I would also love a block of live IPv6 addresses for my home. I currently have an old P200 doing NAT for the network, and it's bloody great. I run Smoothwall linux on it, which is designed to be run on machines acting as a firewall/router.
Do any similar distros do this for IPv6? Is it easy to migrate an IPv4 NAT network like mine to IPv6 (assuming all the clients are IPv6-capable)? Oh, and what do people mean by "/48"?
Have any people successfully set up something like this, maybe using services like freenet6?
When I read this article for myself, my thoughts were "Ah, good. They are making it more apparent that every system can have flaws and weaknesses if not set up and maintained properly", but the article generally came over as making it rather sensationalist that such a thing would be possible on the Oxford network.
I was composing a letter to write in to the editor about similar weaknesses I had found but not ever dared to tell people about (almost entirely cases of not changing the default password), in which I pointed out that it's most likely that tons of networks are insecure in the same way, but people just don't find out that often.
However, I then saw a small article in Oxford's rival student newspaper (The Cherwell), saying that these two students who wrote the article were being investigated by the proctors. I quickly decided not to submit my letter, though on reflection, maybe an anonymous submission might have been worthwhile sending.
I agree with Pat Foster, who said: "I regret the fact that the university's priority seems to be pursuing Roger and myself, rather than addressing the issues we raised."
Odeon might get less of a grilling for us if they had ever actually bothered to do something to make their site work correctly.
Apparently it doesn't even work correctly in MSIE most of the time, and I found the copycat site particularly useful in finding out times of films. I'd normally then book via phone.
A message to Odeon: Fix the site, and maybe then you might have some reason to complain. But so far, since the copycat site: * Allows more people to look up film times. * Makes it easier for people to do the above. * Does not detract potential revenue away from Odeon itself... I can't think what they're smoking.
Probably a bigwig who has no clue of the situation made this decision..
Assuming it's safe to use just because everybody else is doing it is a bad attitude to take.
If a large majority suddenly decided that apostrophes were unnecessary (sometimes I get the feeling that it has already happened), would you jump on the bandwagon?
Is the benefit gained by the decreased work in typing or writing previously apostrophe-containing words worth the ambiguity introduced by missing them out?
You could argue that few enough people use the term "begging the question" in its correct sense, that the introduced ambiguity between that meaning and "leads to the question" is worth the convenience. But the line is difficult to draw.
So I would say: don't introduce ambiguities if you can avoid it.
Same goes for other commonly-used linguistic errors, such as using 'quote' as a noun, and so on.. In fact, with that particular 'quote' example, it's so widely used as a noun that it's even made it into the official dictionaries.
they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.
Theft? People steal the cards now? That's the only physical property you've mentioned that is capable of being removed from them.
Oh, you're supporting their false "theft of property equals infringement" line...
so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie.
I paid to watch the movie, and for that amount of money I paid over, I am 'expected' to just watch the movie and not record it. I'm pretty much under their control, and in their cinema, so they can enforce their (legally-bound) rules. If I don't like it, I don't have to pay for the ticket.
DirecTV subscribers have the right to decode the signal and make copies of broadcasts for viewing purposes, but not to spread around and sell, etc.
Two scenarios to contrast with my previous paragraph "I paid to watch the movie...":
1) I've paid to watch their content, and for that amount of money I've paid over, I'm expected to watch it, possibly timeshift, and not broadcast it myself. I'm not at all under their control, I'm in my house, I'm just obliged to not infringe their legal copyright. If I don't like it, I didn't have to get a subscription.
2) I haven't paid to watch their content, and since I've paid over no money, I'm not expected to watch it, even though they're beaming it right at me. I'm not under their control at all, I'm in my house, and I shouldn't infringe their copyright.
I'd be infringing copyright if I re-broadcast the signal again, but strangely enough, we're not talking about that. Re-broadcasting the signal around outside of your house is illegal and (some would say) ethically wrong.
However, since intercepting the signal that they beam directly into my skull neither diminishes the strength of the signal nor affects the broadcasting end in any way, what I do with the signal, should I choose to intercept it, has no effect on them whatsoever.
