Movistar in Argentina uses 10.x.x.x network addressing on Mobile phones last time I checked.

Close your eyes and repeat "Please do not repeat Star Wars prequels , please do not repeat Star Wars prequels". Let me rescue something from those years!

> A computer will be much better at facts. So it's mostly a question of grammar. And the hardest problem is likely figuring out wordplay, which occasionally comes up in jeopardy.

But, will it be funnier than Sean Connery?. Hope it can make more word-games as "The pen is mightier"

mo cuishle lost already, but this looks like good news for similar cases, hope that there's a solution fast enough,

> It was 6 days dude. On the seventh he rested.

Which is interesting... would he had done it in 6 days if the seventh he couldn't rest? or he would have take longer to have energy for the next engagement, or did he just procrastinated in the next one? Does he need to rest at all? Is that a weakness?

Deep questions, for sure.

They are just building up a business model for bike insurance

> Even HP, Apple, and IBM are standing on shaky ground; they're international corporations whose primary business is at least somewhat internet related, but they still don't need 16 million addresses in one space

Well, IBM and I suspect HP (don't know about Apple) have an Intranet that goes all over the world. Each thing on the network needs a valid IP address on that network (is not like they NAT an entire country/division), every printer, every phone, every wifi cell phone (so you have IM, VoIP and email), every router, every server, every laptop, every desktop. I work on one of these international networks, and one of the limitations on some of them is that sometimes you just don't get your ip address because they ran out, you better wake up early. We are about 10.000 employees just in the city I work in).

> Believe me, NAT was a workaround to a limitation and we shouldn't be using this workaround at any more levels than necessary.

I don't want to believe, otherwise I'd go to a church. :) . Now, if I'm the IT guy in any organization that cares about security, I'd not want an external organization to pick on the habits of each of my internal users and their IPv6 addresses given how they contact an external site, enabling it to provide content based on who's sitting a specific address/system of an internal network (for good or evil). I want NAT.

> And why would you need nat for that? Inbound scans can be blocked by the firewall on the router. Outbound traffic sniffing needs to approximate anyways either by looking at the IP's in use or how fast the ports change in NAT (PAT really). NAT has never been anything but security through obscurity over a standard firewall.

Because being sure that your internal network can not be addressed from the internet as it uses private IP numbers is a way to add security by making sure that if you make a mistake in the border, at least there's no way to address your internal network directly. The people that implement this see this NAT as a feature. If you don't need to use it, please don't.

> Can we at least all agree that NAT is evil, and destroys one of the nicest features of TCP/IP (and a free Internet): it creates a network of peers? No. some people with internal networks to "protect" see NAT at the border as a feature to implement a "choke point" and be sure that the internal network can not be routed over the internet. Now having each node in your internal network "routeable" from the internet will make for interesting things to happen if you make a mistake in the border.

> How about the ability to finally solve the NAT problem I'm sure a bank that has a good number of systems at his offices will be delighted to hear that now they are fully available worldwide. The "NAT at the border" is more of a feature than a bug to many of this type of organizations.

> Is Nokia's Symbian devices every actually used outside of Europe/Asia?

Yes. I live in South America, and work in Argentina. I travel to the US at least once a year. I own a E71. My wife a E51. It supports my companies VPN, email, even putty, and instant messaging. Battery (on the E71 at least) is very good. I even run Garmin XT so I don't need a standalone GPS most of the time.

At least three of my buddies in the company own E71's as well. So yes, they are actually used :) How about market share? Wouldn't know....

Or lets quote her:

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! Thursday, June 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT

Here you go, munchkins. Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. Novell is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.

CASE CLOSED!

Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights for anything but SCOsource. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.

Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."

"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.

And now it is -- finally -- time, once again, for my red dress! And a huge thank you to Michael Jacobs and the team at Morrison & Foerster, who never gave up but, more importantly, showed that you can fight hard and win with ethics and dignity, and to Sterling Brennan of Workman|Nydegger, who was frankly absolutely wonderful at trial. And thank you to you, Groklaw volunteers, because we made a difference in this world.