Oh like my saying it or not changes the fact that it's true. The guy's an idiot. He's lucky he's not a dead idiot. That's the sort of dumb-ass stunt that can effectively shut down five square blocks of a city and result in said idiot being shot, regardless of if it's a real rifle or a squirt gun.
True. Voyager 1 was on the order of 23 watts and the last signal was received from over 8 billion miles away. Meanwhile, agents on Proxima Centauri have already begun a global RFID inventory of Wal*Mart stores world-wide in preparation for the invasion. They should have the results sometime late summer 2013.
It would make interesting news if he tried this in, oh, say Washington, DC. He would been carried off the roof in a black rubber bag. I'm surprised downtown LA doesn't have better surveillance. However, I'm sure he'll be getting a visit from the FBI in 5..4..3...
The fundamental disconnect is the fact that unauthorized republishing is their business model. Don't you find it at least ironic that they forbid precisely the act that makes their service possible?
Most people, myself included, *want* Google to index their content. Ergo, there would never be enough people challenging them through lame attempts at enforcing TOS as asinine as theirs. However, the precedent this situation is setting has far too many convoluted implications to childishly boil it down to "quit bitching." What they're suggesting is absurd and unless that absurdity is recognized by the law, there may be some very chilling repurcussions.
Someone is going to have to take the fall to get this dragged into court, with Google as the complainant, in order for this to see the legal light of day. I hope it happens soon as I would really love to hear Google's necessarily circular arguments.
I find any such attack on Google perfectly legitimate. Their entire business model is based on such double-standards. Go read the TOS on their then search for site:$yourDomain and tell me if you think their notion of republishing "their" content is a bit disingenuous.
If I search Google for content from my own servers and then republish the results on my website, I'm in violation of their TOS. They're claiming that their IP and hardware are used, ergo, their results are protected, but when they go to my website, use my software, hardware and bandwidth I'm paying for to crawl my content, the same caveat doesn't apply to them.
But, everyone wants to be in their search engine, so no one complains... However, they do need a stiff ruler to the knuckles before they abuse the privilege and start really mucking the legal waters.
You may not like it, but it's (markets!=free) a statement of fact. It's not my fault global economics don't meet your standards. However, neither you nor I are in much of a position to change that.
Arguing the minutiae of this-or-that event is utterly useless and pedantic. My Argentina reference was just an off-hand reference to instability and wild fluctuation. You can argue the who's, why's and what-if's about the 1930's, but the fact remains, the result is managed economies and they are going to stay that way for quite some time, so please, just drop it.
Maybe I should be calling you the "extremist" for thinking that government can fill all market roles.
Never said that, nor do I remotely think that whether I've expressed it or not.
to reject out of hand because it isn't perfect is irrational.
Never did that. Market economics are a fact of life, it would be silly to "reject out of hand." It is relying on them to work automagically ("just let the market provide") that I find rather insipid. Markets must be, and for all intents universally are, tempered. We've already experimented with more-or-less unregulated capitalism and it was a disaster. It is only through careful regulation of the market that more countries don't economically resemble Argentina--ergo, markets are not free, they are fettered, deliberately and IMHO, effectively--that is, provided one has a basis for comparison. Mine is, well, the previous 200 years or so of history pre-and-post-1929, for instance.
I do know however, that the government isn't completely fair or perfectly efficient either.
Free-market extremists imagine the market in a vacuum. Those, like myself, who recognize this is impossible aren't proponents of "statism" or "pervasive government," we just recognize that there are a number of very visible hands in addition to a great number of "invisible hands," rather than just the single mythical one at play.
That's the difference. It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that there are unavoidable factors limiting the "free market." It's just a statement of fact. However, the belief of an all-powerful invisible hand that equalizes everything... that sounds like faith-based economics, non?
ICANN is chartered by the US Department of Commerce. You might as well say that the plasma supply is controlled by the House of Representatives because the Red Cross is Chartered by Congress. It is the same relationship.
the day my ISP blocks a voice over IP port is the day that I switch to another ISP
The day that happens, I'll have the choice of shoddy service or NO service...and I live right smack in the center of the capital. I suppose I could just rig up my cellphone, but I think they might not look kindly on it being connected 24/7.
The free market isn't free, in any sense. To believe otherwise is to turn economics into religion...
