167 posts • joined Friday 11th January 2008 00:56 GMT
Irrelevant Re: Totally Meaningless Study
"poll showed 78% of Americans believing that the Bible is either the actual or inspired Word of God." Startlingly irrelevant. The climate change argument is about whether the relationship between the Industrial Revolution and the currently observed rate of climate change is coincidence or cause and effect. And the present study claims to show that 97% of relevant scientists think it's cause and effect. What has the god delusion among the general population got to do with it?
You can certainly criticise the study's methodology, but comparing it with the Pew study is a category mistake.
Re: If they rolled out IPv6
Fortunately, IPv6 can help your privacy: RFC4941.
Re: Wow, what an ingenious fix!
It is really worth looking at the legal analysis just released (to coincide with a visit to NZ by no less than Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States):
It repays careful study.
Re: Needs DRM
I agree, but with two provisos:
1. The default must of course be no DRM.
2. The DRM mechanism must allow *individuals* (or small groups) a low-cost low-hassle way to use it. That's because the way to destroy the various evil DRM empires is not to steal content - it's to allow creators to manage the sale of their own creations without needing a big bad bloodsucker to "help" them. That means a DRM system that anybody can use to protect their own stuff.
Re: Nobody is mentioning speccy five eyes
I think you'll find that NZ has been on board with UKUSA since about, oh, 1946,
when NZ was part of the Melbourne Sigint Centre with UK and AU. [Source: UKUSA documents declassified in 2010.]
Re: "...digital copies of books should "deteriorate"..."
Why is it OK? It's plain stupid, but of course it serves the publishers' interests, not the authors', so that's what they would say, innit?
A flat rate price with a fair % added to the author's royalty is simpler and will not give anyone an incentive to hack the bitrot.
They'll be inventing hardback and paperback versions of ebooks next.
Re: He's not totally wrong
"the reputation I've built over the last 35 years protecting the enterprise is still worth something today. Ten years from now, who knows?"
I think the CFO will want you replaced by someone equally concerned about protecting the enterprise, which would include being ultra-cautious about trusting data to a fuzzy, vapourous 3rd party.
If the CFO doesn't want that, sell your shares after retirement, because they will become worthless.
Re: Here's How It Should Have Been Done
Unless I'm more confused than normal, the only way an IP packet with a spoofed source address can arrive is if the spoofer's ISP has not implemented RFC 2827 (ingress filtering), which has been best current practice since May 2000, updated by RFC 3704 in 2004. There is simply no excuse for the apparently large number of ISPs that don't do this; they are completely responsible for allowing this kind of DDOS.
Re: Protectionism or xenophobia?
Shooting oneself in the foot
Re: Protectionism or xenophobia?
Both. Also autopedicution.
Obviously it's intended for April 1. Easy to explain how it reached we oridnary mortals early: not only did CERN announce superluminary neutrinos last year, but another Reg story today says “The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum, which might be testable with the help of new ultra-fast lasers.” So you can work out how many square metres the announcement, sent on 1 April 2013, crossed to get here yesterday.
Re: Am I missing something?
Actually, On Computable Numbers was written and published in 1935, often incorrectly stated as 1936 since the bound volume was 1935/36.
However, it's true that the first operating Turing-complete machine was in Manchester in 1948, but the machine Turing went to Manchester to work on was the second Manchester machine (confusingly called the Mk 1). If only he'd been able to get on with Maurice Wilkes, he could have prospered in Cambridge and probably survived to old age. Sad.
My chance to use the "pedantic" icon.
Re: ISP's, Telco's and moiles say "We're *special*"
I'm not so sure what moiles are when they're at home, but if you actually look at the details, many of these "critical controls" are only relevant to enterprise networks (including government departments and the like). For example, there is a global recommendation of default/deny for protocols and ports without an identified business need. An ISP can hardly do that (nor can any enterprise that wants to encourage innovation, but of course that would never concern government departments, would it?).
So the ISPs, Telcos and moiles probably are special.
I wonder why TBL's co-inventor, Robert Cailliau, is never mentioned. Seems pretty unfair to me.
Re: Mainframes again?
