25 posts • joined Tuesday 23rd November 2010 12:00 GMT
This doesn't seem to make sense
"Other examples of exchanges that might be SYN-sensitive include:
A user establishes a VPN to the corporate network over the home WiFi. In the Multipath TCP world, it's feasible that traffic could also traverse the available mobile network – but it won't be secure."
I can't see how this is feasible. When you're connecting over a VPN, 99% of the time you're connecting to a DESTINATION IP that's private (RFC1918), ie, that destination doesn't route across public internet.
How would that traverse the mobile network? Surely it woudn't, shouldn't the mobile network drop RFC1918 destinations at the edge?
It certainly wouldn't get to it's destination, not without being encapsulated down the VPN tunnel, because the mobile network wouldn't have a clue how to route it to "your" 192.168.10/24 network at head office, as opposed to the one run by IBM, or whoever, in their office.
Re: "Most influential tech-tweet of 2011" title on the tweeter's site
"A retired GP in our local calls his fellow drinkers with PhDs 'real doctors', because they have a doctorate and have carried out original research, which he, as a mere quack, hasn't."
You might find he's being facetious...
Hi Bill, it's not strictly true to say 192.168 addresses are "fake" or "not valid", they are valid ip addresses, it's just they're reserved as private ip ranges, for anyone who wants to use on their private networks. Therefore they're not routable on the internet.
They're private network ranges, rather than public network ranges, and are defined in RFC1918. But in every other sense, they're "valid" and "real" ip addresses. So one company in Texas might use the same private IP range behind their internet routers as another company in Liverpool, eg, 192.168.10.0/24.
The reserved ranges are;
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
You could use routable addresses as your local network range, but it would mean the routable addresses weren't reachable, because your clients would expect that range to be local, not out on the internet (they'd arp for those ips, rather than routing traffic to their local gateway)
Eg, if you used 220.127.116.11/24 as your local network range, you might have trouble getting to some of Google's services, because that range is used for www.google.com (among other things. Although Google also have www.google.com on other ranges too)
Re: I don't understand this
Actually, I'm wrong, looks like Tom's right;
"Only about 100 copies of the four-CD set were produced, with sparse packaging and an insert listing the details of the set’s 86 tracks, all previously unreleased studio outtakes and live recordings from 1962 and 1963. "
From the NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/arts/music/sony-issues-bob-dylan-recordings-to-keep-european-copyright.html?_r=0
Re: I don't understand this
Don't think that is it, no ...
Re: proof that the software is too complex
"Why is Enterprise-level virtualisation seen as something complex? What makes it so complex?
From my naive view, it seems like it could be very straight forward."
Right. Ever done it? Virtualized thousands of servers and made them work, resilient, scale, stress tested them, geographically separated them and had them replicate etc etc etc
You've not, have you. It is complex. Honestly, it really is. Sorry if you don't like that, not many of us do, but that doesn't mean it's any easier because we'd like it to be.
Re: For 4g those speed suck....
Thanks everybody for the feedback saying you get these speeds on 3. Would anyone mind posting their postcode, as previously requested? Curious to know where 3 have rolled this out, since they haven't done in my locality, which surprises me, if it's achievable elsewhere.
Re: For 4g those speed suck....
That sounds unlikely ... even 3's own website doesn't claim you can get 12meg download speeds currently on their network, unless you're on their new "Ultrafast" internet, which they aim to provide to 50% of people by Christmas ....
What postcode did you test this from, and did you perhaps have wifi turned on at the same time?
Re: Woah, hold on there...
""I've personally tested on an HTC One X, and a Samsung S3 in the last few days, it worked on both."
Since it was an exploit with Touchwiz, getting it to work on a HTC is pretty good going!"
That would be because it WASN'T an exploit with Touchwiz .....
That was also kind of my point, that you entirely missed :)
Re: ...network run by you
Good for you. I prefer cheaper monthly mobile bills, piggybacking O2 as a carrier, but you do your own thing, and good luck to you.
"You've never been to France, have you?
Usually you are better of finding an italian or a german, or at least an alsacian, restaurant"
What the fuck are you talking about?
"Has El Reg ever given less than 80% in a phone review?"
Turn Me Up
There's a group called Turn Me Up who campaign for better dynamic range on records. First heard of them on the Elbow album Seldom Seen Kid, which had the logo, and went on to win multiple awards.
Worth a look;
What's your point?
A cinema had a lazy camera operator? Two of them did?
"No, a common mistake. Not illegal, a copyright infringement"
Copyright infringement IS illegal. I think you were going for "not theft", copyright infringement, but the basic fact that you're not paying to watch something that cost someone else money to produce still holds true. If you're fine with that, that's on your conscience. Nonetheless, it is illegal.
A better option
A better option would be an Apple TV2 (hold on, there's more to it) for around £90, then install XBMC on top of it. This now installs and runs in parallel with the Apple software, so you can boot to either.
Boxee was forked from XBMC, the tech playing back upnp streams and local content is the same. Boxee worked on plugins to stream from websites, and the user interface. You can also download both boxee and XBMC (since they're both open source) and try them on an old pc, or vmware, if you want to check out whether it works before shelling out for some hardware.
Currently i've got XBMC running on an old mac mini under the TV, and it's great for what you're describing. Only limitation is the graphics card in the older mac mini won't playback HD content smoothly, but I can live with that for the moment till I get other hardware.
XBMC is still a vibrant developing project, so well worth a look.
Says the Anonymous Coward ...
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad