I hear this all the time and nobody ever bothers to provide a citation to these "big players". Which "big players"? Verizon? AT&T? Comcast? Time Warner? Which large ISP in the United States is already using NAT?
And in so doing break any application that needs to receive incoming connections. It would also make it pretty tough for law enforcement to track down individual users on the internet -- unless my ISP is also going to get into the business of logging every single packet I send.
It might be a whole lot cheaper for China to buy the blocks than implementing iPv6, even at an exorbitant, over-the-barrel rates HP might be able to get.
Who says China can buy them from HP? Wouldn't HP have received the allocation from ARIN? Maybe they could sell them to another North American firm though.
Heck, they already firewall everybody -- why not just break IPs up into NATted subnets? The 10.x.x.x range should give them enough room for awhile, right?
Hmm.... 16,777,216 IP addresses divided by 1,300,000,000 citizens.....
Macs may be the best Windows PC but all installing Windows does is install crapware. After buying and using Windows PCs for more than 10 years I finally got too aggravated with them and bought the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on last year.
So you replaced one proprietary system with vendor lock-in with another?
I feel like a Fox mind in a PBS world, but I agree with you to a large extent.
Well, FWIW that signature line of mine refers more to the tabloid nature of cable news (personified by Fox News, IMHO) than it does to any real or perceived partisan divide. I'm sick of the manufactured outrage that passes for "debate" on cable news -- especially on Fox News and MSNBC. PBS isn't perfect by any means but they do make an honest effort most of the time.
I would trust some Presidents with line item power, but not most of them.
That's the problem. For every George Washington you are going to get two Fidel Castro's.... that's why our system is setup (in theory) so that one person can't do much damage.
Unfortunately we cannot seem to elect congressmen and Senators that act in a responsible manner.
I blame that on the people who line up at the trough for "economic development" but bemoan the "pork" in the other 434 districts. I think that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and help out states with situations they can't manage/afford (natural disasters come to mind) but outside of that I'd much rather see the Feds butt the hell out and stop using the Federal Government as a wealth redistribution system between the States.
If the democrats did not want to be in Iraq, we wouldn't be, Congress certainly has the power to stop it, they have made a choice not to.
I don't know if you've noticed or not but the Republicans have the votes they need to prevent any legislation that they dislike from passing the Senate. Given that fact, how do you suggest that the Democrats end the war in Iraq? The only option they have is to refuse to pass a funding bill -- they can't pass one with conditions because the Republicans will filibuster it and/or GWB will veto it.
If they cut off all funding they sign their political death warrants and we wind up back at square one when the Republicans take over all three branches. This would seem to me to be the reality on the ground. Do you disagree?
People need to stop being so god damn ignorant and thinking the president is so important. Congress is FAR more important than the president, but everyone ignores that and focuses on the president since its 'one guy'.
Correction: Congress is supposed to be far more important but in our modern day World it's POTUS who has the bully pulpit and POTUS who can appeal to the masses of the mob. Our Republican system has been corrupted by a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and stupid idiots that have no idea how our system works and whom think we are a "Democracy"
They can only veto laws, and Congress can over ride that.
The problem with that is that members of Congress take their party affiliations more seriously than they do their responsibilities as a independent branch of Government. I'm pretty sure that George Washington warned us about this.....
Congress is where you should be concerned with change
Unfortunately my district is so gerrymandered that short of having sex with underage Congressional pages my rep is sure to be re-elected. I suspect that your district is probably the same. This is something that needs to be changed on a state level but once again we'll see that political parties corrupt the process -- the Democrats and Republicans compete with each other to see who can draw the best gerrymander.
but don't worry, I know you're ( the general public, not you specifically) too lazy to put any effort into understanding how our goverment works to actually accomplish change
FWIW I do understand how our system is supposed to work. I think it's a pretty good system that has been corrupted by partisan influences. How do we go about fixing that? I'm skeptical of people that think third-parties are the answer -- why won't they get corrupted and greedy?
You aren't thinking strategically. No matter what you do - neither Nader nor Barr will be elected this time. Not next time either. By the time their parties are actually viable, there will be entirely new people on their tickets. Thus disliking Nader's and Barr's personal ideologies should not be an impediment for voting for them because at this stage in the game what you are really voting for is the concept of more parties.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I can't say that I completely agree but I do appreciate the logic of your position.
FWIW I think you could take a combination approach. Support third-parties on the local and state level (it's easier to build them that way anyways) and vote for whomever you think will do the least damage on the Federal level. Get some Green/Libertarian/etc candidates elected on a local and state level and you'll have the networks that you need to win national elections.
A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for the 2-party system, a vote for the greens or the libertarians is a vote for more parties.
I'd rather see a no party system like George Washington envisioned but the number of people who are selfless enough to serve in such a system can probably be counted on one hand.....
Shakrai, my friend, I am afraid that you may be setting yourself up for a difficult realization one of these days.
Hahahahaha, true enough:) Well said!
Ooh, I'd forgotten about Ice Road Truckers
Yeah, I didn't mean to bash it either -- it's a pretty good show. I just don't get the connection to history and I don't like the fact that the shows that do cater to history (did you see the series about the Enterprise during WW2?) have become a CGI-fest.
Turn on any TV channel less high-brow than The History Channel (and maybe even that one; I don't watch it because I'm not that high-brow)
Should have said PBS... History isn't that high-brow;) They used to be, but nowadays what passes for 'History' are CGI images of warships/aircraft and "Ice Road Truckers".
You will see at least one advertisement for lawyers who want you to get rich from asbestos exposure ("even second hand!") or to get you that social security disability check that "you know you deserve". This probably accounts for 90% of the average person's contact with the legal community. Can you really blame them for thinking poorly of the profession?
Well, I would hope that people would be smart enough to realize that the dirtbags advertising on TV aren't representative of the whole profession. Would you judge all newspapers by the standards of the New York Post?
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error"
Umm, that's what's supposed to happen in our system. It's not limited to rich kids either -- criminals of from every social class get off all the time because the police or DA screwed up. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Or would you rather convict someone based on evidence that wasn't probably handled or that was collected without a warrant?
I don't think your point is as strong as you think it is. The justice department couldn't opperate if there was no funding for the prosecutors or agents. They wouldn't ignore laws passed by congress if congress removed everyone who does so from their position.
All of that sounds really good in theory. Now let's review the reality on the ground. The Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate + 2 independents who caucus with them. It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. It takes 67 to override a Presidential veto.
What can the Democrats do any differently than they are doing now? I suppose they could just stop funding everything and let the Government grind to a halt -- and when they lost the election for doing so (it didn't work out real well for the GOP when they tried it) we'd be right back to square one.
I'm pissed at Pelosi and Reid too but it's real easy to throw stones from outside the building. Could you or I be doing any better given the limitations that they are operating under? Hell, Pelosi couldn't even keep her own party on board for the FISA vote...
However, if you do not change your mind when presented with strong evidence against your position, you are not 'principled', you are a 'moron'. Changing your mind when presented with strong evidence opposing your view is a good reason to change your mind.
I agree. But you left out the third option: He's just embracing regulation to get elected and intends to implement the same policies that he's supported all his life once elected. I take him more seriously if he had replaced his team of economic advisor's (all of whom came from the same regulation-is-bad background as he did) when he changed his mind.
First, I'm no fan of McCain and I also do not like politicians that changes their mind with public opinion, it stinks of populism and shows a weak character.
McCain did exactly that he called for the gas tax repeal back in the day.....
The point is that corporations can't donate a penny to a political campaign. Their employees can but so what? Most of us are employees of someone -- does that mean all of my contributions to Obama came from "big IT"?
Yes, your "choice" here is which set of liberties you want them to go shit over. I really don't see how the third-parties are any better here though. Nader and McKinney will gut the 2nd amendment. Barr is talking a good game but he has a history of trying to repress religious freedom (Google 'bob barr wicca') so I don't believe a word he says either. I'm inclined to believe that Obama wants more gun regulation but not inclined to think that he's willing to spend his precious political capital to get it.... so he seems to be the best of the five choices that we have (from my vantage point, anyway).
So there's are differences, but damned if we'll know what the important ones are at election time:(
Well, going by his own history I'd say it's much more likely that McCain will continue the polices of GWB than Obama will..... if you think those policies have been a disaster the choice should be pretty clear.
Are you kidding, gun ownership is very high among geeks so a might makes right world wouldn't be so bad today for us.
I realize you are probably joking but even with gun ownership I don't think I'd want to live in a lawless society. Read up on sniper alley during the Bosnian War.....
Oh and personally I would have little to worry about even without a pistol, 6'3" 220 relatively lean pounds
You'd have something to worry about if the other guy had a pistol and you didn't;)
I disagree... the media will always push some "significant" issue; last election was terrorism, this election is the economy... it's always something bad, the sky is always falling.
