Probable the best thing about Free software projects are as a learning tool.

Join a project, learn the code base, submit patches, get experience.

Don't try learning to code from the code you write yourself.

-paul

YOU would not put up with it.

But others would if it were cheeper.

So the Internet will just be divided into the 0.01% of users
who have real IP address, and the 99.99% average Joe.

-paul

A business process, like pure math, and like pure software is not patentable in many jurisdictions. What is being described here is a BUSINESS PROCESS, and lacks key patentability criteria under current patent law.

Whoever came up with this patent doesn't understand IP.

It probably won't get approved.

It certainly won't get approved world-wide.

The first and foremost image comparison should be the Lenna image.

No Lenna, no approval.

Lenna forever. Long live Lenna. I am lossless without thee.

Lenna, you make my pixels huffman.

Lenna you transform my fft.

----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna

Basically, this is what is going to happen:

Some ISP somewhere with a /20 is going to project that in 6 months time they will be out of IPs,
and it's going to be too expensive to buy another /20.

So they are going to buy some Cisco-hardware-NAT-appliance and say to their customers: "look here,
you are all on NAT from now on, if you want a real IP you pay extra."

This NAT box will NAT a /20 to a /24 of temp addresses+ports. It will be plug-n-play and
easier than setting up IPv6.

99.9% of customers won't read the announcement and won't notice. They are all NATing through
their DSL modems anyway, and this Cisco equipment will have hacks for all those special
apps that need it to work behind double NATing.

And no one will ever think of switching to IPv6

-paul

or you could just added an extra 32-bits as a TCP or IP header-option

if you interleave the bits, you can keep all the routing configuration

-paul

> The only thing that *fails* is when [...]

thats quite a lot of things failing.

> similar to using an NAT router

no, there are 100 million people connected to the internet using ADSL and all *their* stuff works fine

why, because NAT is a solved problem with lot's of workarounds

ergo: IPv6 is just NAT all over again

we might as well solve the IPv4 address-space problem with huge /8 NAT'd networks.

good luck to the 0.0000001% of the Internet that has "successfully" switch to IPv6 after 20 years of IPv6 promotion.

-paul

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

-paul

"Treated" by who?

You have to file a charge in order for there to be a crime.

The guy needs to contact the public prosecutor to get him to take up the case and get a court order in the correct jurisdiction.

It's only because he doesn't understand the legal process that he can't get his info.

-paul

You are not reading the article.

How can a judge issue a court order outside of his jurisdiction?

-paul

The company is perfectly right. The judge only refused because the guy asked the wrong judge. This is explained in the article.

The company also is being entirely cooperative and "would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case".

Through a civil case he would be able to get a court order. I don't even think he would need a lawyer for this.

This law is in line with good civil rights: it's the same law that prevents Google from disclosing info about your searches.

http://www.quackometer.net/

gives it a zero cannard rating. This means her site is not quack.

I've already complained to the quackometer.net admin about this.

-paul

So the truth finally comes out: now one gives a flying fluck.

Not even surprising enough to warrant a sarcastic choke on the next sip of my coffee.

-paul