You do realize ethernet originally ran over coax, right? Google '10BASE2'
Only problem with that is 10Base-2 ran over 50 ohm impedance coax while CATV coax is 75 ohm impedance.
I don't recall the OP mentioning that the cable in his house was 75 ohm CATV cable. In fact, given that there are five cables running out of the walls in some rooms, it's more likely to be 50 ohm, probably from an old 10BASE-2 setup. The real problem with 10BASE-2 is that it's maximum 10Mbps, whereas most people today would want 100Mbs or faster.
In the US at least CALEA requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks. Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications. And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint. But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement. IANAL, so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here.
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.
Nope. Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection. This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with). Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.
Nope. If you follow that link, you'll see you still need the Windows XP DVD to install the recovery console. Sadly, it was not uncommon for XP systems to be sold with no recovery console. My Toshiba laptop (I'll never buy another) did not come with a Windows XP DVD, merely a "product recovery disk" which wipes everything off the hard drive and does a fresh install. No recovery console available. Apparently there's a huge difference between buying a computer that comes with XP and buying a computer that comes with "XP installed."
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
Enjoy your democracy, guys.
If you read the text of the statute, you'll see that dissent alone isn't covered by this law. You have to be planning to overthrow the government by violent or unlawful means. I would imagine this law would be found unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment grounds, as overthrow of the government by violent or other unlawful means is, by definition, unlawful, and the Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to make statements which would incriminate yourself.
Does this mean if my group registers with the state and we state our intentions to commit terrorist acts that we will be immune from prosecution when we carry out our intentions?
I just ran this test, and I was horrified to discover that every font I have installed on my system shows up! I had no idea the browser (Firefox v. 3.5.7 with NoScript) leaks this kind of information. I do graphic design work and I have a huge number of fonts on my system, some of them unusual. I certainly don't want nor need to have them all available to my web browser, and I certainly don't want my web browser to be broadcasting this list to the world. Does anyone know if I can configure Firefox to use only the "standard" fonts? I really don't think it's anyone else's business which fonts I have installed.
The BR encryption keys are already easily acquired.
All the encryption keys, or just the encryption keys for software based players? If software player encryption keys are someday all revoked, will existing Blu-Ray cracks still work on new releases? Remember with DVD the encryption keys were all 40 bits, so once the algorithm was discovered it was relatively easy to brute force all the keys, making the crack effectively permanent. I don't think that Blu-Ray has been similarly cracked yet.
Wrong. 10.0.0.0/8 is routable. It is not externally routable, which is what you'd expect, since it is unassigned. Many companies use 10.0.0.0/8 for their intranets and subnet it with routers and it all works just fine!
You know, it really wouldn't hurt to read a post before you reply to it...
To avoid addressing conflict with the internet itself, the range 1.0.0.0/8 is used. This is to avoid conflicting with internal networks such as 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16, as well as assigned Internet ranges. As of January 2010 IANA has allocated 1/8 to APNIC.[1] If the service does not switch to another address range then Internet hosts using 1.0.0.0/8 will be inaccessible to AnoNet users.
Except for the fact that they are trying to use 1.0.0.0/8 as their own private internal network, or at least, their own private network. As I said, 10.0.0.0/8 was created for this purpose. If you wish your private addresses to be externally routable, they you need to be assigned them just like everyone else. What makes Anonet special?
The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
Her statements here appear contradictory. She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination. But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
This has been addressed time and time (and time) again. a) Those organizations would have to defrag their IP space before large blocks could get released, a process that's slow, intensive, and expensive.
And more importantly, what incentive would these organizations have to give their addresses back?
AnoNet is one of those who use 1.0.0.0/8 for private VPN because everyone thought it wouldn't be in use. I am pretty sure there are A LOT of organizations and other services who do too.
Well that would be their own fault for not using an address like 10.0.0.0/8 which was designed and documented for that purpose.
This case is about an individual who shared a handful of songs with a few people with no expectation of monetary gain. For that case, a few thousand dollars is a significant deterrent.
Not when you factor in the very low risk of being caught. For each Jammie Thomas, there are probably tens of thousands of others sharing music who aren't caught. I'm not saying that I agree that the amount is fair, but if you are talking deterrence then I think the judgment would have to be insanely high to have any real effect, given the extremely low probability of being caught. This is why I think analogies with shoplifting are unsound: if you shoplift, there is a much greater chance you will be caught, so the penalties don't need to be as high to have the same deterrence effect.
I read up quickly on the methods Canada takes on this, because we actually have - what I would consider - sane laws on this subject.
