself. Getting rid of the majority of the hereditaries was an improvement but the place remains a joke.
The problem is, if the House of Lords debate is any indication, the possiblity of any laws whatsoever being passed is fairly minimal.
Come again? Since when was a house of Lords debate an indication of anything other than the fact the members still have a pulse?
The statement from the minister is actually pretty specific, they will be legislating to implement the privacy directive, that has a direct application to the spam issue. They are also open to other legislation being proposed - if it makes sense.
Parliament is nothing like Congress. The legislation is almost entirely driven by the government, they choose the schedule for the bills, everything so if legislation is introduced the chances are that it will be passed unless there are major problems. None of the gridlock you get in the US.
The other difference is that legislation is frequently amended en-route in response to individual members concerns and in committee. Unlike in the US the ammendments cannot be completely unrelated bills, but any member can propose an ammendment, you don't have to be a committee chair to have a chance of getting it heard. The privacy directive is very likely to be ammended to include an anti-spam provision if one is proposed that makes sense.
The result is that the system works very differently. It is not unusual for a bill to be followed by another shortly after with corrections.
The point is that it should not be easy to get legislation through.
Bullshit. Regulation is to protect most of the market from weenies like you who won't stand up for themselves.
The scenario makes no sense at all. If the company is that close to deadline then they have no option to hire new staff. There is no way they can train them in time.
If the company wants to force workers to work twice the number of hourse they can pay twice the pay.
If the company would otherwise go under well, it is almost certain to go under anyway.
So the answer is to work the hours you contracted for and use your spare time to look for new employment. You are almost certain to have to do so anyway.
The story about the contract sounds like utter bullshit.
No sane person would come up against a willing militia a quarter the size of Switzerland's population.
That does not seem to have been terribly effective in Iraq. Despite the fact that every house has a Kalashnikov they held the US off for less than a month.
Switzerland would not pose much more of a problem to a moderate power. Russia could do it easily, the Brits, Germans and French could probably do it if they really wanted to.
Of course occupying switzerland might be something of a problem, as the experience in Iraq is demonstrating. Basically the fanatics let the US take out Saddam and are now betting on dislodging the US through a guerilla war of attrition, 41 soldiers killed since the end of the invasion so far.
I don't buy the milita defense argument though. An aggressor state like Saddam's Iraq unlikely to retreat unless casualties get to an unacceptably high level, so far it is less than one person a day. I doubt the US would retreat for that reason alone either. What is more likely to cause a US withdrawal is if the level of civilian casualties being reported is unacceptably high.
That would be AT&T. It is unlikely that SCO can affect IBM because any contract they have made with Novell is trumped by the prior contract with AT&T.
AT&T may under the terms of the contract be able to assign its interest to another party (Novell) and that in turn may be assignable. But SCO is bound by the terms of the earlier IBM/ATT contract.
This is the type of ridiculous stunt that only damages SCO's credibility. It is very unlikely that IBM signed an agreement with AT&T all those years ago that allowed AT&T to yank the license at a future date.
SCO should be very careful about the claims it is making.
--Mercedes Benz needs 16777216 addresses??!!
Probably not. Would they be delivering value to their investors by giving them back? Definitely not.
I don't have an issue with Chrysler, IBM and the rest having mondo IP addresses. They did not design the system, they did not create the problem.
I do have an issue with MIT's behavior. It is kind of like, we will design a system with an obvious flaw but that will not matter because we have fixed things so that we won't be affected by the flaw.
The Internet design was not the farsighted exercise now claimed. They were only building a system for higher education and a few partners and only in the US. The address allocation looks reasonable in that context.
At the moment there are plenty of IPv4 addresses left. There are several/8 blocks entirely unused. It does not make sense to spend millions to reclaim a small number of addresses while there are still unused ones.
At some point however China is going to start having real scarcity problems. I doubt that IBM, HP and the rest will be hanging onto their/8's long. China can always threaten to allocate them and advertise the routes. Think through the recourse that the original owners would have at that point.
first off, why has someone no looked into revamping the system by which we organize the net.