I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it, but if I re-broadcast it outside of my house, then I'm infringing copyright. I am generally in favour of copyright, and try as much as possible not to infringe it, but I should have every right to decode that signal they're sending me.
Putting such restrictions on a broadcast signal is a flawed concept. There is no technical means to put any such limitation on it, because logically if there is a way to decode it, and the source signal is always the same, then anybody could do it if they knew the method.
Use common sense for once, seesh!
The corporate solution is to use illogical laws that go against all common sense (yes, that's what common sense is) to create nonsensical artificial barriers that they can use to gain more revenue.
This may pass as a law, making it 'legal', but it's a bad law.
Here's my bottom line: Assuming that a reasonable and sensible set of laws are in place (such as that of making illegal the infringement of copyright by re-broadcasting or re-distributing copyrighted works, perhaps), then if they knowingly send it right to me, I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it.
corps would be less liely to pursue meritless cases...
It would be good, but it wouldn't stop corporations for suing for loads of things that 'should' be legal but are made illegal under bad laws..
"We're going to beam this signal right at your house, whether you like it or not. Whether you intercept the signal doesn't actually affect the signal in any way. But you can't decode it, no, that's theft of service."
And the US (and the EU too if we're unlucky) doesn't exactly have a shortage of bad laws. DMCA, this "Theft of service" shit, PATRIOT act, etc.
I don't know about you, but real DJing often involves a bit of listening to your songs to work out the ideal cue points and rough song structure..
Unless you mean those hired monkeys that play nothing but cheese and get paid to press 'next' on their CD players and, every so often, change to another CD... But I doubt that would be legal, considering the 'broadcast' factor of playing the music to a public crowd.
I'm not quite sure if "stealing" implies removal of the target object (steal a kiss, for example), likewise "taking code" almost certainly includes making a copy (for instance, "take some photos").
The reason is simple: As long as Linux (or Windows) has to support some stupid framebuffer VGA card - the code has to be written to do it on the main CPU.
Well we do have APIs that hardware manufacturers pretty much *have* to implement, namely OpenGL.
Now I don't know near enough to be able to answer this in detail, but is it possible for the X implementation to just use OpenGL, and let GL itself decide whether it's going to have to use software rendering or can do it in hardware?
What kind of level (relative to hardware, X, etc.) would GL have to run on there?
They all run fine if you shut off the extra eye candy, fade/slide effects, transparency, skinning images, etc.
In other words, modern window managers give you the option of leaving all the glitzy CPU-wasting eye and ear candy enabled, or you can have it fast.
Now here's something I've never understood that perhaps can be cleared up for me.
Why the hell aren't these graphically intensive things like transparency, skinning, fade/slight effects being offloaded onto the graphics card?
Graphics cards were *DESIGNED* to do this kind of thing, be it 3d or 2d. New computers have upwards of 128MB of video memory alone these days, now surely that's plenty for your application's screenbuffer needs?
Personally, I use Kahakai as my WM, with a few candy-like gdesklet apps, and I like the speed. But some things are still slow that really shouldn't be, such as moving/resizing a large window.
Anybody ever thought of doing an OpenGL-powered desktop? Or hardware-accelerated SDL desktop for perhaps even a little bit extra platform-independence?
Maybe this is planned for the next X server?
I would *love* to know why this kinda stuff isn't about.
Then many of the binaries in/usr/bin became 'standard' parts of distributions, and we started using/usr/local/bin for user contributed binaries... Now/usr/local is becomming the standard place for 'standard-nonstandard' binaries
You know what they're really for?
*/bin is for binaries that you need to use the system in single user mode (i.e. no 'user' involved). */usr/bin is for binaries that a user might want to use, like those of your average set of applications. */usr/local/bin is for binaries that are local to the machine.
Why the separation? Imagine you run a lab full of computers.. chances are that they'll have the same main applications. Well, you can have/usr mounted via NFS then. Say you have a few graphically-oriented machines in your lab.. Perhaps they would have their graphical applications in their/usr/local/bin, since they only apply to the local machine.
I imagine that many people won't need that degree of separation, but it's there should you need it. If you don't need it and desire simplicity, just mask it with some symlinks.
