At that point you don't need the reliabilitiy and retransmission features of TCP. Once you stack the layers up, TCP will take care of that anyway, without running it over TCP again. Think IP: unreliable datagrams; you put TCP on it and presto: reliable, ordered, everything. Run a VPN, and you do it over UDP, and end up with something like IP -> UDP -> TCP, and then TCP again does its thing, without a care in the world about the layers below. Same principles apply with this new things too. If your underlying layers are flaky, you can't make them less flaky by adding more TCP to your cake. In effect, you make them even more flaky as each TCP layer tries to do its own retransmission and floods your line.

Replying to myself because I just got the brilliant idea to see if BT aren't actually hijacking DNS itself, making me look like an idiot. Well... they succeeded:

Promobay.org works once I add its IP to /etc/hosts.

Why are BT hijacking the DNS for promobay.org? I have no idea, but a judge might be interested.

I can't believe I haven't read this one yet:

BT gives me "Error - site blocked" for both TPB and PromoBay.org which means they've hijacked the IP address itself. What I will have to see next is if anyone goes and tell the court that BT is doing more blocking than they've been ordered. They've been ordered to block TBP, but not anything else that may be hosted at the same IP address.

My conclusion: TPB is playing one of their games. Popcorn may be recommended for this one if the ball gets rolling.

I created a new profile in the profile manager of Firefox and wrote a tiny script that I called '~/bin/privatefox' with this command in it:

Bug fixed :)

I've switched away from Chrome since Chrome started adding my incognito cookie and javascript exceptions to the persistent list. Everything else Chrome did to tick me off was tolerable, but the leaking of incognito exceptions... GTFO

I imagine the OCR is overkill, but this invention could really make printed braille useful, and turn the fail I just linked to into a win (if you ignore the braille typo). I imagine the recognition would be a lot easier to do (to the likes of QR codes), and it would be really easy to retrofit to existing signs.

I was about to uphold my point by pasting this from the GPL:

emphasys mine,

but then I scrolled down:

emphasis mine here as well.

So I guess you're right. Thanks for making me look it up and update my knowledge.

This bit just isn't true. You get a full rainbow of licences to abide by: GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, just to name a few. Just no EULA, and no "fear the BSA" religious indoctrination, which is probably what you mean by the excerpt.

My guess is that she picked up an iPad, she liked it, but thought it was a Surface (a staffer is laughing on the floor in a closet right now), and tweeted that crap (directly, or via intern/secretary), and she'll go like "WTF is this shit?" when she receives her real Surface order later on. Don't attribute to malice (or shilling) what can be explained by stupidity or somesuch, right? It could have been more than speculation if she specified that she tweeted from her Surface, so I wouldn't have to write this at all.

So wait... let me get this straight... broken MD5 is not acceptable because it's... well... broken, but clear text is OK? I guess no one cracked clear text yet...

And lest I say something stupid, I went to Wikipedia to figure out who uses MD5 as a block cipher and came up empty. MD5 doesn't appear to be a block cipher in any usage, but something that you attach to data (either plain or encrypted) to verify integrity/identity. NIST seems to still like 3DES for block encryption just fine. NIST also like SHA and things. If DHS says NIST is pants, well... Are you sure those limitations aren't just for the purposes of your teaching, lest students leave with state secrets on their mobile phones?

There are so many ways I can't wrap my head around your post, it makes my head spin, so I'll stop. All I can safely do is ask: did I pass your class? :)

A while back, LoveFilm UK moved away from Flash to Silverlight citing DRM reasons. Apparently Flash DRM isn't good enough, while Silverlight DRM is. They also claimed that it was the studios that required the Silverlight DRM, so blame Hollywood.

Not if you're a journalist you're not. Parent has a point: if the journalists exceed the limit, have their credentials revoked and start attending as private citizens instead, what's the UW to do about it? Ban communication devices and have them "detained" at a TSA-like security checkpoint at the entrance? Install a Faraday cage around the avenue and hinder the radio and TV stations too? Jam GSM/UMTS/CDMA specifically and hope they don't leak any jamming signal outside and get in trouble with the FCC?

Sorry if this is totally off, but aren't patents supposed to prevent the manufacturing and distribution and/or selling of the patented items, and have nothing to do with the usage? That means this statement is at least misleading, if not down right lying: “When the government grants you the right to a patent, they grant you the right to exclude others from using it.”

To clarify: If I use SSL on my website, I don't think this patent applies to me. I didn't make SSL, and I'm not providing SSL for download. Go sue the OpenSSL guys, or sue Debian, Red Hat and Canonical for distributing your patented thingy, and hope the EFF doesn't chime in.

The big guys who settled are making and selling products that ship SSL within. Except Exxon Mobil - I have no idea what they could sell me with SSL in it, and appear to have settled just because the inconvenience of a lawsuit wasn't worth it. If he isn't asking for crazy amounts, the big guys may not even twitch and just pay up. As in "hey, I see your patent, it doesn't look like it could hold in court, but... you're asking for peanuts, so here you go, please go away". Because in that case the lawyers would cost a lot more just to throw the case out of court, and this guy's company doesn't have any assets that can be reposessed to cover the costs.

Conclusion: he's not going to sue anyone small, and he'll stop when all the big cows have been milked - unless he meets the wrong kind of cow before then.

That's a very interesting point there about overtime. Why would the 13th hour not be classed as overtime? The person is working one hour longer than they would otherwise. Cost of doing business during the night that falls between a Saturday and a Sunday when the clocks go back. And when the clocks go forward, the shift is 11 hours, and that's it. You don't pay the worker for 12 hours. Don't like it this way? Set schedules based on Standard Time, so workers have to come in an hour "earlier" or "later", depending one which way the clocks go.

I wonder what the regulators would have to say about this.