We limit individuals to a maximum $5000 donation. We limit corporations to a maximum $1000 donation.
That may be true, but all that has nothing to do with the issue the Supreme Court was deciding on. The issue before the Court, and on which they decided was not about campaign donations, but rather about issue ads being run before an election. So for instance, if one candidate opposed abortion, say, and the other supported the right to abortion, there would be a limit on how much money a corporation could spend on anti-abortion ads, for instance. The U.S. has limits on donations to campaigns just like Canada does.
I actually find this worrisome, from the standpoint of civil liberty. Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause.
If you rely on police brutality to make your point, perhaps your point isn't such a good one in the first place!
And consequently (particularly for those making movies) the key characters and associated details remain protected, preventing their use by others.
How can I state this?
You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
You're completely and totally FUD spouting wrong.
You're blazingly , amazingly wrong.
Then why is it that despite the fact that most of the stories have passed into the public domain, license fees still have to be paid to use the Sherlock Holmes character? My understanding is until the last story becomes public domain, use of the character has to be licensed. Am I wrong? And if so, why were such huge license fees paid for use of the character in the recent movie?
But the original stories, and the ability to create derivatives of the original character as written, that's no longer locked up.
But you still can't use the name or character of Sherlock Holmes, because the character did appear under that name in later works still under copyright. You may claim to be deriving from the earlier works now out of copyright, but the estate could claim that the works are also derived from later ones. It would be pretty much impossible to separate them, as the name of the character and his basic personality and sleuthing techniques didn't change all that much. So one would probably have to wait for the last Sherlock Holmes story to fall out of copyright before one could use the character free and clear.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize ethernet originally ran over coax, right? Google '10BASE2'
Only problem with that is 10Base-2 ran over 50 ohm impedance coax while CATV coax is 75 ohm impedance.
I don't recall the OP mentioning that the cable in his house was 75 ohm CATV cable. In fact, given that there are five cables running out of the walls in some rooms, it's more likely to be 50 ohm, probably from an old 10BASE-2 setup. The real problem with 10BASE-2 is that it's maximum 10Mbps, whereas most people today would want 100Mbs or faster.
In the US at least CALEA requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks. Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications. And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint. But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement. IANAL, so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here.
What if the fat bastard tries to eat your kid?
Then he would have to pay extra on the food portion of his ticket. And your kid would get a corresponding discount.
Wait a minute, you actually think Al-Qaeda is a country?
They must be. We are at war with them.
Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.
Nope. Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection. This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with). Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.
You can install the recovery console as a boot option:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307654
(You should have an I386 folder somewhere)
It is more complicated for Vista and later:
http://blogs.msdn.com/winre/archive/2007/01/12/how-to-install-winre-on-the-hard-disk.aspx
Nope. If you follow that link, you'll see you still need the Windows XP DVD to install the recovery console. Sadly, it was not uncommon for XP systems to be sold with no recovery console. My Toshiba laptop (I'll never buy another) did not come with a Windows XP DVD, merely a "product recovery disk" which wipes everything off the hard drive and does a fresh install. No recovery console available. Apparently there's a huge difference between buying a computer that comes with XP and buying a computer that comes with "XP installed."
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
Enjoy your democracy, guys.
If you read the text of the statute, you'll see that dissent alone isn't covered by this law. You have to be planning to overthrow the government by violent or unlawful means. I would imagine this law would be found unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment grounds, as overthrow of the government by violent or other unlawful means is, by definition, unlawful, and the Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to make statements which would incriminate yourself.
Does this mean if my group registers with the state and we state our intentions to commit terrorist acts that we will be immune from prosecution when we carry out our intentions?
They asked for $25,000 in their latest offer, which is about $1 per song as the gp suggested.
I just ran this test, and I was horrified to discover that every font I have installed on my system shows up! I had no idea the browser (Firefox v. 3.5.7 with NoScript) leaks this kind of information. I do graphic design work and I have a huge number of fonts on my system, some of them unusual. I certainly don't want nor need to have them all available to my web browser, and I certainly don't want my web browser to be broadcasting this list to the world. Does anyone know if I can configure Firefox to use only the "standard" fonts? I really don't think it's anyone else's business which fonts I have installed.
I'M BEHIND SEVEN PROXIES!!!!
Won't help you, unless the proxies actively filter out identifying information such as the plugins or fonts you have installed.
The BR encryption keys are already easily acquired.
