"I am willing to bet it will be struck down as inhibiting legitimate anonymous free speech."
Since when does freedom of speach extend to the illigal distribution of copywritten movies over the internet? Since that is the only instance when this law can take effect I realy dont see what everyone is so worked up over. Hell, there is even an exception clause for sending movies to your firends and family.
That might be a good rebuttal, except this law does not specifically discriminate between people sharing copyrighted media, and media which can be freely copied (public domain, creative commons, authors consent, etc).
So if I want to share files I must sign up for a free hotmail account that I never intend to use? What good is that supposed to do? Sounds like another example of legislating something that looks good on paper, but is completely non-functional in the real world. How might this law be used? "We can't get them on copyright infringement, so we will get them on not publicizing their email address."
> a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us.
So we should try to avoid angering Al-Qaeda?
Remember in Vietnam how many our actions would turn otherwise fiendly peopleinto the enemy? Our presence actually created more enemies. It's more or less the same here. All I know is that none of the promises of Iraq held true. As time went on, they changed their story a half dozen times, and the public (with its amazing short term memory) completely forgot that it all was based on false pretenses. THe state of the union, the addres to the UN, the daily press briefings, all of it. Next year at my high school reuntion, a few friends will not be present. I've lost 4 good friends to this war, 2 of them I've known since childhood. It seems to me that almost everyone directly affected by the attacks and everyone with family of friends in the services, are opposed to the war; yet everyone who fits into neither of the above descriptions thinks it was a great idea. I'm angry that a patchwork collection of corporate leaders now occupy the government. Every aspect of this war is being handled like a business venture, complete with record levels of PR spin. What would the public do if a corporation sold a product that did not function as advertised and killed over 1000 people? Are we living in the day when a corporation is held to higher standards than the government?
See comment here. NAT has nothing to do with people running thier box with admin access rights. It has nothing to do with people who blindly open attachments, or do not use a good firewall, or do not use an AV program. NAT is a flase sense of security.
Fun stuff when the feds want to know who's been downloading mp3s over your hotspot and you honestly can't tell them:)
Actually, from a legal standpoint, the buck would stop with you. All they would have to prove is that your negligence aided and abetted in a crime. Do you think that the RIAA cares that grandma didn't download that new Brittney song? No, of course not. They can still sue her because it's her internet connection and her responsibility. It's sort of like lying by omission. NAT does not help you because your real IP address still terminates at your router. Anyway, in a civil case, the burden of proof is on you to show that you were not the one who commited the act.
Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
That's what happens when you let the MBA's dictate the path of technological development. I mean, why use the best solution when you can... forget using logic to justify that position.
There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Anonymiser Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Quit thinking so 2 dimensionally. IPv4 lasted about 2 decades. IPv6 should last us much longer and through more incarnations of the internet. Imagine nearly every device you own having its own unique IP. NAT is a duct tape solution that will end up causing more problems in the long run. No more going over to grandma's house to set up port triggering/forwarding on her router when she wants to try a new program.
IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
Is there any reason we can't convert an IPv6 address to base 36 so we humans can use alphanumeric strings? It should be a lot easier when we want to give someone the number to our new WAP enabled cell phone. And the memory problem... would have been a problem... if we were still paying $100/meg.
The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before. While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
It's already been demonstrated that the error checking and other transmission control routines of TCP/IP have entirely too much overhead for modern technology. I wish I could dig up the old article on/. where two teams transferred about a DVD worth of data over existing networks in just a couple of minutes by foregoing the unnecessary retransmission of data which was not corrupted in the first place. Anyway, you should have stated "up to 3.4%" because few people's machines have a 100% efficient TCP/IP stack in the first place. Under the absolute worst conditions, that's an extra 3.4 minutes on an otherwise 100 minute download.
