Yeah, technically portions of the network traffic being reproduced on network interfaces between every node in the route would be derived from the copyrighted material. However, if something as trivial as that were considered copyright infringement then anyone who owns any network infrastructure would be guilty of infringing upon everyone else's copyrights. Technically, any electronic device that does anything with copyrighted material has to make copies of some form of it within it's circuitry to function.

I'm not a lawyer and my understanding of copyright law is pretty slim, but I'd imagine there are plenty of persuable instances of copyright infringement that occur all of the time. I frequently see TVs displaying copyrighted content, and hear people playing or singing copyrighted songs, outside of their homes. In the majority of these instances, I would bet that the person responsible is not actually licensed for that public performance by the copyright holder.

Both would be copyright infringement. I don't know who said it wouldn't be. It doesn't even have to be an exact duplicate to be copyright infringement. The GP was simply pointing out that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is when the item is removed from its original owner's possession.

Here's a couple side by side examples:

If you walk into a shop, grab a DVD, and sneak it out without paying for it, then you have committed theft. You have stolen the item from the shop.

If someone goes into the shop and purchases that DVD, creates an ISO of it on their home computer, and sends it to you over the internet, then you have committed copyright infringement. You have infringed upon the rights of whoever holds the copyright over it. They are in control of how copies of the item are allowed to be produced, and you disobeyed them.

Why? The hardware cost would be higher, the power consumption would be dramatically higher, it would generate much more noise, and it would require more space. Either way, I'd still be adding a second IP to the external interface and configuring static NAT via a shell.

Generally, people who have multiple public IPs also have someone on staff who configures their equipment for them. That kind of a configuration is also relatively trivial. On the other hand, improving DD-WRT's GUI for QoS/traffic shaping would probably benefit more users. That's something, which is quite a bit more complicated to do from a shell, that could benefit many less-knowledgeable users who use their connection for VoIP and online gaming.

Where did you hear that? From what I read, it just sounds like they sell two models with support for DD-WRT, and have a third coming out in July. No mention of retroactively providing support older devices that have been reflashed by the consumer to run firmware which it was not designed to officially support.

It might not hurt to try giving Buffalo a call, but don't assume that you're entitled to the same level of support as someone using one of their devices intended to run that firmware. The hardware is different, and was designed to meet different requirements, even if the firmware is still compatible with the cheaper hardware. Don't give them motivation to break that compatibility on their low-end devices in the future.

Didn't TEN require a paid account at $20/mo to play AD&D: DSO? Although, that restriction was client side... heh

How much was NWN?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Those numbers seem to be from a study done in 1999 by an evangelical Christian research organization (Barna Research Group). I doubt any part of the study was intended to paint atheists/agnostics in a favorable light. They do not host it on their website, however they really did get those numbers.

How does that compare to the number of people who had money stolen by someone who obtained their online banking credentials? Or people whose credit card information was stolen and used? Or even people who had debt built up in their name after their identity was stolen?

These are more common than the crime you described. Does that mean we should outlaw online banking, online shopping, or storing personal information on personal computers? That would be much more effective at preventing these common online crimes, as well as many less common scenarios like you described.

Sometimes April Fools jokes are posted early.

Near the bottom:

From the paragraph immediately below the chart:

Cracker? Communist?