Postel may be gone, but IANA, ICANN and IAB still have the same address... as for transparency, there's a lovely little explanation of how-it-works here:
It seems most people love to bitch piss and moan about ICANN/IANA, but they can't pick up a damned phone or write an email (or, for that matter, type in the F@#$ing URL that is rather forthcoming about process, policies and procedures) when it's far easier to scream "conspiracy!"...god only knows how many tinfoil hat looneys already ring the phone off the hook. Hell, IMHO, it's pretty superhuman of them to publish their address and front-office phone number in the first place...and godlike that they still get a damned thing done as a result.
It is still possible and advisable to be graceful... even if you're going to sue the pants off of them the next day... or burn the place to the ground and run off to barbados... actually, ESPECIALLY if you're going to do something like that.:P
You know, what's really silly here is that the show failed for one single, solitary reason: small audience=small ad revenue. Turning Star Trek into a charity is ludicrous. It's run by a for-profit corporation. Hand them a bucket of cash and they'll take it, redecorate Berman's office, produce one more crappy season and deep-six the series mid-season again. You want to keep Star Trek on the air: BUY ADVERTISING SPACE. Why not solicit advertisements from Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites etc. etc.? If they really want to "inspire" commercial spaceflight, then don't just pony up the cash, start, erm, MAKING COMMERCIALS.
Better yet, do that, but get Barry Diller to buy the property. God knows there's enough money in NBCUniversalUSASciFi to buy it off Paramount and Sci-Fi sure as hell is doing a better job of producing shows worth watching than Paramount ever has...
I had a nightmare manager who drove me into the ground so hard with that sort of Jekyl and Hyde crap that I ended up in a psychologist's office. It was everything from the trivial to the insane--grinding me for $15 on a $8500 expense report one minute then, literally the next minute, expensing my _personal_ $500 cellphone, and thrashing into my office on my 15th hour on one day to find me winding down doing something unproductive and screaming that I should be "doing my job" (hello, I just finished two-days' worth of my job TODAY!) or on the most asinine level writing me up for taking a morning off because the previous fire someone else started that I had to put out had me working from 9am Tuesday until 6:30am Wednesday and I wasn't pert and perky at my desk by 9am again. AAAAGH!
So, under those circumstances, I had a chat with the Human Resources Director (and the company ombudsman) and basically said, look, I'm ready to quit and have my letter of resignation written--is there anything I should know? She gave a few coded hints, so I backed off and ended up with a severance package and a no-fault dismissal as opposed to storming out the door with bupkes or worse, being fired for some cooked-up theatrical bullshit. Bottom line, I was either going to leave or be asked to leave and couldn't care less about being gone. Better to be gone with a briefcase of cash than with merely the satisfaction of making a scene or "being right." Even if you're going to absolutely explode, it's still better to take a step back and strategize your exit. In my case it meant that what was going on was documented and, more importantly, understood so I wasn't just that back-stabbing jerk who left us high and dry.
Now, leaving because you don't like the programming language--and one that you don't really know? Well, that's just silly. You can't know too many languages, computer or otherwise. Pick up the knowledge first, then find another job, then leave. Storming out is, frankly, pretty childish and I'd start coming up with a better story than that for your next interview. No matter how trivial or horrific the situation, your next employer is primarily interested in how you handled it. Were you a professional adult or a spoiled child? Needless to say, they aren't hiring the latter...
I had a boss like this who while we were still doing product evaluations, went in and signed off on a purchase order for the product that was the most expensive and also the most suspicious, which we had made abundantly clear, because the salesman wanted to get it in at the by his December deadline before our office closed for two weeks.
So, turns out, product is a steaming pile of shit and we end up blowing through a million bucks in various consultants, "training" (I use that term VERY loosely), subsequent product buys to patch up the broken pieces, before he realizes he needs "a fall guy," so he starts dismissing all the consultants, starting with the project manager and the system architect, because he could do both of those things, right? No, seriously, he actually said that in the meeting after they were dismissed. Finally he was down to two programmers (one being me). With nothing left to do, he proceeded to fire both of us. I'm sure he felt he'd really saved the day by getting rid of all those problem people who had the entire time been advising to do precisely the opposite of what he chose to do.