Because there is no system to organize the net.
Many of the gatekeepers have their own peculiar political agendas. IETF was set up originally to provide the absolute minimum of process in order to be credible wrt the OSI stack folk.
The problem with the way IETF was set up is that the real purpose of the process is to prevent anyone doing anything the IETF establishment don't like. That is the real reason there are no votes. If you have votes then the proletariat might decide to overrule the establishment.
The internet has major structural security problems. There is no security in either DNS or BGP and no viable proposal to fix them. Both problems have been captured by factions that are holding them hostage for other reasons. DNSSEC is being held hostage by a faction that wants to change the way the DNS infrastructure is managed. BGP has been captured by people whose real interest is deploying IPSEC.
BGP already has a certain degree of security built in. The BGP messages can be authenticated using an MD5 based MAC. There are a couple of problems with this approach, I don't like the algorithm for a start but it is a simple matter to substitute in HMAC-SHA1. The other problem is that there is no mechanism for establishing the keys.
It would be a simple matter to add a key agreement to BGP. There are several proposals for provably secure key agreement mechanisms that are considerably simpler and more robust than IPSEC. This would provide the same degree of security as IPSEC would but without the need to mess with the router software. The key management could be done by a completely separate box that updates the routers.
But why do the sensible thing when you have an opportunity to use a problem as an excuse to ram through your own private agenda?
Make sure and take note of Zeinfeld's unwritten point that only Rebuplicans are corrupt.
Only Republicans seem to be stupid enough to be caught so blatantly.
Of course with the media in their pocket they probably think they don't have to follow the rules. If anyone complains just accuse them of being yet another example of the biased liberal media, and start frothing at the mouth...
Well, according to the letters (the one talking about how he has transfered the domain to TUCOWS in Canada, probably a last ditch attempt to keep the courts from getting their hands on the domain) the domain has been siezed in response to debts of $50,000 US
That actually has no effect. The Canadian courts will enforce US judgements.
The fact the defendant is in the US makes matters even easier, the court can issue an injunction ordering Novak to hand over the domain. If he fails to comply he is in contempt and can be sent to jail until he complies.
Because there is nothing else that has group calendaring functions that match it.
It is pretty easy to block all executable content at the firewall. Remember that the stupid idea of putting executable content into HTML came from Netscape.
It appears that the problem here is that when Microsoft introduced velocity limits for email spam they did not close the Web Dav method at the same time as the Web form method. So the spam senders switched to using the other method.
Microsoft may well have known that they left WebDav open. There are pretty extensive testing requirements for any service of that type and it is probably best to close the hole that is being exploited rather than waiting so you can also close the hole that isn't being explioted.
What I didn't see in the article was any mention of any attempt to tell Microsoft about the problem before telling the spammers. Nice one, so now all the spammers will know what to do, just in case they were ignorant of it...
I'm not familiar with British gambling laws either, but they make one accusation that is particularly damning: some machines have a "double or nothing" feature after a big payout; one of the site's accusations is that the "double or nothing" games are rigged so the player never wins.
The way the machines operate is psychological. The may pay out 70% per throw, but on average they will extract the absolute maximum from the punter.
The order in which you win is the important part. Early wins are most likely to be cycled back into the machine. So the machine may well start off at a 100% (average) payout rate then drop down to 50% as the game continues. So long as the average is 70% the law is complied with. But the chances are that the punter starts off with $5, makes it up to $7 maybe, then sees it dwindle, loosing money on most throws until it goes down to $0.
My experience watching the things is that the controls appear to have no effect on the game, the pubters usually end up losing all the money they put in except for occasional punters who win early, cash out and sit down.
Someone unlocked a machine and stole the board, and put the chip on a rom reader and dumped the code. Obviously, highly illegal.
Not if you own the board. Spare parts from slot machines are pretty easy to come by. There is a whole trade in used machines, cabinets, etc.