What happens when ISPs start running ethernet and fiber to people's homes? Verizon is already begun to roll out a fiber to the residence service in slelected areas. I can't imagine them stopping, or others not following. Your voice, data, and television transmissions will be carried across the same connection at the same time. Your cell phone will probably have built in WLAN VoIP capability. As a result, NAT will end up hurting us, and the only solution is a unique IP for every device. Have you ever tried to help an older relative setup port triggering and forwarding on their NAT enabled router? You can't seriously expect the population to know how to do this. All the average person wants to do is pull their new toy out of the box, plug it in, and for it to start working. The sooner we migrate the better. In a few more years, there is going to be much more hardware and software to test, validate, configurations to alter, and bugs to work out. Almost every piece of software and hardware produced in the last 5 or so years has some level of support. It's not going to be as painful as the IPv4 migration when the net was shutdown for about a day; it's just laziness. That's what happens when we let MBA's call the shots instead of the nerds and geeks.
This happened after an upgrade from Unix to Windows.
Sounds like the time a car dealer tried to 'upgrade' my 2001 Checy into an 82 Honda. I didn't accept the offer, but from the sounds of this article, a sucker is still born every minute.
I'll give you Clinton on the charisma, but Bush? To this day, I still have 0 (zip, zilch, nada) idea as to what people see in Bush.
If you've ever taken a road trip through middle America (or live there like me), you will understand what people identify with. Take away the staff and suit, give him a pair of old truck, worn in blue jeans, and t-shirt, and you have the guy down the street. People love that simple, down-home boy quality.
But then you're getting your news from a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what's actually going on in the country.
You mean like the average citizen? If half of the population was half way educated on politics and the common talking points, politics wouldn't be in the wretched state it's in right now. Can anyone say, with a straight face, that Kerry and Bush are the best this country has to offer? A person is smart, but people are stupid and easily led. The same qualities that make a successful politician are the same qualities that make a successful con artist, or successful actor, or successful sexual predator, or successful salesman. Do any of these descriptions remind you of local, state, or federal representatives past or present? They should. For all the bitching that goes on here, and around the country, we the people deserve what we get. We elect bad leaders into office; their bad decisions are represented by our bad decisions, and we deserve whatever hell they create.
For all the shit it's going to create, I will say that the American population is to blame for the terrorist attacks. We twice elected Clinton, who while not completely inept concerning terrorists, did make some bad calls. He decided to strike at training camps at the same time he had to sit in front of congress about Lewinsky. Whether or not his decision was based on that timing is still debated today, but nobody will say that hitting Al-Qaeda training camps was a bad decision. We weren't in the position to send in troops, so missiles and bombs were the only plausible action. The really bad decision was to give up when the press criticized him for trying to deflect attention away from the scandal. Again, the people were to blame for electing the man, and again for criticizing his decision to attack.
Then we elected Bush, (many will still debate the election itself) who completely ignored all terrorist threats before the attacks, like the now famous memo that he received on August 6, 2001 titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.Here is a scan of the original document. Here we are more than 3 years since that memo was written and the WTC attack; Bin Laden is still free, we're stuck in Iraq with the situation getting worse every day, and a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us. We the people, not the president, have ensured that the vicious circle of hate, fear, and violence continues for another generation.
We bring it all on ourselves as long as we value charisma over substance.
I guess it hasn't hit you yet that Bush's administration spouts textboot propganda. Go look at the definition of propaganda and look at Bush administration quotes where he adamantly agrees that his PR spin is purposely meant to change the minds of voters. He is a kook that wants to push his "man of the people" image off on the viewing audience. Everything he said has been debunked by independant think tanks and individuals.
That's funny, if you replace "Moore" with "Bush administation", your statement is just as true. I guess they have more in common than most people would like to admitt. I really wish I had the time to do a synthesis report and intersect each of their opinions. I bet when all is said and done, it would be the most accurate story around. After all, when you add 1 and -1 you get 0. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whom is the negative and whom is the positive.
It's just as funny as Bush claiming that he is in touch with reality. The Gods too are fond of a good joke. These days, it's safe to consider anyone a liar who advertises themselves as being impartial.
How many working class men and women have to be put out of a job becuase you stole all these music albums and not have ways to feed their familes for you to understand the nature of this problem?