In one meeting he had the gall to say "this project is my career advancement vehicle." Well, buddy, finish it your damned self... since you're the only one still employed on the project, godspeed and good luck.
Christ, how scary that such a suggestion (which is the literal truth of my banking relationship for the last decade) was perceived as A JOKE. WOW. You know, some countries have serious fscking privacy laws and the result is they take security equally as fscking seriously. It may sound like a joke in the United States, but I can assure you, in certain places it is absolutely standard practice and has been for a very long time. Sheesh... "Funny." Now THAT'S funny... Wow...
One of my banks has a very tried-and-true method of authenticating me:
They provide me with a series of indexed one-way hashes that I must successfully append to a random password (basically, S-KEY). These are physically exchanged through registered courier under separate cover to each other and all other identifying information on the account and updated either on expiration or the merest hint of compromise.
Why the hell ALL banks don't do this is a mystery to me.
...and people seem to be woefully ignorant of the fact that ICANN IS AN INTERNATIONAL BODY ALREADY--and it was designed from day one to be so. Cut the ties to the Dept. of Commerce, link it up with the ITU and move on.
...I didn't forget that at all, I just didn't address that side of the issue because it wasn't part of the parent post I was responding to.
The action you state is precisely that which I take with anything like this: I simply don't buy crap I neither need nor want and that includes ridiculous TOS or engineered crippling. If people refuse to buy crippled crap, companies won't produce it and will be forced to alter their business models to the market...but convincing the masses to stop consuming crap is more difficult than lobbying congress.
If only people had an ounce of self-control, we'd have a much, much different market...
Something like this takes a very well organized campaign to be successful. There are only 58 representatives that are truly in control of this issue. For 87% of the electorate, writing a letter to Congress is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
It is much, much more complex than "oh, you elected them, you can un-elect them." Well, one voter has sway with only 0.2% of the legislature, and that 0.2% influence still only has a 13% (58:435) chance of having a 1.7% (1:58) chance to get the issue out of committee...and even still, to your rep, you're political weight is roughly 1:337931, probably less if you're in a well gerrymandered district where they aren't at risk of losing their seat anyway (read: almost all of them). They know this, so "you'll lose my vote" carries about as much weight as a square of wet single-ply toilet paper.
Communities form local governments to collect taxes and perform various and sundry duties for the community. If the community can run a fscking library, school, water works, police department, or any other services, why the hell shouldn't they provide a telcom service?
This only seems non-obvious looking at cities like Los Angeles or New York. Go out to Tumbleweed, Idaho and suddenly the relationship to local government is pretty friggen obvious when your cousin is the judge, your neighbor is the mayor and aslo the gas station attendent. In that sense, community and government are utterly synonymous.
The first thing one _should_ do with anything purporting to be a statistically relevant "study" is to see if there are any obvious reasons to question the results like limited sample size, broad unjustifiable assumptions, conflicts of interest, whatever.
I get your point, but there have been many, many very poignant criticisms.
Let's face it, this is a to-the-death battle. MS is terrified that it is going to go extinct if Linux survives and vice-versa. The zealotry is not without warrant as when someone is trying to kill you, you generally return the favor -- and make no mistake, MS is not trying to make a better product than Linux. MS is trying to eradicate [F]OSS from the earth entirely because while many Linux advocates are not out to kill MS, MS certainly sees the threat of wider adoption as a mortal one.
In that sense it is far more a philosophical, political and economic battle than a technical one. To many, if not most, on *both* sides of the argument, the technical debate is merely the opening argument at the trial. The goal is an auto da fe.
You rarely hear a Linux "zealot" thrashing endlessly on z/OS, Solaris or AIX. IBM and SUN are not blatantly threatening the existence of Linux OR OSS, so there's little argument. If someone posed the question if any of the above were faster/better/whatever than Linux, you'd probably get mostly affirmative responses--because in that case it IS just a technical question.
...sort of like what everyone does during any performance review, eh?
"Sure, I spend six hours a day on company time reading/., but uhm, it's job-related research, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... can I have my raise now?"
Slashdot Mirror
Oh like my saying it or not changes the fact that it's true. The guy's an idiot. He's lucky he's not a dead idiot. That's the sort of dumb-ass stunt that can effectively shut down five square blocks of a city and result in said idiot being shot, regardless of if it's a real rifle or a squirt gun.
