Your sig says 11 types who can count in binary, and then names only two? Who's the third group? Or did you mean 10 types? Maybe the third type are the people who can count *and* tell jokes in binary?
I'm sure you were modded flaimbait for the way you presented your arguments. You obviously think you are right. Let's look at your reasonable arguments, and ignore the flaimbate ones.
nothing in the NAT standards specicfy that NAT should drop any kind of packets
See RFC 2663 Section 4.1
In a traditional NAT, sessions are uni-directional, outbound from the private network. This is in contrast with Bi-directional NAT, which permits sessions in both inbound and outbound directions.
A uni-directional NAT, by definition, drops inbound initiations and is referred to as the "traditional" style. The bi-directional NAT does not monitor connection states and allows incoming packets to be mapped to internal hosts without needing a previous outbound connection to be established first.
and our internal topology to be hidden.
Security through obscurity?
Not exactly. Security through obscurity is usually used to describe a system that simply relies on the lack of public knowledge for its security. We use firewalls (with NAT) for our security.
Implementing IPv6 does not mean that NAT will go away. We use it for security more than getting a few more ip addresses. NAT *can* be used to share a single ip over multiple machines, but mapping ports and allowing games to work and such is a pain. We use NAT as a 1 to 1 mapping, allowing the internal hosts to be shielded, and our internal topology to be hidden. Also, all the internal equipment (switches, routers, printers) are protected from external access and don't use an external ip. I don't see IPv6 making any difference in the way we do things.
No, no, image maps were part of the web long before MS even knew what the Internet was. Netscape 1.1 and the browsers even earlier could handle image maps
I'm sure you aren't being serious, but for the record neither of those statements is true.
Obviously Microsoft knew about the internet before there were browsers, so their knowledge predates image maps. And Netscape 1.1 didnt support client side image maps, which is what this patent thing is about.
I found an interesting site that lists the tags and history of adoption:
I think the most interesting thing is the following bit of information: "The MAP element was first introduced in the Client Side Image Map proposal (an HTML Working Draft from Spry.)". Perhaps the working draft or Spry has prior art they can demonstrate.
If you look at claim 22 it sounds like they are talking about hypertext in general, but claim 23 narrows that scope to image maps.
Anyone remember who came out with image maps first? It's possible that Microsoft did.
Anyway, everyone is jumping up and down about this tab thing, when the patent is actually for highliting parts of an image map with circles, rectangles, or polygons as the user tabs through a list of hyperlinks.
Here is a thought for everyone. If you were writing an email virus what is the number one way your virus is prevented from spreading? Anti-virus? Doubtful, not enough people use it. Carefully crafted filters? Not many average users setup filters.
I think the major limiting factor in the spreading of email viruses are the sites like spamhaus, etc. These sites act like an immune system for email networks. When an email virus begins spreading the spamcop sites begin denying the virus its ability to spread.
So, taking a lesson from the real world, what is a good virus to do? Target the systems that are slowing its spread. Take out the immune system and your virus will spread faster.
Honestly, I think that people are giving too much credit to spammers and not enough credit to the virii writers simple desire to write better virii.
It's not really such a huge leap. Normally yellow pages sites rely on databases of businesses, and the business addresses are geocoded into a lat/long point that can be mapped. Google is just taking addresses out of webpages and geocoding the page. This means you can search for more than just businesses near you. That is the innovation. Not the map display.
This is one of those things that really gets me going in the morning. So heres a little info that should belong to our dear friend Mr. Allan M. Konrad. konrad@sims.berkeley.edu, which appears to be his berkley address - but he works for the U.S. Department of Energy mainting his lovely "patented invention" for the CEDR program and can be reached there with cedr@lbl.gov.
To send our dear friend christmans cards you can send them to:
Allan M. Konrad
P.O. Box 4023 Berkeley, CA 94704
Or maybe Slashdot can just call him at (510) 486-5458 and do a phone interview. That number is from September of 1999 so he may have left his office and moved into the mansion he's bought with all of his "new found cash" from suing people over his precious "invention".
For the odds of getting into the beta to be 1/1000 there would need to be 100 million applicants. I *seriously* doubt there will be that many sign ups. If your numbers are correct for the previous signup then there were 139,000 people who applied. Assuming twice as many sign up this time there would be 278,000 - which gives everyone about a 1/3 chance of being accepted.
Play with the numbers as much as you like, but no matter how you slice it the chances of there being 100 million applicants is nil.
"Internal priorities" may shift and pull people away from the linux driver support, but considering their development invested so far and their press release boasting how they were going to bring "real" opengl drivers to linux I don't think that Nvidia will just not ship their drivers now. They may never upgrade the drivers, but they'll put some binary only non-glx drivers up someday before August.
You shouldn't believe everything you read on Slashdot. If you did, you might believe Nvidia's linux drivers are a 1GB download.
