15 posts • joined 25 Jul 2011
XKCD was first
Judging from both the "Last-Modified:" header of the XKCD image and the Wayback Machine it seems Engadget borrowed it from Randall, not the other way around. Which may have been your point, but I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page. :-)
XKCD uses a CC BY-NC license so Engadget should have mentioned from where they borrowed the image.
Apart from spelling Geoff's surname wrong there are a few misunderstandings in the article.
RFC 6824 takes NAT into account and has a whole chapter (6) dedicated to middlebox interactions. Of course a sufficiently stupid middlebox can break anything, but MPTCP will then just fall back to regular TCP with a small delay. Keep in mind that each subflow is (almost) a regular TCP session for everyone but the two end hosts. One can probably assume that they tested this on at least the most common middleboxes out there.
The primary use case for Apple is probably resilience and not more bandwidth, i.e. being able to switch seamlessly between two otherwise unrelated connections and only being minimally affected when one disappears.
The chicken-and-egg part isn't much of a problem. We're talking OS level stuff so the application developer doesn't have to decide. And since everything is backwards compatible you can implement it little by little. Compare it to TLS for SMTP.
Regarding VPNs and security, MPTCP also takes this into account. A new subflow cannot send data before the other end has been verified as the original partner. Trying to create the subflows will leak information about the other end's address(es) but VPN software could prohibit this like any other NAC feature.
Re: I don't see this as an advantage @Tim 14:28
Limited and unsophisticated language? A good programmer can write FORTRAN in any language.
Re: SPARC, not Sparc ! (@AC 14:03)
Well it so happens that I'm seriously retarded, so much that I just simply don't know where to look that up. Can you please provide some pointer? I hear you saying that using a name that is not a trademark ("Sparc" or "sparc") when referring to something trademarked ("SPARC") is a trademark violation? So calling the Sparc a "CPU" is wrong too? (Yeah, the lack of capitalization is entirely not on purpose, I just stopped thinking.)
Re: SPARC, not Sparc !
Well, IANAL but I fail to see how El Reg's use can be considered trademark violations. They're clearly referring to the party that holds the SPARC® trademark. I would've thought observing trademarks just means that you cannot use the mark to refer to something else. I didn't think trademark law forced everybody to always spell everything correctly.
As noted by the lab, 500 Terawatts is more than 1,000 times as much power as is consumed in the United States at any instant
Except at the moment they fired it, right? It's placed inside US borders.
Re: Death from the skies
Yeah. Isn't the typical bullet less than 10g? They're not made from balsa wood of course. :-)
Things working on GNU/Linux
"Only the other day someone said 3G dongles didn't work - they do". Yeah, I hear that a lot too. I almost started believing it, since never using Windows means I don't know what people place as a baseline for "easy".
On what I use (Fedora 14, CentOS 6.2 Desktop) you just plug in the device and tell NetworkManager what country + provider you're using, and then it works. Tried with three different dongles, all were this easy. As is conneting via Bluetooth to my phone and using its 3G connection.
It was actually hard-ish when I was still insisting on using things like wvdial and other shell based things. But it certainly hasn't been hard the past few years.
And then I found how how "easy" it _really_ was on a Windows. Wow. Just wow. Even colleagues of mine working with Windows can't make it work right. Weren't "drivers" a last century thing?
Yeah, Father Gabriele is right. The devil's been walking those corridors for the last millennium and a half, m-kay.
According to Wikipedia the escape velocity from LEO is ~10.9 Km/s, so wouldn't must of the manned moon missions* have acheived velocities at least in that range?
*) I know they were faked of course.
You didn't even say Candlejack... That's supposed to
Yeah, don't buy Juniper. And make sure that every network that you would traverse to reach any place you want also would not buy Juniper. And then hope that this only ever happens to Juniper. :-)
Not only that, he apparently couldn't even get this attempt at a Vigenere-ish solution right, even though it's hard not to get right as you point out. According to doranchak's comment in the top of the stack (or bottom, depending of preference) the shifts mentioned on his notes would not yield the result he proposes.
It's fun reading the comments!
I agree with sabba; if El Reg had themselves pointed us to all the people proving Starlicker blatantly wrong it would only be half as funny. That would still rather funny of course.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…