Who gives a fuck what the media is pushing? Why
I'm voting for who I want to vote for
And who would that be? Because I've looked at the third party candidates and I wasn't particularly impressed. Bob Barr is talking a good game right now but I remember him from his witch-burning days. McKinney seems to have a chip on her shoulder. Nader is too far to the left for me and strikes me as being way too naive to have his finger on the button.
The only real powers the President has is the veto and Commander in Chief of the armed forces
And the powers to make trade agreements. And the powers to sign agreements with foregin Governments that don't need to be ratified by the Senate. And the power to make war without Congressional approval. And control over the Justice Department. Do I need to go on?
Congress and the Senate can check him/her every step of the way.
If they have the votes. You realize that the Republicans can stop any bill they want in the Senate, right?
Bush has granted himself quite a few powers but that is more due to the complacency and acquiescence of the House, Senate, and Judicial system
Not surprising, seeing as how his party controlled all three of those things for the first six years of his administration and still retains the ability to lock-up legislation in the Senate.
Eh, I just don't see a line-item veto as anything more than a power grab by the Executive. Have the balls to veto the whole bill if the riders are that bad.
If you really want to fix this problem then I'd suggest starting with gerrymandering and not the line-item veto. If Congressional races were actually competitive maybe our Congress-critters would be more responsive to the citizenry.
George Bush fixed him, though. He'll never vote Republican again, has a "Teamsters for Obama" sign in his window now. He's retired, of course, since he's in his 80's, but he's still a union man. He's also man enough to admit that he got "suckered" by Reagan/Newt/Bush.
I must have met about twenty different people like your Dad when I was out on the campaign trail back in March (went to Ohio and worked with the Obama campaign). Gives me some hope that people are finally starting to wake up.
Slashdot Mirror
First, big players already NAT.
I hear this all the time and nobody ever bothers to provide a citation to these "big players". Which "big players"? Verizon? AT&T? Comcast? Time Warner? Which large ISP in the United States is already using NAT?
This behavior is by design. The standard terms for residential service plans already restrict "running a server"
Do they also restrict me from playing games with my friends? Most games require the host to be able to accept incoming connections.
How about DCC chats on IRC? Are those also prohibited?
What about file transfers on IM clients?
I could keep going but I think you get the point......
An ISP can NAT big chunks of its user network
And in so doing break any application that needs to receive incoming connections. It would also make it pretty tough for law enforcement to track down individual users on the internet -- unless my ISP is also going to get into the business of logging every single packet I send.
It might be a whole lot cheaper for China to buy the blocks than implementing iPv6, even at an exorbitant, over-the-barrel rates HP might be able to get.
Who says China can buy them from HP? Wouldn't HP have received the allocation from ARIN? Maybe they could sell them to another North American firm though.
Heck, they already firewall everybody -- why not just break IPs up into NATted subnets? The 10.x.x.x range should give them enough room for awhile, right?
Hmm.... 16,777,216 IP addresses divided by 1,300,000,000 citizens.....
Plus it would have the unpleasant side effect of actually firewalling China (i.e. no incoming connections)
Shit, we can't have that.... bittorrent works a lot better when it can accept incoming connections ;)
Macs may be the best Windows PC but all installing Windows does is install crapware. After buying and using Windows PCs for more than 10 years I finally got too aggravated with them and bought the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on last year.
So you replaced one proprietary system with vendor lock-in with another?
I feel like a Fox mind in a PBS world, but I agree with you to a large extent.
Well, FWIW that signature line of mine refers more to the tabloid nature of cable news (personified by Fox News, IMHO) than it does to any real or perceived partisan divide. I'm sick of the manufactured outrage that passes for "debate" on cable news -- especially on Fox News and MSNBC. PBS isn't perfect by any means but they do make an honest effort most of the time.
I would trust some Presidents with line item power, but not most of them.
That's the problem. For every George Washington you are going to get two Fidel Castro's.... that's why our system is setup (in theory) so that one person can't do much damage.
Unfortunately we cannot seem to elect congressmen and Senators that act in a responsible manner.
I blame that on the people who line up at the trough for "economic development" but bemoan the "pork" in the other 434 districts. I think that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and help out states with situations they can't manage/afford (natural disasters come to mind) but outside of that I'd much rather see the Feds butt the hell out and stop using the Federal Government as a wealth redistribution system between the States.
If the democrats did not want to be in Iraq, we wouldn't be, Congress certainly has the power to stop it, they have made a choice not to.
