That's not what it said at all. It said those economies are "plutonomies" and one of the things that might change that (if the wealth distribution becomes too skewed) was political backlash since these are democracies. Quote from the memo:
Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was - one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich.
Compared to other costs, licensing fees are fairly trivial. $100k doesn't even buy a competent engineer for a year.
Exactly. Because nobody has ever produced a non-trivial piece of software, ever, without paying some engineer at least $100k, right? OP is clearly living in some fantasy land where web browsers, video utilities or maybe even entire operating systems are produced and given away for free. Ludicrous.
I know, right? They already give me more than 1 IPv4 address right now, so it would make perfect sense to reduce it to 1 once there are 79228162514264337593543950336 more addresses available...
That isn't true. Usually if the attacker can get packets with your private destination IP addresses to the outside of your router and you have no ACLs saying to drop that, it will get forwarded in regardless of what the NAT says.
The solution for grandma will be the same as it has always been: buy some product that filters correctly and never even hear the words "NAT" or "ACL".
And you'll still be a complete idiot for doing so since the firewall rules that are currently keeping those attacks away work exactly the same way without NAT on IPv4 or 6.
Considering how little respect sony has demonstrated for anyone else I'd say this is all perfectly fine even if it is somehow violating some of sony's rights. They will be repaid in kind. Sounds pretty moral to me.
That's not the phrase we're talking about. What is dishonest is their reason why they are disclosing the method to paying customers but not the general public, which is simply that they "are too busy". They're too busy to demonstrate the method once to everyone but have plenty of time to demonstrate it over and over again to their clients? That can't be true because it simply doesn't make any sense.
If they just straight up said they're not willing to disclose it because it is their trade secret then that would seem perfectly logical and honest to me.
The answer to every problem is *not* more laws and regulation.
You're right. And let's repeal those laws that give the phone company and cable company special rights that the rest of us do not have and let anyone who wants to run cables under the streets and lawns do so.
Maybe you only have one network to use, but I have several. Home, work, various clients' networks, VPN's, subnets, you name it. And for some reason you think it's a great idea for me to "remember" all of those prefixes, instead of defining a reserved block. Fuck that. Fuck you.
A reserved block? RFC1918 I take it? So all these networks you are dealing with are using the same network addresses?
Think about that - some people want to die, so their solution is "death by cop" because they don't have the will to just commit regular suicide.
Really? You think that guy shot 4 cops and then started walking around looking for more to kill him simply because he didn't have the will to simply point a gun at his head and pull his finger back a fraction of an inch for 100% guaranteed instant death? Instead he had the will to try and get shot elsewhere on his body and possibly just injured and thrown in jail? You don't think he had the slightest beef with the cops or what they represent?
If that's what you really think, you and your cop girlfriend could definitely improve your safety concerns by pulling your heads out of your asses.
A leaked memo from Citigroup has already declared the US a Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).
That's actually not what it says. In fact, they specifically state that isn't the case and that political backlash is one of the risks to their whole "invest in stuff for rich people" strategy on page 10:
Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was - one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich.
But most of the stocks they picked for their "plutonomy basket" completely tanked in fall of 2009 just like everything else anyway. This memo is from March 5 2006.
No. I'm suggesting they should be less scared in situations like that.
Are you telling me that things like that don't affect some one?
no. I'm saying they should affect cops less. While that situation should scare your GF, she should not blow someone's face off right after that because they put their hand in their pocket while walking past your house.
This stuff affects people. The only people it does not change are not the kind of people I want to be cops!
So instead we settle for cops blowing someone's head off because they moved their hands in the wrong direction?
But the point is this - there are people out there who just want to kill cops because "cops ain't like us".
Well of course there are people who don't like cops (to one extent or another). Cops frequently get away with doing bad things that "people like us" don't. Having actual consequences for their screwups (or arresting someone because they took their picture in a public place) like the rest of us might improve the situation.
Cops are people. People get scared. Somehow people seem to think that Cops have this mythical "spidey sense" and they can just know what is actually going on and judge the situations accordingly.
Cops are held to a higher standard. That's supposed to come along with those special rights and weapons they're given. They should not be as uncertain and scared in situations like that as the rest of us. If they want to be as scared and trigger-happy as the rest of us "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to kill someone any more then the rest of us "people".
If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
No, it's actually illegal to do. If my friends and I start digging up the road to lay our lines down or start broadcasting sufficiently strong signals on useful frequencies we get arrested and fined. Only a few rich corporations have and can get such special rights.
Are you also advocating equal rights for everyone to lay cables under streets and all over private property? Or should only a handful of corporations continue to have those special government-enforced rights that everyone else does not?
You use the same password everywhere? And you're just going to assume that if they don't appear in some torrent floating around that that're perfectly safe, despite being in a known compromised site? That sounds pretty stupid.
What kind of firewall? If it is something with a textual sort of configuration you can just set your prefix once in a variable and use the variable throughout the configuration.