Slot machines are pretty common in the UK, most pubs have one. It is no more difficult to come across parts legally than it is to find parts for any other common appliance.
it was my understanding that the allies had purposely halted their advance to let the russians in first
Absolutely not, Churchil and FDR knew that Stalin was as bad as Hitler. Stalin actually managed to kill more people over his career, something like 30 million or so.
The US and UK slowed their advance to avoid having their supply lines overstreached. But they were trying to get there as fast as they could.
you forgot the Russians in WW2, most of what they did against the Germans was without outside help. Hitler was insane enough to attack them and that alone sealed his death-warrant. They got to Berlin first.
OK they would be speaking either German or Russian...
When you say 'you would all be speaking English', is that a comment on Slashdot spelling?
Sorry old bean I can't understand your accent. Perhaps if you typed a little slower.
There is this thing we have in England called a joke.
Oh I am sure it will go down real well at the GOP convention. Platform for a second term? Tax cuts, two more wars (Syria and Iran) and hope nobody notice continued deficits, recession and decline in influence.
Wellcome to the Neocon world. Oderint dum metuant.
The original idea of Galileo was a gambit to get the US to turn off the dithering that reduces the range for civilian uses. Then when the project was set for the big up or down vote the Bushies chose that week to start a trade war with Europe by imposing steel tarifs. So the French got their way and the decision was unexpectedly made to build it.
The suggestion that the US would jam or try to destroy the European GPS system is a ridiculous fantasy of the extreeme right. An attack of that kind would be an act of war. It might not lead to actual war but the consequences would be very serious. The European powers affected would react. There is a lot they could do to impound US assets such as airplanes, it is unlikely that Congress would want to escalate a crisis that had been instigated by the administration. The most likely result is that there would be a humiliating climb down by the US.
I am suprised that in all the anti-French bashing the GOP has got into they have not remembered that France is a terrorist state and has done this sort of thing. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand was a terrorist act committed by the French secret service. One of the terrorists was living in Florida until recently. If it was not for the US and British the French would be speaking German. On the other hand if it was not for the intervention of the French Navy in Yorktown you all would be speaking English.
The French has been right about Iraq so far though, which is another example of this style of politics. The US has found no difficulty invading, but getting out is starting to look problematic. It does not look as if the Iraqi's are going to choose Chalabi as the replacement for Saddam. Instead the South is more interested in a radical Shite cleric with strong ties to Iran and the North wants independence. The US is currently occupying the middle which is also the part that is in the biggest mess. Meanwhile it has become abundantly clear that the claims of a threat from WMD that Powell told the UN security council were untrue.
The GOP can call this fiasco a rip roaring success if they like. But the result is that the US is committed to occupying the country with several hundred thousand troops for up to a decade while islamic militants take pot shots at them.
To me, it sounds like this is only relevant to organizations that maintain closed-source code trees, since the impetus on fixing the bug lies with their in-house development staff rather than with a decentralized team of programmers.
The open source community is no better at getting patches deployed than the commercial vendors and is often worse. There are plenty of machines out there running unmodified Redhat 6.2 with lots of known vulnerabilities.
The recent DDoS attacks on the DNS roots were mounted from a collection of Linux machines tht had been owned. This is quite common, hackers will often target Unix boxes because they tend to be more likely to be connected to unrestricted DSL lines. A Windows box connected to a cable modem with port 25 outgoing blocked is not as interesting to a hacker looking to sell the owned machine to some con-trickster to send spam from for a carding scheme.
Ten years ago there was a real problem with vendors that paid no attention to security. Sun shipped an unpatched version of sendmail with known security holes for two years after the CERT reports came out. These days the problem is pretty rare and tends to come down to legitimate disputes as to what constitutes a security hole and whether an alleged exploit is repeatable.
The cost to them? Who pays your phone bills? Any cost to them will get immediately handed down to you.