Check the IBM share price vs, say, HP. The z Series has worked out amazingly well ever since the death of the mainframe was proclaimed.
I'll drink Ginni's Kool-Aid. Gerstner rescued IBM because he listened to his technologists; Palmisano listened to them as well, and knew how to execute on a business model, but he did let a few BS merchants into the main tent. I hope Ginni has a first-class BS meter and that she means what she says.
Why even hook these devices up to ANY net?
"I guess my question is why even hook these devices up to ANY net."
It's a valid question for toasters, but for large buildings, building services networks that cover fire and intrusion alarms, door locks, heating, air con, ventilation and other devices are already common. Remote access for building managers outside normal hours is a common requirement, so security and authentication are very essential. Ultimately, I expect all this will trickle down to private homes too. Your house might well tweet you about a flooded basement one day.
More work for Mr Jobsworth
"forcing companies to notify the authorities of any data breaches or significant security incidents."
Right, that will certainly frighten the criminals.
Could somebody explain a reason (apart from magic) why ubiquitous broadband will actually benefit the productive economy? Is downloading more movies good for manufacturing productivity in some mysterious way?
Don't misunderstand me, I will enjoy faster downloads as much as anybody, but I've never understood the economic argument for domestic users. For business users, yes. But why subsidise domestic broadband?
Re: Oh dear
"If ever there was a reason for a referendum it is this!"
I presume you're a Brit, and this typifies the reasons why the UK appears quite capable of shooting itself in both economic feet by leaving the EU on the basis of knee-jerk reactions propagated by the right-wing populist media. You may not have noticed, but the assaults on your privacy and on your right to control your privacy come mainly from companies operating internationally. International regulations are the only realistic way to correct this, and the EU is a good place to start. Or would it be more efficient for each country in Europe to have its own set of regulations? A Europe-wide regulation that everything diminishing your privacy should be opt-in is much more efficient, and you really won't need a compliance officer as a result. You hereby agree with the preceding statements [X].
Re: Subroutines invented
The modern inventor of the subroutine (recursive, to boot) was in fact Alan Turing in the original (1945-6) design of the ACE. The Cambridge crew never acknowledged this. All credit to EDSAC for being the first full scale stored-program machine, though.
Alternativley, the modern inventor was Konrad Zuse in Plankalkül (1943-45), but that version was probably not known to the EDSAC designers.
If at first you don't succeed...
She bears more than watching, but I suppose she has a safe seat so is unlikely to be voted out. The security community will try again and again for increased powers of surveillance and interference; it's their nature, they can't help it, and the people who end up as Home Secretary, Minister for Justice or whatever are the kind of people who fall for this (at least as a form of CYA).
And the MPs think "legislation is needed as long as it is measured and proportionate." Wafflepiffle.
Re: Does this actually matter?
It would have mattered a great deal if the more egregious proposals had been adopted. They didn't have much chance, but only because people defending Internet freedoms were vigilant, and lobbied their governments successfully. Ignoring WCIT would have been disastrous.
The final output, even though the US/UK/etc won't sign it as-is, is not totally disastrous (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf).
Re:"What is so wrong with how it is working now"
"What is so wrong with how it is working now to make the ITU believe they can make it better? And for whom believes that it can better, how will it be made better for them?"
It isn't the ITU, it's the governments.
1. What's wrong is that all those nasty companies and citizens are doing what they want, not what the governments want. ("Troublesome priests", we used to call them.)
2. It can be made better for the governments by giving them complete control.
Re: It's about standards, not censorship
You have entirely missed the point. It's not about standards, it's about control. And it's not about the ITU, it's about governments. The proposals the US will hopefully veto would give *governments* control over naming and addressing, over all Internet operators rather than just telcos, and (a less publicised but equally crucial proposal) over routing policy.
I don't think we want any of that.
"Each of the three Atlas machines". A bit unfair, because three Atlas II machines were also built.
Surely I am not the only...
Surely I am not the only person here who actually used that machine? It rocked, until the day its console caught fire and we had to send our jobs to the Harwell Atlas while they rebuilt it.