On the subject of the main article, I could imagine, with perhaps some filesystem tweaks with regards to symlinks, that a filesystem along the lines of GoboLinux's could be very useful indeed. I'm not quite so sure about *replacing* the current hierarchy rather than just *masking* it, but perhaps some two-way strategy can be used...
I mean, if I have some apps in/usr/bin, and some local ones in/usr/local/bin, it would be great if they all transparently appeared in/Applications/$AppName..
Isn't fair to question the character and ethics of individuals that espouse contempt for intellectual property? Isn't fair to question their character, when the core of their business strategy is trust?
Tut tut. Brown can't have been thinking too hard whilst writing this...
I mean, you'd have to be a moron to rip your CDs as WMA files.
I apologise for not being able to tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but a lot of my non technically-inclined friends at my university simply click the "Copy Music" button in WMP and suddenly fill their hard drives with crappy WMA files.
I upgraded my Athlon XP 2000+ to a 2400+ without changing the motherboard (though I did need to update the BIOS - Abit AT7-MAX).
The reason for that though was a bit of a one off: The newer processors (Thoroughbred, Palamino, I don't remember which way round it is) ran significantly cooler than the old ones, so for ~50GBP I got a 2400+ and put it in.. lo and behold, the CPU temperatures now run around 10 degrees C lower. Fantastic.
Re:Interesting new followup on Tanenbaum's page
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
I do not fully understand your question. There is no NAT for IPv6
I was indeed referring to an IPv6 router with no NAT involved, which is what I meant by "live" IP addresses. Sorry about the confusion.
Thank you for the very informative reply.. I'll be looking into this quite soon then!
I would also love a block of live IPv6 addresses for my home. I currently have an old P200 doing NAT for the network, and it's bloody great. I run Smoothwall linux on it, which is designed to be run on machines acting as a firewall/router.
Do any similar distros do this for IPv6?
Is it easy to migrate an IPv4 NAT network like mine to IPv6 (assuming all the clients are IPv6-capable)?
Oh, and what do people mean by "/48"?
Have any people successfully set up something like this, maybe using services like freenet6?
Thanks people.
They aren't even good script kiddies -- they got caught way to easily.
They were 'caught' because the newspaper had their names at the bottom of the article.
Disclaimer: I am an Oxford student.
When I read this article for myself, my thoughts were "Ah, good. They are making it more apparent that every system can have flaws and weaknesses if not set up and maintained properly", but the article generally came over as making it rather sensationalist that such a thing would be possible on the Oxford network.
I was composing a letter to write in to the editor about similar weaknesses I had found but not ever dared to tell people about (almost entirely cases of not changing the default password), in which I pointed out that it's most likely that tons of networks are insecure in the same way, but people just don't find out that often.
However, I then saw a small article in Oxford's rival student newspaper (The Cherwell), saying that these two students who wrote the article were being investigated by the proctors. I quickly decided not to submit my letter, though on reflection, maybe an anonymous submission might have been worthwhile sending.
I agree with Pat Foster, who said: "I regret the fact that the university's priority seems to be pursuing Roger and myself, rather than addressing the issues we raised."
Odeon might get less of a grilling for us if they had ever actually bothered to do something to make their site work correctly.
.. I can't think what they're smoking.
Apparently it doesn't even work correctly in MSIE most of the time, and I found the copycat site particularly useful in finding out times of films. I'd normally then book via phone.
A message to Odeon: Fix the site, and maybe then you might have some reason to complain. But so far, since the copycat site:
* Allows more people to look up film times.
* Makes it easier for people to do the above.
* Does not detract potential revenue away from Odeon itself.
Probably a bigwig who has no clue of the situation made this decision..
Same place they always have: Apple :-).
Assuming it's safe to use just because everybody else is doing it is a bad attitude to take.
If a large majority suddenly decided that apostrophes were unnecessary (sometimes I get the feeling that it has already happened), would you jump on the bandwagon?
Is the benefit gained by the decreased work in typing or writing previously apostrophe-containing words worth the ambiguity introduced by missing them out?
You could argue that few enough people use the term "begging the question" in its correct sense, that the introduced ambiguity between that meaning and "leads to the question" is worth the convenience. But the line is difficult to draw.