No they do pay the costs. The whole point of local number portability is more competition which in turn means lower prices for consumers.
The cost of the necessary SS7 datadase dips is a cent or two per call. The cell companies are already billing you for it, even though they have done nothing to implement it and are probably going to outsource the business anyway. The additional competition between carriers is likely to reduce cellular rates by $10 a month or so.
Verizon know this will cost them. That is why they are going to go and buy the best politicians money can buy, starting with Billy Tauzin, Tom Delay and the others who were so helpful to Westar
Slashdot Mirror
Simple, Al Gore is going to go on David Letterman carrying a hammer, nail, piece of wood and a CDRom with Office on it. Then he is going to nail the CDRom to the piece of wood, thus demonstrating that the hole in the center works.
In defference to Al's position with Apple they will use the version of Office for the Mac.
My parents came over and were somewhat surprised to find that I have FoxNews and the Christian channels blocked with the child filtering features of my satellite box. On the other hand none of the porn channels is blocked.
I explained this by saying I don't let offensive content in the house. I find biggotry and lies to be offensive.
Yet again we see the old patent lawyer trick of stating large amounts of prior art in the description then making claims that dircetly cover the prior art. Essentially the inventive step here is claiming ownership of all possible embodiments of an idea that have not already been invented - the fact that the contributions of the inventor are miniscule not being considered relevant in the corrupt USPTO system.
If this would affect squid, it would be a very strong case of prior art.
There are much earlier examples of prior art. Tim Berners-Lee described the basic concept of Web caches in his CHEP/Annecy address in 1992. CERN distributed a caching Web proxy in 1993, the HTTP specifications were extensively adapted in 1995 to support cache use with input from Jeff Moghul and Jim Gettys. People can also find W3C notes that were published arround that time that describe extended cache architectures by Phill Hallam-Baker. This was the original purpose of the W3C log format.
The Akamai scheme is also compromised by prior art. The W3C deployed a system for serving web pages from multiple servers in 1995. Requests from Europe went to the French server, first at CERN, then Inria. This is a particularly important piece of prior art since I told the alleged inventor about it and it was in any case operating out of the same floor as one of the alleged inventors. Rohit Khare and myself had extensive discussions concerning the alleged invention but we are not listed as inventors, another probloem for the Akamai patent.
Looking at the later claims some would appear to be pe-empted by the Open-Market patent application several years earlier, this was an EU patent filing that was hastily withdrawn after a ton of prior art was dumped on the applicants.
The idea of transparent web caching is not new either. TIS created a transparent Web proxy sometime before 1998, the concept of web proxies and web caches have always been closely related. The combination is both obvious and covered by prior art.
Also there are extensive discussions on the HTTP WG mailoing list and the www-talk list before that on the topic of transparent caches. These are generally considered a bad thing.
What should happen here is prosecution of the USPTO under RICO. Their activities resemble a protection racket more closely with every corrupt patent they issue.
Under the existing rules the US has grabbed a lot of the potential space and allocated it to folk who don't use it very efficiently - take MIT for example which is sitting on a whole /8.
Up till now a lot of folk have been thinking that this is not a problem for the US because it already has such a lot of space allocated. APNIC is basically saying that they have the same rights to the unallocated address space. So the US is going to run out of new allocations at the same time the US does.
The statement about the number of unalocated /As is somewhat larger than is normally quoted. It appears to count as 'unallocated' the under-used US class As of old.
Basically this is a declaration that APNIC does not see a problem of address exhaustion as it is going to raid whatever it needs.
More likely on GPS receivers that are designed for in-car use and are not really pocket ready.
If you try to buy an in-car navigation system from the likes of garmin you end up paying $1500 by the time you have a usable system, the devicde costs $$$ then the maps cost $$$$ then there are updates, the car install kit and so on. Compared to that the cost of pocketPC plus software + GPS CF looks cheap.
IANAL but it appears to me that if USB 1.1 was renamed in the way suggested for the purpose of confusing customers a company that took advantage of the change could well be breaking the law.
