APNIC have been on their last/8 policy for nearly a year and a half. RIPE have now entered their last/8 policy.
That means no more than 1024 IPs per organisation, ever.
So once existing allocations are exhausted, right now, in Europe, Asia, or the Pacific, any new ISP will not be able to have more than 1024 customers online at the same time without NAT. Any new datacentre or VPS provider will not be able to have more than 1024 active services, at all (since NAT would not be an acceptable solution for servers).
"The time you need to move" is now for many people, and it's not going to be long before it's you too.
If you need a/8 for private addresses, use 10.0.0.0/8. That's what it's bloody there for.
> Personally I think the people asking for addresses to be returned by any organisation (supposedly) not using them (including all the other apparently wasted/8 allocations out there) are not looking long term enough. IPv6 is the way to go.
Consumer internet IPv6 adoption rates are atrocious across the globe. VPSes and dedicated servers require dedicated IPs, and even shared hosting requires a dedicated IP for SSL if you want anybody running any version of Internet Explorer on Windows XP to not get a certificate warning.
Are people who do business online supposed to claim pensions until enough people can reach their IPv6-only websites?
A legitimate business was shut down globally for an unknown length of time because one of their customers was doing something wrong. Instead of working with the company to stop it like, oh, I don't know, every other internet business ever, they shot first and asked questions later.
It's the incompetence we've all come to expect from law enforcement that either don't understand or don't care about the consequences of their actions as soon as a computer's involved.
Whilst I agree with you, there's also the (slim) chance that the populace are going to be pissed off enough at disruption of their online entertainment to get upset about it.
Abstract concepts like "freedom" and "civil liberties" and "habeas corpus" are one thing, entertainment is quite another. But as long as most people have their Facebook and their cable or Netflix they'll be happy either way.
Opera's had email inbuilt since Opera 4 in 2000, and the last major update it got was in Opera 10. I don't understand why the article mentions it like it's some new thing.
Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, XP 64-bit, XP x64, Home Server), 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008), 6.1 (7, Server 2008 R2). If you ignore the marketing names the version numbering is actually pretty reasonable.
It depends. This new interpreter may be better in some specific circumstances but worse in others, making it unsuitable for most people and highly useful for others. That's the sort of situation where you want to keep both the old and the new and everyone's happy.
I don't know what planet you're from, but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment. The format of the article goes:
Introduction Police opinion Westfield uses some words and says nothing Australian Privacy Foundation opinion Contextualisation Professor Maciej Henneberg's opinion
Just because you don't agree with the opinions doesn't make the article biased, it makes those people wrong in your view (and in mine). But you can't deny that their opinions are relevant to the issue - the police, a privacy advocate group and an academic. The only failure on the part of the journalist is the selection of the academic they spoke to, who according to a quick search is in the field of biological anthropology and anatomy.
When an Xbox 360 console is banned, there are offline features that are disabled too - the most significant are playing games from the hard disk, and using the console as a Windows Media Center Extender. Once banned, the console will corrupt the saves on memory cards and hard disks that it comes into contact with so that they can't be used on a non-banned console without re-downloading them from Live.
The truth? Probably not many. Text to speech technology still has quite a way to go before it sounds human enough to not be jarring.
As for books, I'm not sure TTS will be able to express the emotion of a good book in my lifetime. If audiobooks were just about reading the text aloud then nobody except the blind would bother - and the preponderance audiobooks in real bookstores and even on torrent sites suggests to me that far more people than the blind are listening to books.
You mean the way it dumps the key amongst other junk in the output file one in every 256 times it's run with debugging off?
When was the last time you checked the output of an encryption program to make sure it was truly random? What about your boss? The CEO's secretary? The accountant? Someone in a government office dealing with your personal information?
Whilst that agrees with my understanding, here in Australia a telco successfully sued out of existence a company that was selling a database of telephone numbers that they typed in manually from the phone book. If I remember correctly the argument was that there was creative work in the assembly of the list.
The questions are not unlike those that surround Antarctica. It's possible to get as many as four legal systems involved in a potential crime - the countries of the victim and the perpetrator, the country that claims that particular area of Antarctica and the country that owns the particular base. That's quite similar to the ISS, and the type of people we're talking about are kinda similar.
Converting between 10 and 13-digit ISBNs is ridiculously easy. You stick 978 on the beginning and recalculate (or ignore) the checksum digit at the end.
Of course, you could always just look at the barcode on the back - the EAN/UPC/etc. number for a book is exactly the same as its ISBN-13.
Slashdot Mirror
The node was in a datacentre in another country.
He was raided at home based on the address details the police obtained from the datacentre.
APNIC have been on their last /8 policy for nearly a year and a half. RIPE have now entered their last /8 policy.
That means no more than 1024 IPs per organisation, ever.
