Let's pretend for a moment I have a buddy at the ISP, and I've had them add a route to your location for that network... so routing isn't an issue. Do you think your nat box is going to reject the packet I'm sending? It's not.. it's going to forward it right to your workstation.. it has the proper address.. and there are no rules in place to prevent it. If it DOES reject it, in a typical linux nat/firewall setup, it is because of a rule on the FORWARD table, usually set to not allow things to initiate from outside.. but then, that has nothign to do with nat, does it....
If the device doesn't reject it then it's a poor excuse for a NAT implementation. Any router should not accept a packet coming on the WAN interface with a source address in the LAN subnet.
Interesting article. I wonder if it's had any legal challenges?
I find it difficult to accept the authors interpretation though, particularly around the idea that a copy of a copy of a copy is still fine and the hosts are okay because it is the downloader making the copy.
There are a few other holes too, for example common-sense would indicate there isn't a 77 cent duty per CDR since I can buy CDR's for about 30 cents at any local or big-chain computer store. Another example is that the law says when copied to "audio recording media" which would be a stretch to include a hard-drive and specifically is not referenced in its levy list. Also, SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers of Music of Canada) seems to have a differing opinion as stated in tariff T22 (filed October 1999 in the Copyright Act, section 67) states that ISP's are liable for royalties on music files cached in proxy servers because they are now broadcasting the content. Perhaps the loop is home use in this case, but it seems like the law is definitely not clear.
None-the-less, I was surprised to see the legalization of private copy (thanks for the link), but I don't think this allowance would cover hosting in Canada since their providing of the files isn't for their own private use.
Hmm, found an answer on the 77 cent CDR tax, it's only 5.2 cents according to the link in the article. (I have no idea where he got 77 cents from).:-)...maybe time to fire up my burner. <grin>
I live a "little North" too, and it ain't legal here either.:-) Just because there isn't a law forcing ISP's to reveal the identity with a simple form, it's still quite possible for them to file a proper search warrant in Canada too in which case the ISP will hand over your identity. It's just easier to prosecute in the US currently, but that doesn't make it legal in Canada. I do understand the problem though, trust me, I've been waiting for one of the pay services to be available in Canada too but I fear that when one does become available that the people that have been stealing 'guilt-free' for years won't put their money where their mouth is and start paying for music legitmately.:-(
Seriously, I haven't donated any money to causes such as AIDS, food for children programs, cancer research, but I will easily donate $10, rather than actually buy my music, just to piss off the RIAA and ease my own conscious with the fact that I've stolen several hundred songs and didn't get caught, yet.
Except the one household won't pay 10 times the rate. It's all economics. Broadband to rurals areas will be significally subsidized, either by setup grants (already going through the system) or in the form of additional taxes added across-the-board for subscribers, ala residential telephone service.
Not the spammers? Possible, but they seem the most likely. They make millions off spam and are spending tons of cash having to jump through hoops to keep their IP's off the lists. The last 2 or 3 weeks we have seen viruses are dropping trojans everywhere. Last week I saw an article referring to the trojans and stating "massing an army, but for what purpose?" -- this seems to be a pretty applicible purpose.
Keep in mind they are getting the purchasers names from the places they have raided, ie "pirate satellite operation stores" -- so they are going after Johny Sizpax with a card-programmer, not Mr. Unix X.509 Certificate Guru. I think if you had purchased one from a more "legitimate" source (which one would expect of a legitmate user) that you won't find a letter in your mailbox from DirecTV.
Regular voice channel takes 64K including signalling, ie a voice circuit known as a DS0 and is 56K after signalling is stripped. A T1 (DS1) which holds 24 of these 64K channels leaves 56K for voice per channel, or for ISDN PRI, 23 voice channels at 64K and 1 data signalling channel also at 64K. This is using zero compression. With PCM (pulse coded modulation) encoding it typically fits in 32K and with compression it can be anywhere from 4K to 8K.
In any case, going to IP will result in an immediate savings of 50% of bandwidth, plus only having a single network to manage.
I disagree completely. A well-written program should handle all error conditions gracefully, and if all software (particularly OS's) did this there would be no such thing as a system crash -- except perhaps as a result of a processor failure on lower-end machines.
For example a program should check all IO results, all memory allocation attempts should be verified before writing to, string lengths checked before copying, etc. All this is good programming practise, unfortunately with speed-to-market of both products and programmers, much of this has been lost.
Those that want to hook-up pretty diodes and talk directly with a serial device, probably also won't want to hookup that serial card reader to a $4000 laptop, and if they do, then a $20 USB-RS232 adapter shouldn't be a big issue?