The point is that users have been led to expect a certain set of capabilities from USB 2.0 which cannot be changed retrospectively by fudging the spec.
This is a pretty elementary point of contract law, if a confusion is created by one side the confusion is ruled against them, particularly if they deliberately created the confusion.
This being so I very much doubt that the standards group did any such thing that is being suggested here. It just makes no sense from a legal perspective, it is false advertising.
One of my cousin's is a member.
You might disagree with my views but attacking someone as uninformed simply for disagreeing with you makes you sound a little arrogant.
The Lords has been a joke for at least a century. Far from being more representative than the commons it has failed to put a stop to any of the Tory party's reactionary measures such as the poll tax and it was the origin of their anti-gay legislation. The Lords failed to stop the dangerous dogs bill - despite the fact that it had been passed in a single day and as was subsequently demonstrated was to legislation what MFI was to the fine furniture industry.
The Lords is like any unelected chamber unaccountable. It represents itself. Getting rid of the majority of the hereditaries was an improvement but the place remains a joke.
Come again? Since when was a house of Lords debate an indication of anything other than the fact the members still have a pulse?
The statement from the minister is actually pretty specific, they will be legislating to implement the privacy directive, that has a direct application to the spam issue. They are also open to other legislation being proposed - if it makes sense.
Parliament is nothing like Congress. The legislation is almost entirely driven by the government, they choose the schedule for the bills, everything so if legislation is introduced the chances are that it will be passed unless there are major problems. None of the gridlock you get in the US.
The other difference is that legislation is frequently amended en-route in response to individual members concerns and in committee. Unlike in the US the ammendments cannot be completely unrelated bills, but any member can propose an ammendment, you don't have to be a committee chair to have a chance of getting it heard. The privacy directive is very likely to be ammended to include an anti-spam provision if one is proposed that makes sense.
The result is that the system works very differently. It is not unusual for a bill to be followed by another shortly after with corrections.
The point is that it should not be easy to get legislation through.
The scenario makes no sense at all. If the company is that close to deadline then they have no option to hire new staff. There is no way they can train them in time.
If the company wants to force workers to work twice the number of hourse they can pay twice the pay.
If the company would otherwise go under well, it is almost certain to go under anyway.
So the answer is to work the hours you contracted for and use your spare time to look for new employment. You are almost certain to have to do so anyway.
The story about the contract sounds like utter bullshit.
That does not seem to have been terribly effective in Iraq. Despite the fact that every house has a Kalashnikov they held the US off for less than a month.
Switzerland would not pose much more of a problem to a moderate power. Russia could do it easily, the Brits, Germans and French could probably do it if they really wanted to.
Of course occupying switzerland might be something of a problem, as the experience in Iraq is demonstrating. Basically the fanatics let the US take out Saddam and are now betting on dislodging the US through a guerilla war of attrition, 41 soldiers killed since the end of the invasion so far.
I don't buy the milita defense argument though. An aggressor state like Saddam's Iraq unlikely to retreat unless casualties get to an unacceptably high level, so far it is less than one person a day. I doubt the US would retreat for that reason alone either. What is more likely to cause a US withdrawal is if the level of civilian casualties being reported is unacceptably high.
That would be AT&T. It is unlikely that SCO can affect IBM because any contract they have made with Novell is trumped by the prior contract with AT&T.
AT&T may under the terms of the contract be able to assign its interest to another party (Novell) and that in turn may be assignable. But SCO is bound by the terms of the earlier IBM/ATT contract.
Nah, this is Nigel vs. 40 Goliaths with 'frikin' "lasers".
This is the type of ridiculous stunt that only damages SCO's credibility. It is very unlikely that IBM signed an agreement with AT&T all those years ago that allowed AT&T to yank the license at a future date.
SCO should be very careful about the claims it is making.
Probably not. Would they be delivering value to their investors by giving them back? Definitely not.