That a good question. You'd better believe that the executives won't take a hit. In the recording industry, image is everything and is to be considered a business expense. There is a legitimate reason they need that personal jet, multimillion dollar huose, monthly new car, and ten thousand dollar a day coke habbit. The second, if and when record sales dip, the cost will be absorbed by the lowest level possible, and not by the executives. But since record sales have been increasing, despite p2p use and declining quality, we won't soon see the average record executive sucking dick for coke... ever.
Dubious or not, the solution is something that most people should do by default:
This error can be corrected by choosing "User defined List" and entering the IP addresses that are supposed to have access - the IP addresses of your LAN. A whole range of an IP area can be entered as "192.168.x.0/255.255.255.0", if the respective addresses start with 192.168.x.
So we should not allow file and printer sharing beyod our local network. Who would a thought? They also recommend using a router with a firewall or a secondary software firewall. It's been a while since I used zone alarm, but the last version I tried didn't notify the user if a windows process tried to access the network. That's why I switched to Sygate. You'd be suprised what parts of windows want to transmitt data (like the file inexing serive) even though you aren't running them.
Who's greed has a higher dolalre value, the individual, or the corporation? You forget that few copyrights are held by the person who has created the work.
Lucky bastard. There isn't one theater showing that within 30 miles, or more, of my house. ZIP code 46236 is in the middle of a cultural and technilogical black hole known as Indiana. Next week, one theater is having a premier of a contreversial new film called "Clockwork Orange". I can't wait.
You can't seriously be comparing the MPAA to helpless old ladies. Of course you can't, because that would make you a complete tool. To make things more realistic, we can say the old lady is in line so she can get another mortgage on her house to cover the RIAA lawsuit from letting her granddaughter use the internet.
Sorry, but when I must choose between the large, heartless, monopolisitc corporation and an individual, I'm going to pick the individual no matter what the crime they stand accused of. All of this contreversy is related to the dilema in American politics: Group rights/corporate rights vs. personal rights. There used to be a day when corporations carried a larger burden of taxes than families. That ended around the time of Reaganomics, when families started to pay a larger percentage of taxes than corporations. Since that time, we've seen a politicians take rights away from people to make corporate life easier. The DMCA added few new laws and protections. It just made enforcement easier, at the expense of personal rights and privacy. It makes me seriously question who is lazier, the downloader or the people charged with protecting copyrights.
Every person who downloads a song is protesting, regardless if they know what message they are sending. People are voicing their complaints about an aging business model that produces merchandise of questionable quality. If yoiu buy a CD that has 1 or 2 good tracks and the rest is crap, you can't return it. Almost any other type of merchandise can be returned if it doesn't meet the customers needs. You also can't send in a damaged CD and get a new one for the cost of the medium and S&H. You have to go out and buy a new one at full price, which means that you have two licenses but one medium. They are also protesting unfair practices that buy politicians and remove personal rights (like fair use) and privacy. Instead of seeing the writing on the wall, the music industry has decided to sue thousands to prove a point. They are proving that, in America, it is cheaper to settle than to defend yourself. They are proving that business can force consumers to stay within a decades old business plan to spare the pain trouble of evolving. They are proving that the idea of the free market is inferior to a planned economy. They have proven that you don't need to listen to your customers as long as you have lawyers.
Farm Subsidies keep farmers afloat; or at least the large corporate farms that buy out the independent farmers. There are many ways to artificially create high demand other than cutting taxes or increasing subsidies. China, Korea, and India all have booming tech sectors. Part comes from the lower standard of living, but some also comes from the vague tech future in America. Every day people find new ways to stifle innovation (softwre patents, DMCA, etc) The same laws that protect corporate America also harm the jobs that they create. Imagine you are a tech firm. How will tech laws change if Kerry wins? How about if Bush wins? Does India or China seem more stable?
Geez, Sorry. I must have been a fool to think the President has some sort of influence of important matters like the economy. If we can't blame Bush for not fixing it, can we stop blaming Clinton for handing a sour economy over to Bush?