True. Voyager 1 was on the order of 23 watts and the last signal was received from over 8 billion miles away. Meanwhile, agents on Proxima Centauri have already begun a global RFID inventory of Wal*Mart stores world-wide in preparation for the invasion. They should have the results sometime late summer 2013.
It would make interesting news if he tried this in, oh, say Washington, DC. He would been carried off the roof in a black rubber bag. I'm surprised downtown LA doesn't have better surveillance. However, I'm sure he'll be getting a visit from the FBI in 5..4..3...
Crazy.
The fundamental disconnect is the fact that unauthorized republishing is their business model. Don't you find it at least ironic that they forbid precisely the act that makes their service possible?
Most people, myself included, *want* Google to index their content. Ergo, there would never be enough people challenging them through lame attempts at enforcing TOS as asinine as theirs. However, the precedent this situation is setting has far too many convoluted implications to childishly boil it down to "quit bitching." What they're suggesting is absurd and unless that absurdity is recognized by the law, there may be some very chilling repurcussions.
Someone is going to have to take the fall to get this dragged into court, with Google as the complainant, in order for this to see the legal light of day. I hope it happens soon as I would really love to hear Google's necessarily circular arguments.
I find any such attack on Google perfectly legitimate. Their entire business model is based on such double-standards. Go read the TOS on their then search for site:$yourDomain and tell me if you think their notion of republishing "their" content is a bit disingenuous.
If I search Google for content from my own servers and then republish the results on my website, I'm in violation of their TOS. They're claiming that their IP and hardware are used, ergo, their results are protected, but when they go to my website, use my software, hardware and bandwidth I'm paying for to crawl my content, the same caveat doesn't apply to them.
But, everyone wants to be in their search engine, so no one complains... However, they do need a stiff ruler to the knuckles before they abuse the privilege and start really mucking the legal waters.
You may not like it, but it's (markets!=free) a statement of fact. It's not my fault global economics don't meet your standards. However, neither you nor I are in much of a position to change that.
Arguing the minutiae of this-or-that event is utterly useless and pedantic. My Argentina reference was just an off-hand reference to instability and wild fluctuation. You can argue the who's, why's and what-if's about the 1930's, but the fact remains, the result is managed economies and they are going to stay that way for quite some time, so please, just drop it.
Maybe I should be calling you the "extremist" for thinking that government can fill all market roles.
Never said that, nor do I remotely think that whether I've expressed it or not.
to reject out of hand because it isn't perfect is irrational.
Never did that. Market economics are a fact of life, it would be silly to "reject out of hand." It is relying on them to work automagically ("just let the market provide") that I find rather insipid. Markets must be, and for all intents universally are, tempered. We've already experimented with more-or-less unregulated capitalism and it was a disaster. It is only through careful regulation of the market that more countries don't economically resemble Argentina--ergo, markets are not free, they are fettered, deliberately and IMHO, effectively--that is, provided one has a basis for comparison. Mine is, well, the previous 200 years or so of history pre-and-post-1929, for instance.
I do know however, that the government isn't completely fair or perfectly efficient either.
Never disagreed with that.
Moving right along...
Free-market extremists imagine the market in a vacuum. Those, like myself, who recognize this is impossible aren't proponents of "statism" or "pervasive government," we just recognize that there are a number of very visible hands in addition to a great number of "invisible hands," rather than just the single mythical one at play.
That's the difference. It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that there are unavoidable factors limiting the "free market." It's just a statement of fact. However, the belief of an all-powerful invisible hand that equalizes everything... that sounds like faith-based economics, non?
ICANN is chartered by the US Department of Commerce. You might as well say that the plasma supply is controlled by the House of Representatives because the Red Cross is Chartered by Congress. It is the same relationship.
the day my ISP blocks a voice over IP port is the day that I switch to another ISP The day that happens, I'll have the choice of shoddy service or NO service...and I live right smack in the center of the capital. I suppose I could just rig up my cellphone, but I think they might not look kindly on it being connected 24/7. The free market isn't free, in any sense. To believe otherwise is to turn economics into religion...
Postel may be gone, but IANA, ICANN and IAB still have the same address... as for transparency, there's a lovely little explanation of how-it-works here:
...as for anything else, erm, if you're really so concerned, have you ASKED?