I don't have an issue with Chrysler, IBM and the rest having mondo IP addresses. They did not design the system, they did not create the problem.
I do have an issue with MIT's behavior. It is kind of like, we will design a system with an obvious flaw but that will not matter because we have fixed things so that we won't be affected by the flaw.
The Internet design was not the farsighted exercise now claimed. They were only building a system for higher education and a few partners and only in the US. The address allocation looks reasonable in that context.
At the moment there are plenty of IPv4 addresses left. There are several /8 blocks entirely unused. It does not make sense to spend millions to reclaim a small number of addresses while there are still unused ones.
At some point however China is going to start having real scarcity problems. I doubt that IBM, HP and the rest will be hanging onto their /8's long. China can always threaten to allocate them and advertise the routes. Think through the recourse that the original owners would have at that point.
Because there is no system to organize the net.
Many of the gatekeepers have their own peculiar political agendas. IETF was set up originally to provide the absolute minimum of process in order to be credible wrt the OSI stack folk.
The problem with the way IETF was set up is that the real purpose of the process is to prevent anyone doing anything the IETF establishment don't like. That is the real reason there are no votes. If you have votes then the proletariat might decide to overrule the establishment.
The internet has major structural security problems. There is no security in either DNS or BGP and no viable proposal to fix them. Both problems have been captured by factions that are holding them hostage for other reasons. DNSSEC is being held hostage by a faction that wants to change the way the DNS infrastructure is managed. BGP has been captured by people whose real interest is deploying IPSEC.
BGP already has a certain degree of security built in. The BGP messages can be authenticated using an MD5 based MAC. There are a couple of problems with this approach, I don't like the algorithm for a start but it is a simple matter to substitute in HMAC-SHA1. The other problem is that there is no mechanism for establishing the keys.
It would be a simple matter to add a key agreement to BGP. There are several proposals for provably secure key agreement mechanisms that are considerably simpler and more robust than IPSEC. This would provide the same degree of security as IPSEC would but without the need to mess with the router software. The key management could be done by a completely separate box that updates the routers.
But why do the sensible thing when you have an opportunity to use a problem as an excuse to ram through your own private agenda?
Only Republicans seem to be stupid enough to be caught so blatantly.
Of course with the media in their pocket they probably think they don't have to follow the rules. If anyone complains just accuse them of being yet another example of the biased liberal media, and start frothing at the mouth...
That actually has no effect. The Canadian courts will enforce US judgements.
The fact the defendant is in the US makes matters even easier, the court can issue an injunction ordering Novak to hand over the domain. If he fails to comply he is in contempt and can be sent to jail until he complies.
Because there is nothing else that has group calendaring functions that match it.
It is pretty easy to block all executable content at the firewall. Remember that the stupid idea of putting executable content into HTML came from Netscape.
It appears that the problem here is that when Microsoft introduced velocity limits for email spam they did not close the Web Dav method at the same time as the Web form method. So the spam senders switched to using the other method.
Microsoft may well have known that they left WebDav open. There are pretty extensive testing requirements for any service of that type and it is probably best to close the hole that is being exploited rather than waiting so you can also close the hole that isn't being explioted.
What I didn't see in the article was any mention of any attempt to tell Microsoft about the problem before telling the spammers. Nice one, so now all the spammers will know what to do, just in case they were ignorant of it...
The way the machines operate is psychological. The may pay out 70% per throw, but on average they will extract the absolute maximum from the punter.
The order in which you win is the important part. Early wins are most likely to be cycled back into the machine. So the machine may well start off at a 100% (average) payout rate then drop down to 50% as the game continues. So long as the average is 70% the law is complied with. But the chances are that the punter starts off with $5, makes it up to $7 maybe, then sees it dwindle, loosing money on most throws until it goes down to $0.
My experience watching the things is that the controls appear to have no effect on the game, the pubters usually end up losing all the money they put in except for occasional punters who win early, cash out and sit down.