So "compartmentalize" them all you want with public addresses. It really doesn't matter if your air conditioner is at 192.168.74.91 or 206.221.38.55. You're just losing NAT and non-unique addresses and gaining more work when you renumber (which IPv6 makes easier).
Slashdot Mirror
and rest of human history: piracy = forcibly boarding a ship on the high seas to steal and murder.
The joke is that virus scanners in general tend to be jokes.
That's not what it said at all. It said those economies are "plutonomies" and one of the things that might change that (if the wealth distribution becomes too skewed) was political backlash since these are democracies. Quote from the memo:
Exactly. Because nobody has ever produced a non-trivial piece of software, ever, without paying some engineer at least $100k, right? OP is clearly living in some fantasy land where web browsers, video utilities or maybe even entire operating systems are produced and given away for free. Ludicrous.
I know, right? They already give me more than 1 IPv4 address right now, so it would make perfect sense to reduce it to 1 once there are 79228162514264337593543950336 more addresses available...
That isn't true. Usually if the attacker can get packets with your private destination IP addresses to the outside of your router and you have no ACLs saying to drop that, it will get forwarded in regardless of what the NAT says.
The solution for grandma will be the same as it has always been: buy some product that filters correctly and never even hear the words "NAT" or "ACL".
And you'll still be a complete idiot for doing so since the firewall rules that are currently keeping those attacks away work exactly the same way without NAT on IPv4 or 6.
Considering how little respect sony has demonstrated for anyone else I'd say this is all perfectly fine even if it is somehow violating some of sony's rights. They will be repaid in kind. Sounds pretty moral to me.
That's not the phrase we're talking about. What is dishonest is their reason why they are disclosing the method to paying customers but not the general public, which is simply that they "are too busy". They're too busy to demonstrate the method once to everyone but have plenty of time to demonstrate it over and over again to their clients? That can't be true because it simply doesn't make any sense.
If they just straight up said they're not willing to disclose it because it is their trade secret then that would seem perfectly logical and honest to me.
Then why didn't they just say "we don't want our competitors to be able to use this" in the first place instead of lying? Honesty FAIL?
You're right. And let's repeal those laws that give the phone company and cable company special rights that the rest of us do not have and let anyone who wants to run cables under the streets and lawns do so.
A reserved block? RFC1918 I take it? So all these networks you are dealing with are using the same network addresses?
Public key encryption. Mature, simple, free, no third party service required.
Really? You think that guy shot 4 cops and then started walking around looking for more to kill him simply because he didn't have the will to simply point a gun at his head and pull his finger back a fraction of an inch for 100% guaranteed instant death? Instead he had the will to try and get shot elsewhere on his body and possibly just injured and thrown in jail? You don't think he had the slightest beef with the cops or what they represent?
If that's what you really think, you and your cop girlfriend could definitely improve your safety concerns by pulling your heads out of your asses.
That's actually not what it says. In fact, they specifically state that isn't the case and that political backlash is one of the risks to their whole "invest in stuff for rich people" strategy on page 10:
But most of the stocks they picked for their "plutonomy basket" completely tanked in fall of 2009 just like everything else anyway. This memo is from March 5 2006.
No. I'm suggesting they should be less scared in situations like that.
no. I'm saying they should affect cops less. While that situation should scare your GF, she should not blow someone's face off right after that because they put their hand in their pocket while walking past your house.
So instead we settle for cops blowing someone's head off because they moved their hands in the wrong direction?
Well of course there are people who don't like cops (to one extent or another). Cops frequently get away with doing bad things that "people like us" don't. Having actual consequences for their screwups (or arresting someone because they took their picture in a public place) like the rest of us might improve the situation.
Cops are held to a higher standard. That's supposed to come along with those special rights and weapons they're given. They should not be as uncertain and scared in situations like that as the rest of us. If they want to be as scared and trigger-happy as the rest of us "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to kill someone any more then the rest of us "people".
Sure we do. "We" can elect legislators to change the rules however we see fit.
No, it's actually illegal to do. If my friends and I start digging up the road to lay our lines down or start broadcasting sufficiently strong signals on useful frequencies we get arrested and fined. Only a few rich corporations have and can get such special rights.
Are you also advocating equal rights for everyone to lay cables under streets and all over private property? Or should only a handful of corporations continue to have those special government-enforced rights that everyone else does not?
You use the same password everywhere? And you're just going to assume that if they don't appear in some torrent floating around that that're perfectly safe, despite being in a known compromised site? That sounds pretty stupid.
What kind of firewall? If it is something with a textual sort of configuration you can just set your prefix once in a variable and use the variable throughout the configuration.
Do what without private addresses? Assigning static addresses or setting up A or AAAA records works about the same with public or private addresses.
So "compartmentalize" them all you want with public addresses. It really doesn't matter if your air conditioner is at 192.168.74.91 or 206.221.38.55. You're just losing NAT and non-unique addresses and gaining more work when you renumber (which IPv6 makes easier).