For performance numbers see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Computer_%28Manchester%29#Hardware
Well, the analysis is quite interesting - especially "Items where there is divergence between Africa/Arab/RCC versus Asia/Europe." The ITU claims that the disagreement is about the flow of funds only - but innocent little items like "Make certain ITU-T Recommendations binding", "Use of terms such as “shall ensure” versus “should encourage”" and "New provision on transparency of routing" are about control, pure and simple. Let's hope for a median outcome.
Re: ITU transparency is a joke
Just a note, the IETF *does not* do policy development. Fortunately.
Re: It's not the ITU that's trying to control the internet
"The ITU has managed to establish agreements on things like international telephony between countries which are normally unable to agree on anything, so they may be the correct institution to broker any agreements about keeping the Internet together."
I don't think so. The issue is freedom of access and freedom from government intrusion, and those are hardly ITU issues. All the Internet needs to be kept together is the absence of agreement to control it.
Missing the point (several times)
"the internet regulations that have remained unchanged since 1988"
The what? There were no Internet regulations in 1988; the ITU didn't even know the thing existed until about 1995, and didn't take it seriously until after the industry crash in 2000/2002. What they're trying to do is extend the kind of control governments have had over traditional telecommunications like mail coaches and dial telephones to this new Internet thingy. Bad Idea, and good for the European Parliament to say so.
"What's really at issue here is who manages the DNS naming root."
No it isn't. That's chickenfeed. It's who gets to control what people do once they have a domain name. Describing what ICANN does as "governance" is obfuscation of the real intent, which is to govern users (whether content providers or content consumers).
"I am quite convinced that any organisation controlled by the US Government or its corporate masters is entirely unsuitable for managing the internet."
That would be terrible, but there is no such organisation. If you think ICANN is either controlled by the USG, or is managing the Internet, you are sadly misinformed.
I was hopeful for a moment there...
Reading quickly, I thought I saw "The IGF is just a talking shop, but ... at time of writing, it has crashed." That would be lovely.
Re: I'll attempt to explain this
What they are doing appears to have several components, none of which are new ideas by any means:
1. At the wireless layer, they suppress retransmission (ARQ). The reason this helps is that the whole process of retransmission on a spotty wireless link multiplies the average time to send a packet by a factor of several, and makes the round-trip time seen by TCP very jittery, which increases the TCP retransmission timeout considerably.
2. To minimise retransmission at the transport layer, they insert an extra layer (christened layer 2.5) that incorporates forward error correction.
3. There may also be a TCP "performance enhancing proxy" in there too, but that is hard to tell from the press release style material.
So, you've done that for all Cisco and Juniper products, have you? Did you publish the report?
I understand that China and Chinese companies are a bit hard to understand for the pink-fleshed English-speaking nations, but maybe we should make an effort instead of resorting to paranoia and protectionism.
Next logical step
Surely some congressional committee will now find bogus security reasons why Chinese LeNovo equipment should not be purchased by the USA. Or maybe HP's lobbyists are less effective than Cisco's?
No Need for a Conspiracy Theory
It's too blatant to explain by a conspiracy. It's just a matter of finding an argument for protectionism that will work in a country that defends liberal economics - any argument is fine, regardless of the BS ratio (which is about 10:1 in this case).
A most unobvious comment
That makes no sense whatever. It's apparent that Cisco is mad as hell that Huawei is undercutting them and they, along with other US manufacturers, have manufactured this whole piece of drivel. Huawei doesn't obey the Chinese govt more than Cisco etc obey the US govt. All of them provide features for legal intercept because rich countries require it. It's easy to create political paranoia about unknown unknowns and probably cheaper than pursuing patent infringement cases, which is the other technique that's been tried.
Huawei has figured out how capitalism works; good luck to 'em, and it's a shame that the dirty tricks department is being deployed against them.
iirc, it was quite a number of years before Westerners took Japanese or Korean brands seriously. Why would it be different for China? And asserting all sorts of evil properties in a competitor or its products is hardly a new pattern of behaviour by incumbent companies and their tame politicians. It's just a shame that said politicians are incapable of critical thought about what they are being fed by vested interests. (Not that this is news, d'oh.)
Re: What a stupid law!
"What are they going to do about the Wayback Machine? Ask that they not keep a historical archive?"
Not ask. Tell. There's no particular reason the WM should be above the law, is there?
