Uh, the article said "lead," not "tetraethyllead" [sic].
Guess what? That lead came from the earth - humans dug it up. It's not like alchemy is real.
Are sub-sea geothermal vents spewing lead in some form? Are there exposed veins of lead on the ocean floor? Is it from fishing weights or ballasts of sunken ships?
If you can't answer all those questions and other similar, your comment is less than worthless.
There will always be malfeasance when there's value involved on a large scale. The dollar didn't crash because of Bernie Madoff (or Charles Ponzi, or Lincoln Savings and Loan), did it?
If your passwords are in your wallet, and your wallet is missing, how do you change your passwords? Not everything with a password will email you a new random one.
And, you still need to have a list of all the accounts which have passwords somewhere, so you know what needs to be changed.
If Cogent is using Verizon for transit, yes, they should pay for that. If the peering is strictly to deliver content to Verizon's customers, that bandwidth is already being paid for by Verizon's customers.
The only time a payment for straight peering makes any economic sense is if the smaller ISP doesn't generate (either in or out) enough traffic to justify the equipment and maintenance costs of the interconnect. (Anti-competitive reasons are another thing). In the case of Cogent(Netflix)/Verizon, the existing interconnect is obviously saturated, so there's no reasonable excuse for not improving it. Verizon's customers are clearly paying for it, as measured by the amount of traffic they're trying to pull through it. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with transit.
Customers PAY for those connections. Verizon's customers are paying to receive traffic from the Internet. Whether that's slashdot or Netflix doesn't matter, it behooves Verizon to deliver the service their customers are PAYING for.
I guess I wasn't clear on what the GP was describing? I've used cable modems which give out a single, public IP to the connected device with DHCP. It's really a bridge, not a router. I suppose some ISPs hand out devices which have private IP space behind them and provide a NAT gateway. But why would you put another NAT router behind one of those? If you simply want to add wireless, you'd simply ignore the wireless router's (I really hate calling those simple NAT gateways "routers") WAN port, turn off DHCP on it, and use it as an AP.
"any application you install on your computer can secretly open a upnp connection through your firewall to your computer without you being aware of this"
How is that any different than a non-uPnP application opening a (HTTP/S, SSH, telnet, whatever) connection to a botnet command-and-control?
Some devices may indeed be behind carrier NAT and be assigned RFC 1918 addresses. But that's more likely for mobile connections, and very unlikely for home DSL/cable ones - it would break all sorts of things because you have no control over inbound NAT.
Also, you most certainly meant "192.168...". 196.168.x.x are public IP addresses. If a carrier were to use private IP space, they'd be much more likely to use 10. addresses.
That process was tried. The result of her failure to respond to the legal process ultimately resulted in a warrant being issued, which she also ignored. That's why she's in trouble.
Or maybe you're arguing from the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist, and the video store owner should have hired thugs to physically drag her to court.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, the article said "lead," not "tetraethyllead" [sic].
Guess what? That lead came from the earth - humans dug it up. It's not like alchemy is real.
Are sub-sea geothermal vents spewing lead in some form? Are there exposed veins of lead on the ocean floor? Is it from fishing weights or ballasts of sunken ships?
If you can't answer all those questions and other similar, your comment is less than worthless.
"The work also fingers a possible culprit"
Anthropomorphic Global Warming?
(not a troll, just a funny, vote me down if you will)
Scarecrow, but with a UAV/drone.
Yes, but now they determined that with only 11 years of study first, they could launch a rescue mission in 15 days. Now there's a bureaucracy.
There will always be malfeasance when there's value involved on a large scale. The dollar didn't crash because of Bernie Madoff (or Charles Ponzi, or Lincoln Savings and Loan), did it?
If your passwords are in your wallet, and your wallet is missing, how do you change your passwords? Not everything with a password will email you a new random one.
And, you still need to have a list of all the accounts which have passwords somewhere, so you know what needs to be changed.
If Cogent is using Verizon for transit, yes, they should pay for that. If the peering is strictly to deliver content to Verizon's customers, that bandwidth is already being paid for by Verizon's customers.
The only time a payment for straight peering makes any economic sense is if the smaller ISP doesn't generate (either in or out) enough traffic to justify the equipment and maintenance costs of the interconnect. (Anti-competitive reasons are another thing). In the case of Cogent(Netflix)/Verizon, the existing interconnect is obviously saturated, so there's no reasonable excuse for not improving it. Verizon's customers are clearly paying for it, as measured by the amount of traffic they're trying to pull through it. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with transit.
Customers PAY for those connections. Verizon's customers are paying to receive traffic from the Internet. Whether that's slashdot or Netflix doesn't matter, it behooves Verizon to deliver the service their customers are PAYING for.
Why should Verizon expect to have an even in/out ratio? They sell the vast majority of their customers asymmetrical connections.
...and is sold in the back of comic books for 5 boxtops plus $3.95 shipping and handling.
Yeah. They should call them Bezos Bucks.
I think they meant "cryptic," not "crypto." You and the GP are right, this is more proprietary gift card/scrip than anything else.
I guess I wasn't clear on what the GP was describing? I've used cable modems which give out a single, public IP to the connected device with DHCP. It's really a bridge, not a router. I suppose some ISPs hand out devices which have private IP space behind them and provide a NAT gateway. But why would you put another NAT router behind one of those? If you simply want to add wireless, you'd simply ignore the wireless router's (I really hate calling those simple NAT gateways "routers") WAN port, turn off DHCP on it, and use it as an AP.
"By default, routers should ship with automatic firmware updates enabled"
Let us know how that works out.
"any application you install on your computer can secretly open a upnp connection through your firewall to your computer without you being aware of this"
How is that any different than a non-uPnP application opening a (HTTP/S, SSH, telnet, whatever) connection to a botnet command-and-control?
Just buy it pre-installed. Buffalo offers that on some models (DD-WRT).
Some devices may indeed be behind carrier NAT and be assigned RFC 1918 addresses. But that's more likely for mobile connections, and very unlikely for home DSL/cable ones - it would break all sorts of things because you have no control over inbound NAT.
Also, you most certainly meant "192.168...". 196.168.x.x are public IP addresses. If a carrier were to use private IP space, they'd be much more likely to use 10. addresses.
"Mayo is usually made with eggs and vinegar."
Well, yea, but it's at least 65% oil.
Bluewater screen of literal death? It's General Protection's fault.
Creepy and rude nerds are their target market. How's that going to work?
So, where can the changelog be found which documents that the latest firmware has addressed all the noted issues?
Huh? Rock star is the owner. Duh.
It's some rock stars who want to be able to tape the orgies for their own viewing, but don't want pictures of themselves showing up on the Internet.
...because in 2006, Samsung clearly copied the design of Apple's 2010 iPad. Maybe Apple should buy them just for their time travel technology.
That process was tried. The result of her failure to respond to the legal process ultimately resulted in a warrant being issued, which she also ignored. That's why she's in trouble.
Or maybe you're arguing from the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist, and the video store owner should have hired thugs to physically drag her to court.