But those are still private addresses. The point with NAT is that there are limits to how many connections you can handle because both TCP and UDP have a 16bit port number field. Kasperd highlighted above that it's possible to use some tricks to increase the number of concurrent TCP connections beyond what should be the 16bit limit but it sounds like it'd be just as much trouble as bothering to implement IPv6
When IPv6 becomes necessary ISPs will just send their customers IPv6 aware routers.
For these purposes a NAT is a very complex firewall. NAT is a PITA and breaks lots of stuff, application writers hate it. Read kasperd's post below for some of the tricks ISPs would have to use to NAT all their customers.
In fact double NAT like you propose breaks just about everything except web browsing!
So you'd disagree with MSs OEM licensing practices then? You think you should have the right to install the cheaper OEM copy that you bought on a different computer when you upgrade?
MS and Apple are both proprietary vendors. They both have the right to dictate terms. FOSS developers also have that right, that's what gives the GPL power.
If you don't like proprietary vendors then don't support them with either cash or mindshare i.e. by using pirated copies.
As for ISPs NATing all their customers, I'm not sure if that'd be most cost effective than simply using IPv6. Isn't it the case with NAT that you're limited to a maximum of 65535 concurrent TCP or UDP connections? Someone would have to invent some sort of NAT load balancing system which could break all sorts of stuff.
I assume that have the code for the worm would allow me to root kit the worm.
No, you need the private key to generate signed code that the worm will accept. Even though the worm is cycling through 50,000 domains as part of its C&C code it won't accept new code unless its signed.
The one good thing about that is that anyone who gets arrested in possession of that key is certainly the worm controller. If they have any sense they are keeping the key on some form of removable disk in close proximity to some battery acid, just in case they hear a knock on the door...
If there is an [unrelated] disagreement - e.g. licensing, agreements or whatever - between Red Hat and, say, Novell/Cisco/IBM/Oracle/etc. Red Hat lawyers can quickly bring these patents into their countersuit. Red Hat could argue - "you are distributing free software library XYZ which violates our patent 123."
I don't see that as a bad thing considering the current system. All legitimate software companies need software patents for this very reason, it's a form of mutually assured destruction like the cold war.
The problem is the system of software patents, not necessarily any particular company that holds patents. Companies that use patents aggressively in order to crush competition should attract our ire in the short term but the problem is the system itself.
so all this 'defensive patents' is nonsense -- they just want to get some leverage to 'wrestle' others wrt other companies' patents if/when such "others" will try to go after redhat
That's the whole point of a defensive patent portfolio. Some other company has patents over stuff you're selling (considering all the software in RHEL, this is certain) so you take out patents on stuff that other companies are likely to be selling.
Its the same logic as the cold war where you have nukes because everyone else has them - nobody would ever go after anyone with patents because the other guy could just counter-sue. The problem is patent trolls, they are the equivalent to terrorist groups with nuclear bombs: they have nothing to lose.
You're post reads as if you're being sarcastic. You are aware that if Red Hat were to prevent other people from using their patents in GPLv2 or later software then they would lose the ability to distribute GPLv2 or later software, right?
They could go after proprietary vendors I suppose but I find it far more likely that these are defensive patents.
Ignore what I just said, I completely misunderstood this issue. Ts'o is right on this; I use XFS (best performing FS IMO) and get this behaviour. Most application writers have decent sync behaviour because of XFS users like myself complaining when something goes wrong, time for the rest to catch up!
So you think it'd be better for KDE to be constantly telling your filesystem to sync? What about when you have lots of non-KDE apps open too, some of them non-KDE? Then you'll have lots of apps telling the disk to sync all according to their own schedule.
But if you are an atheist and believe that human live does not have any inherent value, then I guess it is reasonable to expect humans to just extinguish themselves at the first hint of trouble.