Are we to equate a worker on an assembly line to the punk messsing up my order at McDonalds? Saying fast food workers are part of the manufacturing sector is a clever way to say that America is gaining manufacturing jobs. Too bad it's like Enron filing debits to collectors as assets.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I want to share files I must sign up for a free hotmail account that I never intend to use? What good is that supposed to do? Sounds like another example of legislating something that looks good on paper, but is completely non-functional in the real world. How might this law be used? "We can't get them on copyright infringement, so we will get them on not publicizing their email address."
See comment here. NAT has nothing to do with people running thier box with admin access rights. It has nothing to do with people who blindly open attachments, or do not use a good firewall, or do not use an AV program. NAT is a flase sense of security.
How has NAT helped stem the tide of windows zombies sending spam, viruses, and worms? Like I said earlier, NAT is a duct tape solution.
Quit thinking so 2 dimensionally. IPv4 lasted about 2 decades. IPv6 should last us much longer and through more incarnations of the internet. Imagine nearly every device you own having its own unique IP. NAT is a duct tape solution that will end up causing more problems in the long run. No more going over to grandma's house to set up port triggering/forwarding on her router when she wants to try a new program.
Is there any reason we can't convert an IPv6 address to base 36 so we humans can use alphanumeric strings? It should be a lot easier when we want to give someone the number to our new WAP enabled cell phone. And the memory problem... would have been a problem... if we were still paying $100/meg.
It's already been demonstrated that the error checking and other transmission control routines of TCP/IP have entirely too much overhead for modern technology. I wish I could dig up the old article on
What happens when ISPs start running ethernet and fiber to people's homes? Verizon is already begun to roll out a fiber to the residence service in slelected areas. I can't imagine them stopping, or others not following. Your voice, data, and television transmissions will be carried across the same connection at the same time. Your cell phone will probably have built in WLAN VoIP capability. As a result, NAT will end up hurting us, and the only solution is a unique IP for every device. Have you ever tried to help an older relative setup port triggering and forwarding on their NAT enabled router? You can't seriously expect the population to know how to do this. All the average person wants to do is pull their new toy out of the box, plug it in, and for it to start working. The sooner we migrate the better. In a few more years, there is going to be much more hardware and software to test, validate, configurations to alter, and bugs to work out. Almost every piece of software and hardware produced in the last 5 or so years has some level of support. It's not going to be as painful as the IPv4 migration when the net was shutdown for about a day; it's just laziness. That's what happens when we let MBA's call the shots instead of the nerds and geeks.
For all the shit it's going to create, I will say that the American population is to blame for the terrorist attacks. We twice elected Clinton, who while not completely inept concerning terrorists, did make some bad calls. He decided to strike at training camps at the same time he had to sit in front of congress about Lewinsky. Whether or not his decision was based on that timing is still debated today, but nobody will say that hitting Al-Qaeda training camps was a bad decision. We weren't in the position to send in troops, so missiles and bombs were the only plausible action. The really bad decision was to give up when the press criticized him for trying to deflect attention away from the scandal. Again, the people were to blame for electing the man, and again for criticizing his decision to attack.
Then we elected Bush, (many will still debate the election itself) who completely ignored all terrorist threats before the attacks, like the now famous memo that he received on August 6, 2001 titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US. Here is a scan of the original document. Here we are more than 3 years since that memo was written and the WTC attack; Bin Laden is still free, we're stuck in Iraq with the situation getting worse every day, and a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us. We the people, not the president, have ensured that the vicious circle of hate, fear, and violence continues for another generation.
We bring it all on ourselves as long as we value charisma over substance.
I guess it hasn't hit you yet that Bush's administration spouts textboot propganda. Go look at the definition of propaganda and look at Bush administration quotes where he adamantly agrees that his PR spin is purposely meant to change the minds of voters. He is a kook that wants to push his "man of the people" image off on the viewing audience. Everything he said has been debunked by independant think tanks and individuals.