So I would say: don't introduce ambiguities if you can avoid it.
Same goes for other commonly-used linguistic errors, such as using 'quote' as a noun, and so on.. In fact, with that particular 'quote' example, it's so widely used as a noun that it's even made it into the official dictionaries.
they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.
Theft? People steal the cards now? That's the only physical property you've mentioned that is capable of being removed from them.
Oh, you're supporting their false "theft of property equals infringement" line...
so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie.
I paid to watch the movie, and for that amount of money I paid over, I am 'expected' to just watch the movie and not record it. I'm pretty much under their control, and in their cinema, so they can enforce their (legally-bound) rules. If I don't like it, I don't have to pay for the ticket.
DirecTV subscribers have the right to decode the signal and make copies of broadcasts for viewing purposes, but not to spread around and sell, etc.
Two scenarios to contrast with my previous paragraph "I paid to watch the movie...":
1) I've paid to watch their content, and for that amount of money I've paid over, I'm expected to watch it, possibly timeshift, and not broadcast it myself. I'm not at all under their control, I'm in my house, I'm just obliged to not infringe their legal copyright. If I don't like it, I didn't have to get a subscription.
2) I haven't paid to watch their content, and since I've paid over no money, I'm not expected to watch it, even though they're beaming it right at me. I'm not under their control at all, I'm in my house, and I shouldn't infringe their copyright.
I'd be infringing copyright if I re-broadcast the signal again, but strangely enough, we're not talking about that. Re-broadcasting the signal around outside of your house is illegal and (some would say) ethically wrong.
However, since intercepting the signal that they beam directly into my skull neither diminishes the strength of the signal nor affects the broadcasting end in any way, what I do with the signal, should I choose to intercept it, has no effect on them whatsoever.
I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it, but if I re-broadcast it outside of my house, then I'm infringing copyright. I am generally in favour of copyright, and try as much as possible not to infringe it, but I should have every right to decode that signal they're sending me.
Putting such restrictions on a broadcast signal is a flawed concept. There is no technical means to put any such limitation on it, because logically if there is a way to decode it, and the source signal is always the same, then anybody could do it if they knew the method.
Use common sense for once, seesh!
The corporate solution is to use illogical laws that go against all common sense (yes, that's what common sense is) to create nonsensical artificial barriers that they can use to gain more revenue.
This may pass as a law, making it 'legal', but it's a bad law.
Here's my bottom line:
Assuming that a reasonable and sensible set of laws are in place (such as that of making illegal the infringement of copyright by re-broadcasting or re-distributing copyrighted works, perhaps), then if they knowingly send it right to me, I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it.
corps would be less liely to pursue meritless cases...
It would be good, but it wouldn't stop corporations for suing for loads of things that 'should' be legal but are made illegal under bad laws..
"We're going to beam this signal right at your house, whether you like it or not. Whether you intercept the signal doesn't actually affect the signal in any way. But you can't decode it, no, that's theft of service."
And the US (and the EU too if we're unlucky) doesn't exactly have a shortage of bad laws. DMCA, this "Theft of service" shit, PATRIOT act, etc.
Of course, if it becomes _the_ method for DJ'ing.
I don't know about you, but real DJing often involves a bit of listening to your songs to work out the ideal cue points and rough song structure..
Unless you mean those hired monkeys that play nothing but cheese and get paid to press 'next' on their CD players and, every so often, change to another CD... But I doubt that would be legal, considering the 'broadcast' factor of playing the music to a public crowd.
I'm not quite sure if "stealing" implies removal of the target object (steal a kiss, for example), likewise "taking code" almost certainly includes making a copy (for instance, "take some photos").
But this is not theft. That is clear.
Bloody mass media.
The reason is simple: As long as Linux (or Windows) has to support some stupid framebuffer VGA card - the code has to be written to do it on the main CPU.
Well we do have APIs that hardware manufacturers pretty much *have* to implement, namely OpenGL.
Now I don't know near enough to be able to answer this in detail, but is it possible for the X implementation to just use OpenGL, and let GL itself decide whether it's going to have to use software rendering or can do it in hardware?
What kind of level (relative to hardware, X, etc.) would GL have to run on there?