I keep on hearing that atheists supposedly believe this and it doesn't make sense to me. I value my life very highly, it's the only one I'm ever going to have and I'd do lots of (potentially very bad) things to save it.
TFA is clearly speaking about people who are in final stage terminal cancer. If you live in the UK then we're talking about people in the same state as Jade Goody, i.e. experiencing multiple organ failure. You don't come back from that, ever.
The studies' abstract specifically says there was an increase in life-prolonging care in the final week of life. To me that'd just be agonising.
It's not about just curling up and dying, it's about accepting that you're in your final few weeks and trying to make it as peaceful as possible. When your heart stops because your metastatic cancer has spread to every organ in your body then being resuscitated isn't giving you another chance at life, it's just prolonging your suffering.
Oh, and congrats on getting your feeling back. That doesn't negate what the doctors said however, think back to your stats classes. You're just one of the lucky few.
But what about the energy and environmental impact of those panels? My point was that one of the traditional problems with solar power is that it wasn't that green when you factor in all the energy and hazardous chemicals used to make them. Is that still true?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if with a decent push a nuclear plant could also be built and operational in less than ten years.
Rushed nuclear development is what lead to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Nuclear power can be safe but I think we've all learnt that we have to treat it with the utmost respect.
I like to think of MS as more of a platform company. Software is of course an essential part of their business but what they do best is build a platform that makes it easy to whatever developers want and then go out and evangelise it.
That's what they did with Windows and Office (as well as being an application suite in itself it's also an environment for easily making terrible office automation apps. Business loves it) and it's what they continue to do with Xbox. They build something that makes it easy for other people to create compelling applications.
Given how well they're doing with the 360 you can bet they'll drag this generation out as long as possible. That'll give them time to properly test their next-gen console meaning no repeat of the RROD fiasco.
Because there are certain things we should hate. Do you think it's a coincidence that James Blunt rhymes with cun...
Why not just "Driving without due care and attention"
Because it's virtually impossible to enforce that one unless you cause an accident: it's just a matter of opinion between you and the police officer.
And yes, senior politicians are hypocritical pricks. Almost all of the current labour government were student Marxists, even people like Mandelson. I suppose if you keep on turning to the left you'll eventually end up facing right though...
Completely free you say? I didn't realise we had self replicating, self repairing solar panels now. I thought we still had those old fashioned panels that took years to balance out the energy required to make them.
No, it's just sad that every time Apple adds new features to the iPhone it's news, especially when these are standard features for all other phones. Note: phones, not smart-phones.
I remember first using my phones GPRS connection to go online using a laptop six or seven years ago. I'd just moved and didn't have time to get BT to reactivate the line so I used GPRS for a couple of weeks, racking up £80 in data charges! I actually can't remember the phone; it was the first MMS phone that Vodaphone brought out in the UK - another feature the iPhone has only just acquired.
Congrats on the title though, it adequately describes your post.
This is, of course, true. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is also banned, for better or in the latter case due to how the law was framed, worse.
I wasn't saying our system is perfect, just there are checks and balances! Very few countries have absolute free speech - our libel laws have the most chilling effect on free speech - but what speech isn't regulated should in theory be free and is protected by law. Getting those in power to abide by the law (that they made!) isn't always easy though!
Um, but belief in an afterlife lessons the importance of death. I'm convinced this is the only life I'll have so I'm going to do anything in my power to preserve it.
Definitely. They have to under the terms of the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers act. That act allows local councils to spy on you for almost any reason, of course it allows central government to spy on you on Facebook. Under the terms of that act if you fail to provide your private encryption keys then they can put you in prison: you have to show that you've deleted them.
If you work for an ISP, communications provider or some other organisation providing a service to a target you have to assist them in spying. You can't tell anybody, not even a solicitor. Note that this act was passed in 2000 before the "War on Terror" started. The most controversial parts of the act required ministerial activation but almost the whole thing is live now.