...god only knows how many tinfoil hat looneys already ring the phone off the hook. Hell, IMHO, it's pretty superhuman of them to publish their address and front-office phone number in the first place...and godlike that they still get a damned thing done as a result.
http://www.iana.org/root-management.htm
http://www.iana.org/contact.htm
It seems most people love to bitch piss and moan about ICANN/IANA, but they can't pick up a damned phone or write an email (or, for that matter, type in the F@#$ing URL that is rather forthcoming about process, policies and procedures) when it's far easier to scream "conspiracy!"
It is still possible and advisable to be graceful... even if you're going to sue the pants off of them the next day... or burn the place to the ground and run off to barbados... actually, ESPECIALLY if you're going to do something like that. :P
You know, what's really silly here is that the show failed for one single, solitary reason: small audience=small ad revenue. Turning Star Trek into a charity is ludicrous. It's run by a for-profit corporation. Hand them a bucket of cash and they'll take it, redecorate Berman's office, produce one more crappy season and deep-six the series mid-season again. You want to keep Star Trek on the air: BUY ADVERTISING SPACE. Why not solicit advertisements from Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites etc. etc.? If they really want to "inspire" commercial spaceflight, then don't just pony up the cash, start, erm, MAKING COMMERCIALS.
Better yet, do that, but get Barry Diller to buy the property. God knows there's enough money in NBCUniversalUSASciFi to buy it off Paramount and Sci-Fi sure as hell is doing a better job of producing shows worth watching than Paramount ever has...
I had a nightmare manager who drove me into the ground so hard with that sort of Jekyl and Hyde crap that I ended up in a psychologist's office. It was everything from the trivial to the insane--grinding me for $15 on a $8500 expense report one minute then, literally the next minute, expensing my _personal_ $500 cellphone, and thrashing into my office on my 15th hour on one day to find me winding down doing something unproductive and screaming that I should be "doing my job" (hello, I just finished two-days' worth of my job TODAY!) or on the most asinine level writing me up for taking a morning off because the previous fire someone else started that I had to put out had me working from 9am Tuesday until 6:30am Wednesday and I wasn't pert and perky at my desk by 9am again. AAAAGH!
So, under those circumstances, I had a chat with the Human Resources Director (and the company ombudsman) and basically said, look, I'm ready to quit and have my letter of resignation written--is there anything I should know? She gave a few coded hints, so I backed off and ended up with a severance package and a no-fault dismissal as opposed to storming out the door with bupkes or worse, being fired for some cooked-up theatrical bullshit. Bottom line, I was either going to leave or be asked to leave and couldn't care less about being gone. Better to be gone with a briefcase of cash than with merely the satisfaction of making a scene or "being right." Even if you're going to absolutely explode, it's still better to take a step back and strategize your exit. In my case it meant that what was going on was documented and, more importantly, understood so I wasn't just that back-stabbing jerk who left us high and dry.
Now, leaving because you don't like the programming language--and one that you don't really know? Well, that's just silly. You can't know too many languages, computer or otherwise. Pick up the knowledge first, then find another job, then leave. Storming out is, frankly, pretty childish and I'd start coming up with a better story than that for your next interview. No matter how trivial or horrific the situation, your next employer is primarily interested in how you handled it. Were you a professional adult or a spoiled child? Needless to say, they aren't hiring the latter...
I had a boss like this who while we were still doing product evaluations, went in and signed off on a purchase order for the product that was the most expensive and also the most suspicious, which we had made abundantly clear, because the salesman wanted to get it in at the by his December deadline before our office closed for two weeks.
So, turns out, product is a steaming pile of shit and we end up blowing through a million bucks in various consultants, "training" (I use that term VERY loosely), subsequent product buys to patch up the broken pieces, before he realizes he needs "a fall guy," so he starts dismissing all the consultants, starting with the project manager and the system architect, because he could do both of those things, right? No, seriously, he actually said that in the meeting after they were dismissed. Finally he was down to two programmers (one being me). With nothing left to do, he proceeded to fire both of us. I'm sure he felt he'd really saved the day by getting rid of all those problem people who had the entire time been advising to do precisely the opposite of what he chose to do.
