Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
This in addition to truthfully answering lawyers' questions should cover your ass plenty sufficiently.
I want to be able to mod my PS3 or anything else I own for whatever reason I want - whether that's to put Linux on it or do something more unique with it as part of a research project or just for fun. The fact that this can be used for copyright infringement/piracy is secondary. It is the act of pirating the material that should be illegal and enforced, not any of the technological means that allow it to happen. (similar examples: outlawing VCRs instead of the sale/exchange of copyrighted material, outlawing torrent programs instead of the action of sharing copyrighted material, outlawing guns instead of crimes committed with guns, outlawing cars instead of hitting people with cars, etc etc.)
As such, I donated a nontrivial amount to Geohot's "give me donations to help my legal defense" plea a month or two ago. I want the ability to do whatever I damn well please with the hardware that I've purchased.
Aside: I think it's amusing that Sony requested Geohot's paypal transaction records to try and help prove parts of their case. I wonder if they'll be discriminating between "people who paid Geohot for modding-related things" and "people who donated for his defense." Clearly this should be easy based on the amounts there, but I almost wish I knew how much he was accepting for modding jobs before I donated, so that I could have donated that amount N times to approximate the amount I ended up donating, just with the hope that Sony would confuse defense donations for payment for modding jobs/chips/whatever and cock up their case against him even more.
It was actually because they had capacity issues and have temporarily reduced the number of channels available so as to not knock the whole service offline again.
(full disclosure: I used to work for TWC)
I wasn't trying to get into the details of how those mechanisms work, I understand them fine and wasn't commenting on the difference in mechanisms between IPv4 and IPv6, or commenting on the difference between IPv4 fragmentation or TCP segmentation.
Regardless, it sounds like we are in violent agreement on bigger picture
From a content provider's point of view, this should make it desirable to deliver content over IPv6 since it is not NATed, etc. Hopefully more content providers become aware of this because it'll be the case with any end systems which use NAT64+DNS64 or DSLite in which case the IPv4 may not have a full 1500B MTU to the end user, etc etc.
Especially as we get closer to being out of v4 addresses I suspect v6-only hosts will be appearing and these factors will (should) start to play more of a role in the decisions that content providers are making with respect to how they prioritize deploying IPv6 to their networks and services.
The article overall does a decent job of explaining the causes of this initial IPv6 brokenness, but I'm not crazy about how TFA and summary need to exclaim about 1M Internet users in order to draw attention.