Nvidia released a GLX driver for XFree-3.3.5, and while it has a few bugs it does work and does support the GeForce. The only references I've been able to find about Nvidia *not* supporting DRI are on Slashdot. If you read the Nvidia site or the DRI developer mailling list you will see that Nvidia said they werent going to improve the 3.3.5 driver until XFree4 and then they would release a DRI driver. The last I read about the DRI driver was that it would be released in the first half of 2000.
The only thing new is the press release from WINHEC. ATI has had the technical docs on their site for several weeks. I'll be more excited when I see some hardware and actualy specs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, its actually May 1 through August *31* so it is 4 months.
Correction. It's an XOR statement.
Except that 6x9 = 54, not 42. But if we are talking about improbabilities becoming reality, then that might just prove it.
Your sig says 11 types who can count in binary, and then names only two? Who's the third group? Or did you mean 10 types? Maybe the third type are the people who can count *and* tell jokes in binary?
See RFC 2663 Section 4.1
A uni-directional NAT, by definition, drops inbound initiations and is referred to as the "traditional" style. The bi-directional NAT does not monitor connection states and allows incoming packets to be mapped to internal hosts without needing a previous outbound connection to be established first.
Not exactly. Security through obscurity is usually used to describe a system that simply relies on the lack of public knowledge for its security. We use firewalls (with NAT) for our security.
Implementing IPv6 does not mean that NAT will go away. We use it for security more than getting a few more ip addresses. NAT *can* be used to share a single ip over multiple machines, but mapping ports and allowing games to work and such is a pain. We use NAT as a 1 to 1 mapping, allowing the internal hosts to be shielded, and our internal topology to be hidden. Also, all the internal equipment (switches, routers, printers) are protected from external access and don't use an external ip. I don't see IPv6 making any difference in the way we do things.
I'm sure you aren't being serious, but for the record neither of those statements is true.
Obviously Microsoft knew about the internet before there were browsers, so their knowledge predates image maps. And Netscape 1.1 didnt support client side image maps, which is what this patent thing is about.
I found an interesting site that lists the tags and history of adoption:
map adoption history
I think the most interesting thing is the following bit of information: "The MAP element was first introduced in the Client Side Image Map proposal (an HTML Working Draft from Spry.)". Perhaps the working draft or Spry has prior art they can demonstrate.
If you look at claim 22 it sounds like they are talking about hypertext in general, but claim 23 narrows that scope to image maps.
Anyone remember who came out with image maps first? It's possible that Microsoft did.
Anyway, everyone is jumping up and down about this tab thing, when the patent is actually for highliting parts of an image map with circles, rectangles, or polygons as the user tabs through a list of hyperlinks.
Here is a thought for everyone. If you were writing an email virus what is the number one way your virus is prevented from spreading? Anti-virus? Doubtful, not enough people use it. Carefully crafted filters? Not many average users setup filters.
I think the major limiting factor in the spreading of email viruses are the sites like spamhaus, etc. These sites act like an immune system for email networks. When an email virus begins spreading the spamcop sites begin denying the virus its ability to spread.
So, taking a lesson from the real world, what is a good virus to do? Target the systems that are slowing its spread. Take out the immune system and your virus will spread faster.
Honestly, I think that people are giving too much credit to spammers and not enough credit to the virii writers simple desire to write better virii.
It's not really such a huge leap. Normally yellow pages sites rely on databases of businesses, and the business addresses are geocoded into a lat/long point that can be mapped. Google is just taking addresses out of webpages and geocoding the page. This means you can search for more than just businesses near you. That is the innovation. Not the map display.
To send our dear friend christmans cards you can send them to:
Or maybe Slashdot can just call him at (510) 486-5458 and do a phone interview. That number is from September of 1999 so he may have left his office and moved into the mansion he's bought with all of his "new found cash" from suing people over his precious "invention".
For the odds of getting into the beta to be 1/1000 there would need to be 100 million applicants. I *seriously* doubt there will be that many sign ups. If your numbers are correct for the previous signup then there were 139,000 people who applied. Assuming twice as many sign up this time there would be 278,000 - which gives everyone about a 1/3 chance of being accepted.
Play with the numbers as much as you like, but no matter how you slice it the chances of there being 100 million applicants is nil.
"Internal priorities" may shift and pull people away from the linux driver support, but considering their development invested so far and their press release boasting how they were going to bring "real" opengl drivers to linux I don't think that Nvidia will just not ship their drivers now. They may never upgrade the drivers, but they'll put some binary only non-glx drivers up someday before August.
You shouldn't believe everything you read on Slashdot. If you did, you might believe Nvidia's linux drivers are a 1GB download.
Nvidia released a GLX driver for XFree-3.3.5, and while it has a few bugs it does work and does support the GeForce. The only references I've been able to find about Nvidia *not* supporting DRI are on Slashdot. If you read the Nvidia site or the DRI developer mailling list you will see that Nvidia said they werent going to improve the 3.3.5 driver until XFree4 and then they would release a DRI driver. The last I read about the DRI driver was that it would be released in the first half of 2000.
The only thing new is the press release from WINHEC. ATI has had the technical docs on their site for several weeks. I'll be more excited when I see some hardware and actualy specs.