The excuse given at the time was that it was a tidying up exercise to regulate activities that the secret intelligence services were undertaking anyway; the point of the act was to move it all onto a regulatory footing. My cynical view is that the SIS wanted legal cover for their massive technical interception plans and so ended up with the RIP act safe in the knowledge that some future crisis would unfold that would give them the full act they wanted.
I wrote to my MP about that act when it was being debated about ten years ago; the most serious powers contained have only come into force recently and it's everything all the detractors said it would be. My MP didn't even bother to reply with a form letter even though I pointed out I was sixteen, knew more about the technology than they did and was willing to talk to them about it. The constituency I lived in wasn't even that large so it's not like my MP had massive time pressures.
They say they want young people involved in politics, that's just another lie.
We have the Human Rights Act which is enshrined a the highest law in the land. It grants things like a positive right to free speech as opposed to your first amendment which simply prohibits congress from abridging the right to free speech. This means you can't get sacked for your political beliefs like you potentially can in the USA.
The HRA is ironic considering it was this Labour government that passed it during its first couple of years. I reckon we can thank Cherie Blair for that as she's a barrister for Matrix Chambers (formed in 2000, after the HRA gained assent) who specialise in Human Rights law.
Of course both Tory and Labour hate the HRA and both sides like to take aggressive postures on "reforming" it, which would be ridiculous because all the HRA really does is give UK courts the power to incorporate into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights and the decisions taken by the European Court of Human Rights. The previous situation was that appellants had to take their case to the ECHR themselves and the government had to abide by that court's decisions. It was all very expensive and a lot of people simply didn't bother for that very reason.
but yea but no but yea but no but the government cant look at my page coz im not friends with them but that slag shelly who i hate has a crush on that fat brown and i cant block her cos then kelly will like, totally hate my guts!
Slashdot Mirror
But those are still private addresses. The point with NAT is that there are limits to how many connections you can handle because both TCP and UDP have a 16bit port number field. Kasperd highlighted above that it's possible to use some tricks to increase the number of concurrent TCP connections beyond what should be the 16bit limit but it sounds like it'd be just as much trouble as bothering to implement IPv6
When IPv6 becomes necessary ISPs will just send their customers IPv6 aware routers.
For these purposes a NAT is a very complex firewall. NAT is a PITA and breaks lots of stuff, application writers hate it. Read kasperd's post below for some of the tricks ISPs would have to use to NAT all their customers.
In fact double NAT like you propose breaks just about everything except web browsing!
So you'd disagree with MSs OEM licensing practices then? You think you should have the right to install the cheaper OEM copy that you bought on a different computer when you upgrade?
MS and Apple are both proprietary vendors. They both have the right to dictate terms. FOSS developers also have that right, that's what gives the GPL power.
If you don't like proprietary vendors then don't support them with either cash or mindshare i.e. by using pirated copies.
You do realise that anyone who gets modded down in the other thread is gonna blame you now, right?
Windows has supported IPv6 since XP.
As for ISPs NATing all their customers, I'm not sure if that'd be most cost effective than simply using IPv6. Isn't it the case with NAT that you're limited to a maximum of 65535 concurrent TCP or UDP connections? Someone would have to invent some sort of NAT load balancing system which could break all sorts of stuff.
I assume that have the code for the worm would allow me to root kit the worm.
No, you need the private key to generate signed code that the worm will accept. Even though the worm is cycling through 50,000 domains as part of its C&C code it won't accept new code unless its signed.
The one good thing about that is that anyone who gets arrested in possession of that key is certainly the worm controller. If they have any sense they are keeping the key on some form of removable disk in close proximity to some battery acid, just in case they hear a knock on the door...
That isn't in any way relevant to what I posted.
If there is an [unrelated] disagreement - e.g. licensing, agreements or whatever - between Red Hat and, say, Novell/Cisco/IBM/Oracle/etc. Red Hat lawyers can quickly bring these patents into their countersuit. Red Hat could argue - "you are distributing free software library XYZ which violates our patent 123."