All the encryption keys, or just the encryption keys for software based players? If software player encryption keys are someday all revoked, will existing Blu-Ray cracks still work on new releases? Remember with DVD the encryption keys were all 40 bits, so once the algorithm was discovered it was relatively easy to brute force all the keys, making the crack effectively permanent. I don't think that Blu-Ray has been similarly cracked yet.
10.0.0.0/8 is non routable. Try again.
Wrong. 10.0.0.0/8 is routable. It is not externally routable, which is what you'd expect, since it is unassigned. Many companies use 10.0.0.0/8 for their intranets and subnet it with routers and it all works just fine!
You know, it really wouldn't hurt to read a post before you reply to it...
To avoid addressing conflict with the internet itself, the range 1.0.0.0/8 is used. This is to avoid conflicting with internal networks such as 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16, as well as assigned Internet ranges. As of January 2010 IANA has allocated 1/8 to APNIC.[1] If the service does not switch to another address range then Internet hosts using 1.0.0.0/8 will be inaccessible to AnoNet users.
Except for the fact that they are trying to use 1.0.0.0/8 as their own private internal network, or at least, their own private network. As I said, 10.0.0.0/8 was created for this purpose. If you wish your private addresses to be externally routable, they you need to be assigned them just like everyone else. What makes Anonet special?
First off, the "dissemination" in a library is indeed tightly controlled. A library cannot lend out more copies then they purchase,
True, and that's a good point.
and the lending is according to some rules.
Ahh, but it is the library that makes these rules, not the author!
The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
Her statements here appear contradictory. She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination. But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
This has been addressed time and time (and time) again. a) Those organizations would have to defrag their IP space before large blocks could get released, a process that's slow, intensive, and expensive.
And more importantly, what incentive would these organizations have to give their addresses back?
AnoNet is one of those who use 1.0.0.0/8 for private VPN because everyone thought it wouldn't be in use. I am pretty sure there are A LOT of organizations and other services who do too.
Well that would be their own fault for not using an address like 10.0.0.0/8 which was designed and documented for that purpose.
Outlaw electromagnetic radiation and then only criminals will have EMR?
Yep. These things will be especially popular with rapists, chasing female drivers down highways late at night.
This case is about an individual who shared a handful of songs with a few people with no expectation of monetary gain. For that case, a few thousand dollars is a significant deterrent.
Not when you factor in the very low risk of being caught. For each Jammie Thomas, there are probably tens of thousands of others sharing music who aren't caught. I'm not saying that I agree that the amount is fair, but if you are talking deterrence then I think the judgment would have to be insanely high to have any real effect, given the extremely low probability of being caught. This is why I think analogies with shoplifting are unsound: if you shoplift, there is a much greater chance you will be caught, so the penalties don't need to be as high to have the same deterrence effect.
Since when does community == volunteers?
That large, well funded corporations are now contributing members of the linux community is a Good Thing.
Exactly! What's great about Linux is that it's free, not that its developers are unpaid!
I read up quickly on the methods Canada takes on this, because we actually have - what I would consider - sane laws on this subject.
We limit individuals to a maximum $5000 donation. We limit corporations to a maximum $1000 donation.
That may be true, but all that has nothing to do with the issue the Supreme Court was deciding on. The issue before the Court, and on which they decided was not about campaign donations, but rather about issue ads being run before an election. So for instance, if one candidate opposed abortion, say, and the other supported the right to abortion, there would be a limit on how much money a corporation could spend on anti-abortion ads, for instance. The U.S. has limits on donations to campaigns just like Canada does.
I actually find this worrisome, from the standpoint of civil liberty. Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause.
If you rely on police brutality to make your point, perhaps your point isn't such a good one in the first place!
And consequently (particularly for those making movies) the key characters and associated details remain protected, preventing their use by others.
How can I state this? You're wrong, wrong, wrong. You're completely and totally FUD spouting wrong. You're blazingly , amazingly wrong.
Then why is it that despite the fact that most of the stories have passed into the public domain, license fees still have to be paid to use the Sherlock Holmes character? My understanding is until the last story becomes public domain, use of the character has to be licensed. Am I wrong? And if so, why were such huge license fees paid for use of the character in the recent movie?
But the original stories, and the ability to create derivatives of the original character as written, that's no longer locked up.
But you still can't use the name or character of Sherlock Holmes, because the character did appear under that name in later works still under copyright. You may claim to be deriving from the earlier works now out of copyright, but the estate could claim that the works are also derived from later ones. It would be pretty much impossible to separate them, as the name of the character and his basic personality and sleuthing techniques didn't change all that much. So one would probably have to wait for the last Sherlock Holmes story to fall out of copyright before one could use the character free and clear.