If you reread my original post, you'll find that I described two different mechanisms. One, DNS manipulation (which I thought at that point that it was the only one in use), and another one (starting at "and even if") saying how it could be done on the network level, without the router instepcting the HTTP request. As it turned out, that's exactly what Cleanfeed does, according to the Wikipedia article.
The router inspects the IP and the proxy inspects the URL.
Exactly. The router inspects the IP. The router does not look at the HTTP request. Only at the TCP/IP packet. The proxy, which is a server (it implements HTTP), looks at the URL. And it generates the HTTP error message (which therefore comes from the proxy server, not from the router).
The first step is the router comparing the request with a "suspect" ip list. If it finds a match it redirects to the proxy server.
From my previous posting: And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead,
Note: "all port 80 traffic to that IP".
I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.
That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.
Given that the IP and port is part of the packet header, I still am not convinced that the router inspects the HTTP request.
I guess if you're healthy, the normal regulation mechanism will keep the blood sugar level constant. However I wonder what effect it might have on people with diabetes.
Are you sure the router does it? I always thought they put up modified DNS entries pointing to their own server instead of the correct one, with that server then returning the error message. And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead, and have that either give the error if you try to access the blocked site, or act as transparent proxy if you happen to access another site which happens to be on the same address. I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.
The counter point to this is that as long as what they do is legal, then they should be free to do it - implying that they have a moral obligation ("when it's their turn to pay") does't really cut it. I'm sure that they have thought about how this will be perceived as a dick move (albeit probably briefly), yet they are still choosing to do so.
Freedom can only work if people voluntarily don't abuse it.
Why not going even simpler? Tax every transaction where money changes hands, with a constant rate. Doesn't matter whether you pay something you bought, get salary, get interest, get dividend, get a gift, inherit, whatever. Indeed, for electronic transactions, that tax could be directly paid on the transaction. The banks could subtract that tax from the account the same way they do with their fees and give it directly to the tax office, so in general the tax office would not even need to know how much a single person/entity earned.
5xx are error codes returned by the server servicing the request. Since there was no server hit, the request was blocked before getting there, no 5xx codes fit.
It is not true that no server was hit. It's just that the server which was hit is not the server the user intended to hit.
If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"
Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.
I guess selling a Commodore 64 from 1989 is quite hard in China, then.
Given that there is no integer without a preceding integer (remember: there are negative integers), there does not exist a 451th integer. Unless you specify an explicit counting method, but then, every integer you like can be the 451th.
451: The government has decided that this is bad for you, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. Switching ISPs won't help. 453: The ISP has decided that this is bad for its business, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. You might be able to access it using another ISP.
How I envy the guy who will have to port your software to another OS or architecture/s
Well, since the code is VB6 and asm, that guy has a good excuse to write it new instead of trying to port it. Which probably ends up producing better code. Provided he is a good programmer, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right, there was no way to predict it. After all, it only has happened 19 times this year before this one.
I just did a quick check and managed to get the errors "syntax error", "a is not defined" and "1 is not a function". None of which is "Not an object".
This problem is solvable by a sufficiently advanced AI. We might not consider that solution acceptable, but why should the AI care about our moral?
MyCleanPC is utterly outdated. MyCleanRobot is the future!
Well, I did (and still do). Here in Germany, it would have been illegal not to (well, OK, I could have done without radio and TV).
Well, I'd like to see how you'd make a Trojan Horse for my old (non-programmable) pocket calculator. :-)
I didn't claim that it is.
If you reread my original post, you'll find that I described two different mechanisms. One, DNS manipulation (which I thought at that point that it was the only one in use), and another one (starting at "and even if") saying how it could be done on the network level, without the router instepcting the HTTP request. As it turned out, that's exactly what Cleanfeed does, according to the Wikipedia article.
Exactly. The router inspects the IP. The router does not look at the HTTP request. Only at the TCP/IP packet.
The proxy, which is a server (it implements HTTP), looks at the URL. And it generates the HTTP error message (which therefore comes from the proxy server, not from the router).
From my previous posting:
And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead,
Note: "all port 80 traffic to that IP".
That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.
Given that the IP and port is part of the packet header, I still am not convinced that the router inspects the HTTP request.
I guess if you're healthy, the normal regulation mechanism will keep the blood sugar level constant. However I wonder what effect it might have on people with diabetes.
That page describes a setup exactly how I described it. In particular, it's not the router doing the actual filtering, but a proxy server.
Are you sure the router does it? I always thought they put up modified DNS entries pointing to their own server instead of the correct one, with that server then returning the error message. And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead, and have that either give the error if you try to access the blocked site, or act as transparent proxy if you happen to access another site which happens to be on the same address. I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.
Does DRI qualify?
But in that company, they can at least claim it's software testing.
Freedom can only work if people voluntarily don't abuse it.
Why not going even simpler? Tax every transaction where money changes hands, with a constant rate. Doesn't matter whether you pay something you bought, get salary, get interest, get dividend, get a gift, inherit, whatever. Indeed, for electronic transactions, that tax could be directly paid on the transaction. The banks could subtract that tax from the account the same way they do with their fees and give it directly to the tax office, so in general the tax office would not even need to know how much a single person/entity earned.
It is not true that no server was hit. It's just that the server which was hit is not the server the user intended to hit.
If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"
That way is also widely used in mainland.
Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.
I guess selling a Commodore 64 from 1989 is quite hard in China, then.
Picard reference? I thought this was a 1984 reference (four fingers vs. five fingers).
Given that there is no integer without a preceding integer (remember: there are negative integers), there does not exist a 451th integer. Unless you specify an explicit counting method, but then, every integer you like can be the 451th.
451: The government has decided that this is bad for you, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. Switching ISPs won't help.
453: The ISP has decided that this is bad for its business, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. You might be able to access it using another ISP.
2001: Sorry Dave.
How I envy the guy who will have to port your software to another OS or architecture /s
Well, since the code is VB6 and asm, that guy has a good excuse to write it new instead of trying to port it. Which probably ends up producing better code. Provided he is a good programmer, of course.
So it is now filled with illegal books? :-)
For elephants, the question is: African or Indian
So that's what you told the tax investigator when he found out about your money on a Swiss bank account? :-)