My laptop is _almost_ legacy free and I love the fact that there is room for other things when the serial ports are removed -- unfortunately it still has a parrallel port for some reason?! I don't know about most, but I don't tend to carry a printer around with me.:-)
And the plane would have crashed anyways with the three dozen bullet punctures to the craft. Not to mention another hundred or so flights in recent history where someone freaked out and blew a hole in the plane, you know, for the protection of others. Myself, I'll prefer to continue flying on the non-physco-gun-toting-passenger-plane-thank-you-ve ry-much.
Oh my good fucking grief -- teachers with guns, what next? Better arm the priests too, heavens knows they don't have guns so church is the most dangerous place to be because anyone with a gun could come in, right?!?! I can't believe the gun-mentality. Take a look at England, few guns, not a lot of shootings. United States, 50% gun population, highest gun-death rate in the world. Correlation? No, couldn't be. You want to get rid of shootings, make guns illegal -- life imprisonment for POSSESSION of a firearm. Simple. And don't give me some 1800's shit about citizen rights -- protecting yall heer range, suuuiiiie -- where is my right not to get shot by some 8 year old playing with mommys gun?
I saw the article subject and "Hudson Hawk" jumped out at me, but I see someone beat me to listing this great movie which the brain-dead critics blasted.
Company: Yeah, whatever, just get the computers updated....is probably more like it. Admin's don't generally just go around updating OS's for no reason and without management having any idea that they were updated. Even if the admin did update it without any management approval, dontcha think they might ask something along the lines of "who paid for this software?".
Slashdot Mirror
Let's pretend for a moment I have a buddy at the ISP, and I've had them add a route to your location for that network... so routing isn't an issue. Do you think your nat box is going to reject the packet I'm sending? It's not.. it's going to forward it right to your workstation.. it has the proper address.. and there are no rules in place to prevent it. If it DOES reject it, in a typical linux nat/firewall setup, it is because of a rule on the FORWARD table, usually set to not allow things to initiate from outside.. but then, that has nothign to do with nat, does it....
If the device doesn't reject it then it's a poor excuse for a NAT implementation. Any router should not accept a packet coming on the WAN interface with a source address in the LAN subnet.
Not every article ever posted was written for you. If it doesn't apply to you and you have no interest in finding out about it then move on. ;-)
Interesting article. I wonder if it's had any legal challenges?
:-) ...maybe time to fire up my burner. <grin>
I find it difficult to accept the authors interpretation though, particularly around the idea that a copy of a copy of a copy is still fine and the hosts are okay because it is the downloader making the copy.
There are a few other holes too, for example common-sense would indicate there isn't a 77 cent duty per CDR since I can buy CDR's for about 30 cents at any local or big-chain computer store. Another example is that the law says when copied to "audio recording media" which would be a stretch to include a hard-drive and specifically is not referenced in its levy list. Also, SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers of Music of Canada) seems to have a differing opinion as stated in tariff T22 (filed October 1999 in the Copyright Act, section 67) states that ISP's are liable for royalties on music files cached in proxy servers because they are now broadcasting the content. Perhaps the loop is home use in this case, but it seems like the law is definitely not clear.
None-the-less, I was surprised to see the legalization of private copy (thanks for the link), but I don't think this allowance would cover hosting in Canada since their providing of the files isn't for their own private use.
Hmm, found an answer on the 77 cent CDR tax, it's only 5.2 cents according to the link in the article. (I have no idea where he got 77 cents from).
I live a "little North" too, and it ain't legal here either. :-) Just because there isn't a law forcing ISP's to reveal the identity with a simple form, it's still quite possible for them to file a proper search warrant in Canada too in which case the ISP will hand over your identity. It's just easier to prosecute in the US currently, but that doesn't make it legal in Canada. I do understand the problem though, trust me, I've been waiting for one of the pay services to be available in Canada too but I fear that when one does become available that the people that have been stealing 'guilt-free' for years won't put their money where their mouth is and start paying for music legitmately. :-(
Paraphrased:
Seriously, I haven't donated any money to causes such as AIDS, food for children programs, cancer research, but I will easily donate $10, rather than actually buy my music, just to piss off the RIAA and ease my own conscious with the fact that I've stolen several hundred songs and didn't get caught, yet.
Except the one household won't pay 10 times the rate. It's all economics. Broadband to rurals areas will be significally subsidized, either by setup grants (already going through the system) or in the form of additional taxes added across-the-board for subscribers, ala residential telephone service.