So once existing allocations are exhausted, right now, in Europe, Asia, or the Pacific, any new ISP will not be able to have more than 1024 customers online at the same time without NAT. Any new datacentre or VPS provider will not be able to have more than 1024 active services, at all (since NAT would not be an acceptable solution for servers).
"The time you need to move" is now for many people, and it's not going to be long before it's you too.
If you need a /8 for private addresses, use 10.0.0.0/8. That's what it's bloody there for.
> Personally I think the people asking for addresses to be returned by any organisation (supposedly) not using them (including all the other apparently wasted /8 allocations out there) are not looking long term enough. IPv6 is the way to go.
Consumer internet IPv6 adoption rates are atrocious across the globe. VPSes and dedicated servers require dedicated IPs, and even shared hosting requires a dedicated IP for SSL if you want anybody running any version of Internet Explorer on Windows XP to not get a certificate warning.
Are people who do business online supposed to claim pensions until enough people can reach their IPv6-only websites?
I blame the FBI for seeking a moronic warrant in the first place.
Don't expect too many details until a patch is out.
A legitimate business was shut down globally for an unknown length of time because one of their customers was doing something wrong. Instead of working with the company to stop it like, oh, I don't know, every other internet business ever, they shot first and asked questions later.
It's the incompetence we've all come to expect from law enforcement that either don't understand or don't care about the consequences of their actions as soon as a computer's involved.
Whilst I agree with you, there's also the (slim) chance that the populace are going to be pissed off enough at disruption of their online entertainment to get upset about it.
Abstract concepts like "freedom" and "civil liberties" and "habeas corpus" are one thing, entertainment is quite another. But as long as most people have their Facebook and their cable or Netflix they'll be happy either way.
TFA says quite clearly that it's the default.
Much like the hawks at Wimbledon that chase away the pigeons, the hard part is overriding the instinct to eat it once they've found it.
Opera's had email inbuilt since Opera 4 in 2000, and the last major update it got was in Opera 10. I don't understand why the article mentions it like it's some new thing.
Yes, I do. Why? Because electronics are made cheaply and I like the idea that if one thing dies everything else still works.
Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, XP 64-bit, XP x64, Home Server), 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008), 6.1 (7, Server 2008 R2). If you ignore the marketing names the version numbering is actually pretty reasonable.
It depends. This new interpreter may be better in some specific circumstances but worse in others, making it unsuitable for most people and highly useful for others. That's the sort of situation where you want to keep both the old and the new and everyone's happy.
I don't know what planet you're from, but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment. The format of the article goes:
Introduction
Police opinion
Westfield uses some words and says nothing
Australian Privacy Foundation opinion
Contextualisation
Professor Maciej Henneberg's opinion
Just because you don't agree with the opinions doesn't make the article biased, it makes those people wrong in your view (and in mine). But you can't deny that their opinions are relevant to the issue - the police, a privacy advocate group and an academic. The only failure on the part of the journalist is the selection of the academic they spoke to, who according to a quick search is in the field of biological anthropology and anatomy.
When an Xbox 360 console is banned, there are offline features that are disabled too - the most significant are playing games from the hard disk, and using the console as a Windows Media Center Extender. Once banned, the console will corrupt the saves on memory cards and hard disks that it comes into contact with so that they can't be used on a non-banned console without re-downloading them from Live.
My heart goes out to Nintendo in these difficult times of record profits.
The truth? Probably not many. Text to speech technology still has quite a way to go before it sounds human enough to not be jarring.
As for books, I'm not sure TTS will be able to express the emotion of a good book in my lifetime. If audiobooks were just about reading the text aloud then nobody except the blind would bother - and the preponderance audiobooks in real bookstores and even on torrent sites suggests to me that far more people than the blind are listening to books.
You mean the way it dumps the key amongst other junk in the output file one in every 256 times it's run with debugging off?
When was the last time you checked the output of an encryption program to make sure it was truly random? What about your boss? The CEO's secretary? The accountant? Someone in a government office dealing with your personal information?
Oh yeah, I think I've used that web interface.
Whilst that agrees with my understanding, here in Australia a telco successfully sued out of existence a company that was selling a database of telephone numbers that they typed in manually from the phone book. If I remember correctly the argument was that there was creative work in the assembly of the list.
If it's grunty enough to handle H.264, why the hell would it have any problem with Flash?
About 3.5 septillion very small turtles, stacked on top of each other.
It's important to also note that Facebook itself does this kind of screen scraping.
The questions are not unlike those that surround Antarctica. It's possible to get as many as four legal systems involved in a potential crime - the countries of the victim and the perpetrator, the country that claims that particular area of Antarctica and the country that owns the particular base. That's quite similar to the ISS, and the type of people we're talking about are kinda similar.
Converting between 10 and 13-digit ISBNs is ridiculously easy. You stick 978 on the beginning and recalculate (or ignore) the checksum digit at the end.
Of course, you could always just look at the barcode on the back - the EAN/UPC/etc. number for a book is exactly the same as its ISBN-13.