I don't see that as a bad thing considering the current system. All legitimate software companies need software patents for this very reason, it's a form of mutually assured destruction like the cold war.
The problem is the system of software patents, not necessarily any particular company that holds patents. Companies that use patents aggressively in order to crush competition should attract our ire in the short term but the problem is the system itself.
so all this 'defensive patents' is nonsense -- they just want to get some leverage to 'wrestle' others wrt other companies' patents if/when such "others" will try to go after redhat
That's the whole point of a defensive patent portfolio. Some other company has patents over stuff you're selling (considering all the software in RHEL, this is certain) so you take out patents on stuff that other companies are likely to be selling.
Its the same logic as the cold war where you have nukes because everyone else has them - nobody would ever go after anyone with patents because the other guy could just counter-sue. The problem is patent trolls, they are the equivalent to terrorist groups with nuclear bombs: they have nothing to lose.
You're post reads as if you're being sarcastic. You are aware that if Red Hat were to prevent other people from using their patents in GPLv2 or later software then they would lose the ability to distribute GPLv2 or later software, right?
They could go after proprietary vendors I suppose but I find it far more likely that these are defensive patents.
Compared to other renewables, obviously. Nobody would claim wind or geothermal power are "completely free", they're just preferable compared to oil.
So?
Ignore what I just said, I completely misunderstood this issue. Ts'o is right on this; I use XFS (best performing FS IMO) and get this behaviour. Most application writers have decent sync behaviour because of XFS users like myself complaining when something goes wrong, time for the rest to catch up!
So you think it'd be better for KDE to be constantly telling your filesystem to sync? What about when you have lots of non-KDE apps open too, some of them non-KDE? Then you'll have lots of apps telling the disk to sync all according to their own schedule.
But if you are an atheist and believe that human live does not have any inherent value, then I guess it is reasonable to expect humans to just extinguish themselves at the first hint of trouble.
I keep on hearing that atheists supposedly believe this and it doesn't make sense to me. I value my life very highly, it's the only one I'm ever going to have and I'd do lots of (potentially very bad) things to save it.
TFA is clearly speaking about people who are in final stage terminal cancer. If you live in the UK then we're talking about people in the same state as Jade Goody, i.e. experiencing multiple organ failure. You don't come back from that, ever.
The studies' abstract specifically says there was an increase in life-prolonging care in the final week of life. To me that'd just be agonising.
It's not about just curling up and dying, it's about accepting that you're in your final few weeks and trying to make it as peaceful as possible. When your heart stops because your metastatic cancer has spread to every organ in your body then being resuscitated isn't giving you another chance at life, it's just prolonging your suffering.
Oh, and congrats on getting your feeling back. That doesn't negate what the doctors said however, think back to your stats classes. You're just one of the lucky few.
But what about the energy and environmental impact of those panels? My point was that one of the traditional problems with solar power is that it wasn't that green when you factor in all the energy and hazardous chemicals used to make them. Is that still true?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if with a decent push a nuclear plant could also be built and operational in less than ten years.
Rushed nuclear development is what lead to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Nuclear power can be safe but I think we've all learnt that we have to treat it with the utmost respect.
Microsoft is a software company.
I like to think of MS as more of a platform company. Software is of course an essential part of their business but what they do best is build a platform that makes it easy to whatever developers want and then go out and evangelise it.
That's what they did with Windows and Office (as well as being an application suite in itself it's also an environment for easily making terrible office automation apps. Business loves it) and it's what they continue to do with Xbox. They build something that makes it easy for other people to create compelling applications.
Given how well they're doing with the 360 you can bet they'll drag this generation out as long as possible. That'll give them time to properly test their next-gen console meaning no repeat of the RROD fiasco.
Why not just "Incitement to hatred"?
Because there are certain things we should hate. Do you think it's a coincidence that James Blunt rhymes with cun...