They all run fine if you shut off the extra eye candy, fade/slide effects, transparency, skinning images, etc.
In other words, modern window managers give you the option of leaving all the glitzy CPU-wasting eye and ear candy enabled, or you can have it fast.
Now here's something I've never understood that perhaps can be cleared up for me.
Why the hell aren't these graphically intensive things like transparency, skinning, fade/slight effects being offloaded onto the graphics card?
Graphics cards were *DESIGNED* to do this kind of thing, be it 3d or 2d. New computers have upwards of 128MB of video memory alone these days, now surely that's plenty for your application's screenbuffer needs?
Personally, I use Kahakai as my WM, with a few candy-like gdesklet apps, and I like the speed. But some things are still slow that really shouldn't be, such as moving/resizing a large window.
Anybody ever thought of doing an OpenGL-powered desktop? Or hardware-accelerated SDL desktop for perhaps even a little bit extra platform-independence?
Maybe this is planned for the next X server?
I would *love* to know why this kinda stuff isn't about.
premise
Sorry to be offtopic, but who the hell would think of spelling that with a Z? We pronounce that as "prem-miss".
Oh, silly me, I forgot the oxymoron that is proprietary standards too.
"Microsoft has consistently stated there is no interoperability shortcoming beyond natural technological barriers"
Make that, "beyond natural technological barriers, software patents and the DMCA-like laws."
one can only imagine what will happen if the source is public knowledge
I believe they were required to open up there undocumented APIs, not their source.
Ogg is not an acronym. It should not be written in capital letters.
Then many of the binaries in /usr/bin became 'standard' parts of distributions, and we started using /usr/local/bin for user contributed binaries ... Now /usr/local is becomming the standard place for 'standard-nonstandard' binaries
/bin is for binaries that you need to use the system in single user mode (i.e. no 'user' involved). /usr/bin is for binaries that a user might want to use, like those of your average set of applications. /usr/local/bin is for binaries that are local to the machine.
/usr mounted via NFS then. Say you have a few graphically-oriented machines in your lab.. Perhaps they would have their graphical applications in their /usr/local/bin, since they only apply to the local machine.
/usr/bin, and some local ones in /usr/local/bin, it would be great if they all transparently appeared in /Applications/$AppName..
You know what they're really for?
*
*
*
Why the separation? Imagine you run a lab full of computers.. chances are that they'll have the same main applications. Well, you can have
I imagine that many people won't need that degree of separation, but it's there should you need it. If you don't need it and desire simplicity, just mask it with some symlinks.
On the subject of the main article, I could imagine, with perhaps some filesystem tweaks with regards to symlinks, that a filesystem along the lines of GoboLinux's could be very useful indeed. I'm not quite so sure about *replacing* the current hierarchy rather than just *masking* it, but perhaps some two-way strategy can be used...
I mean, if I have some apps in
That would be cool.
Yeah, and don't get me started on this bit:
Isn't fair to question the character and ethics of individuals that espouse contempt for intellectual property? Isn't fair to question their character, when the core of their business strategy is trust?
Tut tut. Brown can't have been thinking too hard whilst writing this...
Yeah, and I don't drink alcoholic beverages. Oh, apart from beer.
I mean, you'd have to be a moron to rip your CDs as WMA files.
I apologise for not being able to tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but a lot of my non technically-inclined friends at my university simply click the "Copy Music" button in WMP and suddenly fill their hard drives with crappy WMA files.
And they're not morons, just not techies.
Who still does this?
I upgraded my Athlon XP 2000+ to a 2400+ without changing the motherboard (though I did need to update the BIOS - Abit AT7-MAX).
The reason for that though was a bit of a one off: The newer processors (Thoroughbred, Palamino, I don't remember which way round it is) ran significantly cooler than the old ones, so for ~50GBP I got a 2400+ and put it in.. lo and behold, the CPU temperatures now run around 10 degrees C lower. Fantastic.
Yup, we remember.
Must we dupe things ourselves when slashdot's editors forget to do so?
nu-jazz - which is a uptempo jazzy take on danceable jazz, with some house elements thrown in
I would love to listen to more of this kind of music.. Do you know of any good independent producers of nu-jazz?