That's funny, if you replace "Moore" with "Bush administation", your statement is just as true. I guess they have more in common than most people would like to admitt. I really wish I had the time to do a synthesis report and intersect each of their opinions. I bet when all is said and done, it would be the most accurate story around. After all, when you add 1 and -1 you get 0. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whom is the negative and whom is the positive.
It's just as funny as Bush claiming that he is in touch with reality. The Gods too are fond of a good joke. These days, it's safe to consider anyone a liar who advertises themselves as being impartial.
Who's greed has a higher dolalre value, the individual, or the corporation? You forget that few copyrights are held by the person who has created the work.
Lucky bastard. There isn't one theater showing that within 30 miles, or more, of my house. ZIP code 46236 is in the middle of a cultural and technilogical black hole known as Indiana. Next week, one theater is having a premier of a contreversial new film called "Clockwork Orange". I can't wait.
Raping middleschool girls eh? You really DO work for the recording indusry, don't you?
You can't seriously be comparing the MPAA to helpless old ladies. Of course you can't, because that would make you a complete tool. To make things more realistic, we can say the old lady is in line so she can get another mortgage on her house to cover the RIAA lawsuit from letting her granddaughter use the internet.
Sorry, but when I must choose between the large, heartless, monopolisitc corporation and an individual, I'm going to pick the individual no matter what the crime they stand accused of. All of this contreversy is related to the dilema in American politics: Group rights/corporate rights vs. personal rights. There used to be a day when corporations carried a larger burden of taxes than families. That ended around the time of Reaganomics, when families started to pay a larger percentage of taxes than corporations. Since that time, we've seen a politicians take rights away from people to make corporate life easier. The DMCA added few new laws and protections. It just made enforcement easier, at the expense of personal rights and privacy. It makes me seriously question who is lazier, the downloader or the people charged with protecting copyrights.
Every person who downloads a song is protesting, regardless if they know what message they are sending. People are voicing their complaints about an aging business model that produces merchandise of questionable quality. If yoiu buy a CD that has 1 or 2 good tracks and the rest is crap, you can't return it. Almost any other type of merchandise can be returned if it doesn't meet the customers needs. You also can't send in a damaged CD and get a new one for the cost of the medium and S&H. You have to go out and buy a new one at full price, which means that you have two licenses but one medium. They are also protesting unfair practices that buy politicians and remove personal rights (like fair use) and privacy. Instead of seeing the writing on the wall, the music industry has decided to sue thousands to prove a point. They are proving that, in America, it is cheaper to settle than to defend yourself. They are proving that business can force consumers to stay within a decades old business plan to spare the pain trouble of evolving. They are proving that the idea of the free market is inferior to a planned economy. They have proven that you don't need to listen to your customers as long as you have lawyers.
Farm Subsidies keep farmers afloat; or at least the large corporate farms that buy out the independent farmers. There are many ways to artificially create high demand other than cutting taxes or increasing subsidies. China, Korea, and India all have booming tech sectors. Part comes from the lower standard of living, but some also comes from the vague tech future in America. Every day people find new ways to stifle innovation (softwre patents, DMCA, etc) The same laws that protect corporate America also harm the jobs that they create. Imagine you are a tech firm. How will tech laws change if Kerry wins? How about if Bush wins? Does India or China seem more stable?
Geez, Sorry. I must have been a fool to think the President has some sort of influence of important matters like the economy. If we can't blame Bush for not fixing it, can we stop blaming Clinton for handing a sour economy over to Bush?
Sorry for the broken links:
5
http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/02 /23/mcjobs/
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=37255
http://www.canuckflack.com/archives/000084.html
http://www.bradcarson.com/pressreleases/archives/0 00416.php
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=3208
Are we to equate a worker on an assembly line to the punk messsing up my order at McDonalds? Saying fast food workers are part of the manufacturing sector is a clever way to say that America is gaining manufacturing jobs. Too bad it's like Enron filing debits to collectors as assets.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=32085
http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/02 /23/mcjobs/
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=37255
http://www.canuckflack.com/archives/000084.html
http://www.bradcarson.com/pressreleases/archives/0 00416.php