When did the Wayback Machine ever get my permission to copy my copyrighted material, by the way?
Re: Sadly the ISPs are looking at CGN
Most very large ISPs are in that bind, but they also know that CGNs are going to be an operational nightmare for a whole lot of reasons. That's why many of them see switching to an IPv6-only backbone as the cheapest long term solution, with an overlay solution of some kind to support the IPv4 legacy. Patience is needed.
XP isn't the latest, but maybe the best
The problem, Mr TheNog, is that XP is without much doubt the best desk/laptop O/S Microsoft ever produced; Vista was unmentionable, Win 7 can be made to work just about as well as XP by switching off as many "improvements" as possible, and all that has been revealed about Win 8 makes it clear that it needs to be avoided at all costs. So I expect people to stick with XP as long as they possibly can.
Not that it matters if you just want to use Google for what it's good at and ignore all *their* "improvements.
You can see Dedekind's affidavit here: http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/dedekind2.pdf
Like Dedekind, I make no claim to "particular aptitude in advanced statistical theory" but I can read his words. His conclusion is that "methodological errors account for most of the warming trend...". Not for all of it. He agrees that it's getting warmer, despite disagreeing with some details of the methodology. (In round numbers, we're talking about 0.3 degC/century vs 0.8 degC/century, see the 4SS average at the top of page 8 of the affidavit.)
So even if the judge had been willing to let this in, it confirms global warming.
Re: If someone owned a patent for the paper bag...
I'm guessing that it's one of the claims in US8134450 .
"Content provision to subscribers via wireless transmission
Methods and systems that provide content to subscribers via wireless transmission by initiating a page that does not automatically provide associated content. The content provider conserves air time by not automatically transmitting the content. The information content may be of different types, such as voice, text, audio, or even video, and may be dynamic. In addition to the aforementioned, the content provider may provide to subscribers via wireless transmission songs or video clips or updates on weather or stock rates. "
No direct reference to URLs needed - the patent is ludicrously generic and incredibly was filed as recently as 2009 and published this year. Madness
...it would be incredibly stupid
Right. Doing this would set a precedent that would be gleefully used against British embassies in dodgy countries around the world. In any similar case affecting a British mission abroad, can you imagine how Cameron and that bald foreign secretary of his would react? "Squeaky" wouldn't come near to describing it - the Ecuadorians are reacted much more maturely than the Brits would.
Stupid stupid stupid.
IANAL either but it's just common sense.
What they are really after
Top level domain names are a sideshow. It's pretty clear what the totalitarian governments are really after, and they have picked on IPv6 address allocation as a pseudo-technical way to get it: centralised control of Internet routing, which allows centralised eavesdropping and censorship. Do not be fooled by arguments about fairness in address allocation requiring country-based address blocks (under ITU administration). As somebody said on an IETF list this week: "Since the Internet actually works with a topological addressing scheme, the effect is to force the topology to be congruent with the geography. If you want central control, that's a desirable result."
'"I honestly don't know what use cases OAuth 2.0 is trying to solve any more," Hammer says.'
He could always try reading the draft about that:
What is missing from the set of documents (and from the WG charter) is an analysis of why OAuth 1 is unsatisfactory. It's very common for the 2nd generation of a protocol to be much more complex than its predecessor, but it would be nice to know why.
Anyway ,as usual, the IETF will propose, but the market will decide.
That's why it was a megablunder to reveal his private view in public at the NetHui. If he'd kept quiet, it would have left him free to judge the Mr DotCom case as he saw fit. There's a reason most judges keep their mouths shut outside court.
Indeed not, because...
"The ITU, which manages country level telephone dialling codes, would never allow this namespace to be polluted for private profit in the same way."
Indeed not, because their tradition is to allow namespaces to be restricted to guarantee monopoly profits. Much as I deprecate the gTLD expansion that ICANN is launching, there's no reason to expect anything to be *better* if the ITU was in charge. It would just be differently bad.
What we need is a community-driven ICANN2 that manages things for the good of the Internet Commonwealth. That can only happen if both the ITU and the US Govt are out of the picture, and if commercial stakeholders are also excluded from controlling positions.