I don't know if you've noticed or not but the Republicans have the votes they need to prevent any legislation that they dislike from passing the Senate. Given that fact, how do you suggest that the Democrats end the war in Iraq? The only option they have is to refuse to pass a funding bill -- they can't pass one with conditions because the Republicans will filibuster it and/or GWB will veto it.
If they cut off all funding they sign their political death warrants and we wind up back at square one when the Republicans take over all three branches. This would seem to me to be the reality on the ground. Do you disagree?
People need to stop being so god damn ignorant and thinking the president is so important. Congress is FAR more important than the president, but everyone ignores that and focuses on the president since its 'one guy'.
Correction: Congress is supposed to be far more important but in our modern day World it's POTUS who has the bully pulpit and POTUS who can appeal to the masses of the mob. Our Republican system has been corrupted by a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and stupid idiots that have no idea how our system works and whom think we are a "Democracy"
They can only veto laws, and Congress can over ride that.
The problem with that is that members of Congress take their party affiliations more seriously than they do their responsibilities as a independent branch of Government. I'm pretty sure that George Washington warned us about this.....
Congress is where you should be concerned with change
Unfortunately my district is so gerrymandered that short of having sex with underage Congressional pages my rep is sure to be re-elected. I suspect that your district is probably the same. This is something that needs to be changed on a state level but once again we'll see that political parties corrupt the process -- the Democrats and Republicans compete with each other to see who can draw the best gerrymander.
but don't worry, I know you're ( the general public, not you specifically) too lazy to put any effort into understanding how our goverment works to actually accomplish change
FWIW I do understand how our system is supposed to work. I think it's a pretty good system that has been corrupted by partisan influences. How do we go about fixing that? I'm skeptical of people that think third-parties are the answer -- why won't they get corrupted and greedy?
You aren't thinking strategically. No matter what you do - neither Nader nor Barr will be elected this time. Not next time either. By the time their parties are actually viable, there will be entirely new people on their tickets. Thus disliking Nader's and Barr's personal ideologies should not be an impediment for voting for them because at this stage in the game what you are really voting for is the concept of more parties.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I can't say that I completely agree but I do appreciate the logic of your position.
FWIW I think you could take a combination approach. Support third-parties on the local and state level (it's easier to build them that way anyways) and vote for whomever you think will do the least damage on the Federal level. Get some Green/Libertarian/etc candidates elected on a local and state level and you'll have the networks that you need to win national elections.
A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for the 2-party system, a vote for the greens or the libertarians is a vote for more parties.
I'd rather see a no party system like George Washington envisioned but the number of people who are selfless enough to serve in such a system can probably be counted on one hand.....
Shakrai, my friend, I am afraid that you may be setting yourself up for a difficult realization one of these days.
Hahahahaha, true enough :) Well said!
Ooh, I'd forgotten about Ice Road Truckers
Yeah, I didn't mean to bash it either -- it's a pretty good show. I just don't get the connection to history and I don't like the fact that the shows that do cater to history (did you see the series about the Enterprise during WW2?) have become a CGI-fest.
Turn on any TV channel less high-brow than The History Channel (and maybe even that one; I don't watch it because I'm not that high-brow)
Should have said PBS... History isn't that high-brow ;) They used to be, but nowadays what passes for 'History' are CGI images of warships/aircraft and "Ice Road Truckers".
You will see at least one advertisement for lawyers who want you to get rich from asbestos exposure ("even second hand!") or to get you that social security disability check that "you know you deserve". This probably accounts for 90% of the average person's contact with the legal community. Can you really blame them for thinking poorly of the profession?
Well, I would hope that people would be smart enough to realize that the dirtbags advertising on TV aren't representative of the whole profession. Would you judge all newspapers by the standards of the New York Post?
That's why rich child killers run free because of "procedural error"
Umm, that's what's supposed to happen in our system. It's not limited to rich kids either -- criminals of from every social class get off all the time because the police or DA screwed up. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Or would you rather convict someone based on evidence that wasn't probably handled or that was collected without a warrant?
And what has he said as a U.S. Senator?
Well, two years ago he came out in favor of a permanent assault weapons ban.
I don't think your point is as strong as you think it is. The justice department couldn't opperate if there was no funding for the prosecutors or agents. They wouldn't ignore laws passed by congress if congress removed everyone who does so from their position.
All of that sounds really good in theory. Now let's review the reality on the ground. The Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate + 2 independents who caucus with them. It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. It takes 67 to override a Presidential veto.