Why not just "Driving without due care and attention"
Because it's virtually impossible to enforce that one unless you cause an accident: it's just a matter of opinion between you and the police officer.
And yes, senior politicians are hypocritical pricks. Almost all of the current labour government were student Marxists, even people like Mandelson. I suppose if you keep on turning to the left you'll eventually end up facing right though...
Completely free you say? I didn't realise we had self replicating, self repairing solar panels now. I thought we still had those old fashioned panels that took years to balance out the energy required to make them.
No, it's just sad that every time Apple adds new features to the iPhone it's news, especially when these are standard features for all other phones. Note: phones, not smart-phones.
I remember first using my phones GPRS connection to go online using a laptop six or seven years ago. I'd just moved and didn't have time to get BT to reactivate the line so I used GPRS for a couple of weeks, racking up £80 in data charges! I actually can't remember the phone; it was the first MMS phone that Vodaphone brought out in the UK - another feature the iPhone has only just acquired.
Congrats on the title though, it adequately describes your post.
This is, of course, true. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is also banned, for better or in the latter case due to how the law was framed, worse.
I wasn't saying our system is perfect, just there are checks and balances! Very few countries have absolute free speech - our libel laws have the most chilling effect on free speech - but what speech isn't regulated should in theory be free and is protected by law. Getting those in power to abide by the law (that they made!) isn't always easy though!
Um, but belief in an afterlife lessons the importance of death. I'm convinced this is the only life I'll have so I'm going to do anything in my power to preserve it.
Possibly.
Definitely. They have to under the terms of the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers act. That act allows local councils to spy on you for almost any reason, of course it allows central government to spy on you on Facebook. Under the terms of that act if you fail to provide your private encryption keys then they can put you in prison: you have to show that you've deleted them.
If you work for an ISP, communications provider or some other organisation providing a service to a target you have to assist them in spying. You can't tell anybody, not even a solicitor. Note that this act was passed in 2000 before the "War on Terror" started. The most controversial parts of the act required ministerial activation but almost the whole thing is live now.
The excuse given at the time was that it was a tidying up exercise to regulate activities that the secret intelligence services were undertaking anyway; the point of the act was to move it all onto a regulatory footing. My cynical view is that the SIS wanted legal cover for their massive technical interception plans and so ended up with the RIP act safe in the knowledge that some future crisis would unfold that would give them the full act they wanted.
I wrote to my MP about that act when it was being debated about ten years ago; the most serious powers contained have only come into force recently and it's everything all the detractors said it would be. My MP didn't even bother to reply with a form letter even though I pointed out I was sixteen, knew more about the technology than they did and was willing to talk to them about it. The constituency I lived in wasn't even that large so it's not like my MP had massive time pressures.
They say they want young people involved in politics, that's just another lie.
We have the Human Rights Act which is enshrined a the highest law in the land. It grants things like a positive right to free speech as opposed to your first amendment which simply prohibits congress from abridging the right to free speech. This means you can't get sacked for your political beliefs like you potentially can in the USA.
The HRA is ironic considering it was this Labour government that passed it during its first couple of years. I reckon we can thank Cherie Blair for that as she's a barrister for Matrix Chambers (formed in 2000, after the HRA gained assent) who specialise in Human Rights law.
Of course both Tory and Labour hate the HRA and both sides like to take aggressive postures on "reforming" it, which would be ridiculous because all the HRA really does is give UK courts the power to incorporate into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights and the decisions taken by the European Court of Human Rights. The previous situation was that appellants had to take their case to the ECHR themselves and the government had to abide by that court's decisions. It was all very expensive and a lot of people simply didn't bother for that very reason.
yeah, but no
but yea but no but yea but no but the government cant look at my page coz im not friends with them but that slag shelly who i hate has a crush on that fat brown and i cant block her cos then kelly will like, totally hate my guts!