Not if you own the board. Spare parts from slot machines are pretty easy to come by. There is a whole trade in used machines, cabinets, etc.
Slot machines are pretty common in the UK, most pubs have one. It is no more difficult to come across parts legally than it is to find parts for any other common appliance.
Absolutely not, Churchil and FDR knew that Stalin was as bad as Hitler. Stalin actually managed to kill more people over his career, something like 30 million or so.
The US and UK slowed their advance to avoid having their supply lines overstreached. But they were trying to get there as fast as they could.
OK they would be speaking either German or Russian...
When you say 'you would all be speaking English', is that a comment on Slashdot spelling?
Sorry old bean I can't understand your accent. Perhaps if you typed a little slower.
There is this thing we have in England called a joke.
Oh I am sure it will go down real well at the GOP convention. Platform for a second term? Tax cuts, two more wars (Syria and Iran) and hope nobody notice continued deficits, recession and decline in influence.
Wellcome to the Neocon world. Oderint dum metuant.
The original idea of Galileo was a gambit to get the US to turn off the dithering that reduces the range for civilian uses. Then when the project was set for the big up or down vote the Bushies chose that week to start a trade war with Europe by imposing steel tarifs. So the French got their way and the decision was unexpectedly made to build it.
The suggestion that the US would jam or try to destroy the European GPS system is a ridiculous fantasy of the extreeme right. An attack of that kind would be an act of war. It might not lead to actual war but the consequences would be very serious. The European powers affected would react. There is a lot they could do to impound US assets such as airplanes, it is unlikely that Congress would want to escalate a crisis that had been instigated by the administration. The most likely result is that there would be a humiliating climb down by the US.
I am suprised that in all the anti-French bashing the GOP has got into they have not remembered that France is a terrorist state and has done this sort of thing. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand was a terrorist act committed by the French secret service. One of the terrorists was living in Florida until recently. If it was not for the US and British the French would be speaking German. On the other hand if it was not for the intervention of the French Navy in Yorktown you all would be speaking English.
The French has been right about Iraq so far though, which is another example of this style of politics. The US has found no difficulty invading, but getting out is starting to look problematic. It does not look as if the Iraqi's are going to choose Chalabi as the replacement for Saddam. Instead the South is more interested in a radical Shite cleric with strong ties to Iran and the North wants independence. The US is currently occupying the middle which is also the part that is in the biggest mess. Meanwhile it has become abundantly clear that the claims of a threat from WMD that Powell told the UN security council were untrue.
The GOP can call this fiasco a rip roaring success if they like. But the result is that the US is committed to occupying the country with several hundred thousand troops for up to a decade while islamic militants take pot shots at them.
The open source community is no better at getting patches deployed than the commercial vendors and is often worse. There are plenty of machines out there running unmodified Redhat 6.2 with lots of known vulnerabilities.
The recent DDoS attacks on the DNS roots were mounted from a collection of Linux machines tht had been owned. This is quite common, hackers will often target Unix boxes because they tend to be more likely to be connected to unrestricted DSL lines. A Windows box connected to a cable modem with port 25 outgoing blocked is not as interesting to a hacker looking to sell the owned machine to some con-trickster to send spam from for a carding scheme.
Ten years ago there was a real problem with vendors that paid no attention to security. Sun shipped an unpatched version of sendmail with known security holes for two years after the CERT reports came out. These days the problem is pretty rare and tends to come down to legitimate disputes as to what constitutes a security hole and whether an alleged exploit is repeatable.
No they do pay the costs. The whole point of local number portability is more competition which in turn means lower prices for consumers.
The cost of the necessary SS7 datadase dips is a cent or two per call. The cell companies are already billing you for it, even though they have done nothing to implement it and are probably going to outsource the business anyway. The additional competition between carriers is likely to reduce cellular rates by $10 a month or so.
Verizon know this will cost them. That is why they are going to go and buy the best politicians money can buy, starting with Billy Tauzin, Tom Delay and the others who were so helpful to Westar