In one meeting he had the gall to say "this project is my career advancement vehicle." Well, buddy, finish it your damned self... since you're the only one still employed on the project, godspeed and good luck.
Christ, how scary that such a suggestion (which is the literal truth of my banking relationship for the last decade) was perceived as A JOKE. WOW. You know, some countries have serious fscking privacy laws and the result is they take security equally as fscking seriously. It may sound like a joke in the United States, but I can assure you, in certain places it is absolutely standard practice and has been for a very long time. Sheesh... "Funny." Now THAT'S funny... Wow...
One of my banks has a very tried-and-true method of authenticating me:
They provide me with a series of indexed one-way hashes that I must successfully append to a random password (basically, S-KEY). These are physically exchanged through registered courier under separate cover to each other and all other identifying information on the account and updated either on expiration or the merest hint of compromise.
Why the hell ALL banks don't do this is a mystery to me.
...and people seem to be woefully ignorant of the fact that ICANN IS AN INTERNATIONAL BODY ALREADY--and it was designed from day one to be so. Cut the ties to the Dept. of Commerce, link it up with the ITU and move on.
...I didn't forget that at all, I just didn't address that side of the issue because it wasn't part of the parent post I was responding to.
The action you state is precisely that which I take with anything like this: I simply don't buy crap I neither need nor want and that includes ridiculous TOS or engineered crippling. If people refuse to buy crippled crap, companies won't produce it and will be forced to alter their business models to the market...but convincing the masses to stop consuming crap is more difficult than lobbying congress.
If only people had an ounce of self-control, we'd have a much, much different market...
Something like this takes a very well organized campaign to be successful. There are only 58 representatives that are truly in control of this issue. For 87% of the electorate, writing a letter to Congress is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
It is much, much more complex than "oh, you elected them, you can un-elect them." Well, one voter has sway with only 0.2% of the legislature, and that 0.2% influence still only has a 13% (58:435) chance of having a 1.7% (1:58) chance to get the issue out of committee...and even still, to your rep, you're political weight is roughly 1:337931, probably less if you're in a well gerrymandered district where they aren't at risk of losing their seat anyway (read: almost all of them). They know this, so "you'll lose my vote" carries about as much weight as a square of wet single-ply toilet paper.
Communities form local governments to collect taxes and perform various and sundry duties for the community. If the community can run a fscking library, school, water works, police department, or any other services, why the hell shouldn't they provide a telcom service?
This only seems non-obvious looking at cities like Los Angeles or New York. Go out to Tumbleweed, Idaho and suddenly the relationship to local government is pretty friggen obvious when your cousin is the judge, your neighbor is the mayor and aslo the gas station attendent. In that sense, community and government are utterly synonymous.
Yes, methane power is MUCH more popular in Chino... or at least it should be... they've got so damn much of it.
The first thing one _should_ do with anything purporting to be a statistically relevant "study" is to see if there are any obvious reasons to question the results like limited sample size, broad unjustifiable assumptions, conflicts of interest, whatever.
I get your point, but there have been many, many very poignant criticisms.
Let's face it, this is a to-the-death battle. MS is terrified that it is going to go extinct if Linux survives and vice-versa. The zealotry is not without warrant as when someone is trying to kill you, you generally return the favor -- and make no mistake, MS is not trying to make a better product than Linux. MS is trying to eradicate [F]OSS from the earth entirely because while many Linux advocates are not out to kill MS, MS certainly sees the threat of wider adoption as a mortal one.
In that sense it is far more a philosophical, political and economic battle than a technical one. To many, if not most, on *both* sides of the argument, the technical debate is merely the opening argument at the trial. The goal is an auto da fe.
You rarely hear a Linux "zealot" thrashing endlessly on z/OS, Solaris or AIX. IBM and SUN are not blatantly threatening the existence of Linux OR OSS, so there's little argument. If someone posed the question if any of the above were faster/better/whatever than Linux, you'd probably get mostly affirmative responses--because in that case it IS just a technical question.
...sort of like what everyone does during any performance review, eh?
/., but uhm, it's job-related research, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... can I have my raise now?"
"Sure, I spend six hours a day on company time reading
Yes, it's surprising Jon Postel's name is still so rarely even mentioned.n g99/Postel/postel.html
In Vinton Cerf's words:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2468.txt
http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/spri