Not the spammers? Possible, but they seem the most likely. They make millions off spam and are spending tons of cash having to jump through hoops to keep their IP's off the lists. The last 2 or 3 weeks we have seen viruses are dropping trojans everywhere. Last week I saw an article referring to the trojans and stating "massing an army, but for what purpose?" -- this seems to be a pretty applicible purpose.
NAT router ... $30 ... $1000+
Firewall
Ouch that hurts. Some anonymous coward on Slashdot doesn't like me. What will I do now? Oh I'm sorry, please like me, please, please...
Keep in mind they are getting the purchasers names from the places they have raided, ie "pirate satellite operation stores" -- so they are going after Johny Sizpax with a card-programmer, not Mr. Unix X.509 Certificate Guru. I think if you had purchased one from a more "legitimate" source (which one would expect of a legitmate user) that you won't find a letter in your mailbox from DirecTV.
Most likely about the 'going out' part.
...first, appologies for OT, but this thread seems to be all over the place anyway :-) ...
.NET"); .NET");
Anyone else find this Microsoft ad on Slashdot amusing?
switch (DevelopmentPlatform) {
case "Interoperable":
Choose ("Visual Studio
case "Standards-based":
Choose ("Visual Studio
...all I could think of was:
a) Redundant code
b) Hard-coded language prompts
c) Unterminated statement
...irony?
No it wasn't, it was just over $15/share. Whoever moderated this as informative without checking facts is an idiot.
Regular voice channel takes 64K including signalling, ie a voice circuit known as a DS0 and is 56K after signalling is stripped. A T1 (DS1) which holds 24 of these 64K channels leaves 56K for voice per channel, or for ISDN PRI, 23 voice channels at 64K and 1 data signalling channel also at 64K. This is using zero compression. With PCM (pulse coded modulation) encoding it typically fits in 32K and with compression it can be anywhere from 4K to 8K.
In any case, going to IP will result in an immediate savings of 50% of bandwidth, plus only having a single network to manage.
I disagree completely. A well-written program should handle all error conditions gracefully, and if all software (particularly OS's) did this there would be no such thing as a system crash -- except perhaps as a result of a processor failure on lower-end machines.
For example a program should check all IO results, all memory allocation attempts should be verified before writing to, string lengths checked before copying, etc. All this is good programming practise, unfortunately with speed-to-market of both products and programmers, much of this has been lost.
Now THAT was one of the funniest things I've read in a while. :-)
Sorry, just Americian's with guns should be illegal then apparently -- everyone else seems to be able to handle them responsibly.
Those that want to hook-up pretty diodes and talk directly with a serial device, probably also won't want to hookup that serial card reader to a $4000 laptop, and if they do, then a $20 USB-RS232 adapter shouldn't be a big issue?
:-)
My laptop is _almost_ legacy free and I love the fact that there is room for other things when the serial ports are removed -- unfortunately it still has a parrallel port for some reason?! I don't know about most, but I don't tend to carry a printer around with me.
And the plane would have crashed anyways with the three dozen bullet punctures to the craft. Not to mention another hundred or so flights in recent history where someone freaked out and blew a hole in the plane, you know, for the protection of others. Myself, I'll prefer to continue flying on the non-physco-gun-toting-passenger-plane-thank-you-ve ry-much.
Oh my good fucking grief -- teachers with guns, what next? Better arm the priests too, heavens knows they don't have guns so church is the most dangerous place to be because anyone with a gun could come in, right?!?! I can't believe the gun-mentality. Take a look at England, few guns, not a lot of shootings. United States, 50% gun population, highest gun-death rate in the world. Correlation? No, couldn't be. You want to get rid of shootings, make guns illegal -- life imprisonment for POSSESSION of a firearm. Simple. And don't give me some 1800's shit about citizen rights -- protecting yall heer range, suuuiiiie -- where is my right not to get shot by some 8 year old playing with mommys gun?
I saw the article subject and "Hudson Hawk" jumped out at me, but I see someone beat me to listing this great movie which the brain-dead critics blasted.
...here's the real-world answer.
...is probably more like it. Admin's don't generally just go around updating OS's for no reason and without management having any idea that they were updated. Even if the admin did update it without any management approval, dontcha think they might ask something along the lines of "who paid for this software?".
Company: We need to put xyz app on our computers
Admin: We need Windows 2000 for that.
Company: So don't you have a copy?
Admin: We need licenses for them all.
Company: Yeah, whatever, just get the computers updated.
Blame the company, not the admin.
That's still not redundant, moreso inefficent coding. :-)
Redundant would be:
a = b;
[operations here which do not effect a or b]
a = b;
The one on the right....
http://www.gaby.de/eterm.htm
Of all the days not to be a moderator! :-)