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).
The node was in a datacentre in another country.
He was raided at home based on the address details the police obtained from the datacentre.
Link to Original Source
APNIC have been on their last
That means no more than 1024 IPs per organisation, ever.
So once existing allocations are exhausted, right now, in Europe, Asia, or the Pacific, any new ISP will not be able to have more than 1024 customers online at the same time without NAT. Any new datacentre or VPS provider will not be able to have more than 1024 active services, at all (since NAT would not be an acceptable solution for servers).
"The time you need to move" is now for many people, and it's not going to be long before it's you too.
If you need a
> Personally I think the people asking for addresses to be returned by any organisation (supposedly) not using them (including all the other apparently wasted
Consumer internet IPv6 adoption rates are atrocious across the globe. VPSes and dedicated servers require dedicated IPs, and even shared hosting requires a dedicated IP for SSL if you want anybody running any version of Internet Explorer on Windows XP to not get a certificate warning.
Are people who do business online supposed to claim pensions until enough people can reach their IPv6-only websites?
I blame the FBI for seeking a moronic warrant in the first place.
Don't expect too many details until a patch is out.
A legitimate business was shut down globally for an unknown length of time because one of their customers was doing something wrong. Instead of working with the company to stop it like, oh, I don't know, every other internet business ever, they shot first and asked questions later.
It's the incompetence we've all come to expect from law enforcement that either don't understand or don't care about the consequences of their actions as soon as a computer's involved.
Whilst I agree with you, there's also the (slim) chance that the populace are going to be pissed off enough at disruption of their online entertainment to get upset about it.
Abstract concepts like "freedom" and "civil liberties" and "habeas corpus" are one thing, entertainment is quite another. But as long as most people have their Facebook and their cable or Netflix they'll be happy either way.
Do you really want a blu-ray player, AND an HTPC, AND an Xbox 360, etc. cluttering up your living room
Yes, I do. Why? Because electronics are made cheaply and I like the idea that if one thing dies everything else still works.
Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, XP 64-bit, XP x64, Home Server), 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008), 6.1 (7, Server 2008 R2). If you ignore the marketing names the version numbering is actually pretty reasonable.
It depends. This new interpreter may be better in some specific circumstances but worse in others, making it unsuitable for most people and highly useful for others. That's the sort of situation where you want to keep both the old and the new and everyone's happy.