What can the Democrats do any differently than they are doing now? I suppose they could just stop funding everything and let the Government grind to a halt -- and when they lost the election for doing so (it didn't work out real well for the GOP when they tried it) we'd be right back to square one.
I'm pissed at Pelosi and Reid too but it's real easy to throw stones from outside the building. Could you or I be doing any better given the limitations that they are operating under? Hell, Pelosi couldn't even keep her own party on board for the FISA vote...
Based on what, exactly?
His record and background as a big city politician? His repeated statements that cities need a way to regulate guns?
However, if you do not change your mind when presented with strong evidence against your position, you are not 'principled', you are a 'moron'. Changing your mind when presented with strong evidence opposing your view is a good reason to change your mind.
I agree. But you left out the third option: He's just embracing regulation to get elected and intends to implement the same policies that he's supported all his life once elected. I take him more seriously if he had replaced his team of economic advisor's (all of whom came from the same regulation-is-bad background as he did) when he changed his mind.
First, I'm no fan of McCain and I also do not like politicians that changes their mind with public opinion, it stinks of populism and shows a weak character.
McCain did exactly that he called for the gas tax repeal back in the day.....
The point is that corporations can't donate a penny to a political campaign. Their employees can but so what? Most of us are employees of someone -- does that mean all of my contributions to Obama came from "big IT"?
They'll go shit all over our liberties.
Yes, your "choice" here is which set of liberties you want them to go shit over. I really don't see how the third-parties are any better here though. Nader and McKinney will gut the 2nd amendment. Barr is talking a good game but he has a history of trying to repress religious freedom (Google 'bob barr wicca') so I don't believe a word he says either. I'm inclined to believe that Obama wants more gun regulation but not inclined to think that he's willing to spend his precious political capital to get it.... so he seems to be the best of the five choices that we have (from my vantage point, anyway).
So there's are differences, but damned if we'll know what the important ones are at election time :(
Well, going by his own history I'd say it's much more likely that McCain will continue the polices of GWB than Obama will..... if you think those policies have been a disaster the choice should be pretty clear.
Are you kidding, gun ownership is very high among geeks so a might makes right world wouldn't be so bad today for us.
I realize you are probably joking but even with gun ownership I don't think I'd want to live in a lawless society. Read up on sniper alley during the Bosnian War.....
Oh and personally I would have little to worry about even without a pistol, 6'3" 220 relatively lean pounds
You'd have something to worry about if the other guy had a pistol and you didn't ;)
I disagree... the media will always push some "significant" issue; last election was terrorism, this election is the economy... it's always something bad, the sky is always falling.
Who gives a fuck what the media is pushing? Why
I'm voting for who I want to vote for
And who would that be? Because I've looked at the third party candidates and I wasn't particularly impressed. Bob Barr is talking a good game right now but I remember him from his witch-burning days. McKinney seems to have a chip on her shoulder. Nader is too far to the left for me and strikes me as being way too naive to have his finger on the button.
Or are they really the moneygrabbing bastards they are made out to be?
The only real powers the President has is the veto and Commander in Chief of the armed forces
And the powers to make trade agreements. And the powers to sign agreements with foregin Governments that don't need to be ratified by the Senate. And the power to make war without Congressional approval. And control over the Justice Department. Do I need to go on?
Congress and the Senate can check him/her every step of the way.
If they have the votes. You realize that the Republicans can stop any bill they want in the Senate, right?
Bush has granted himself quite a few powers but that is more due to the complacency and acquiescence of the House, Senate, and Judicial system
Not surprising, seeing as how his party controlled all three of those things for the first six years of his administration and still retains the ability to lock-up legislation in the Senate.
Eh, I just don't see a line-item veto as anything more than a power grab by the Executive. Have the balls to veto the whole bill if the riders are that bad.
If you really want to fix this problem then I'd suggest starting with gerrymandering and not the line-item veto. If Congressional races were actually competitive maybe our Congress-critters would be more responsive to the citizenry.
George Bush fixed him, though. He'll never vote Republican again, has a "Teamsters for Obama" sign in his window now. He's retired, of course, since he's in his 80's, but he's still a union man. He's also man enough to admit that he got "suckered" by Reagan/Newt/Bush.
I must have met about twenty different people like your Dad when I was out on the campaign trail back in March (went to Ohio and worked with the Obama campaign). Gives me some hope that people are finally starting to wake up.