On 08.04 14:36, Brielle Bruns wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if someone is 'testing the waters' in China to
see what they can get away with. I hate to be like this, but there's a
reason why I have all of China filtered on my routers.
Beware of prejudice influencing observations and their
It depends. Preventing packet flow from a rather more carefully
selected list of prefixes may actually make sense.
These for example - www.spamhaus.org/drop/
Filtering prefixes that your customers may actually exchange valid
email / traffic with, and that are not 100% bad is not the best way to
:-) ;-) ;-)
And now for the political analysis in our morning programming
broadcasted to North America:
Beware of unintentionally helping the Chinese government to implement
the Great Firewall by blocking packet flow right there in the land of
Free Speech(TM).
The satisfaction of vigorously
Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN
i do not think that statement is defensible
there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights
for no benefit
On 4/8/10 8:02 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
In the cases I'm aware of (which were some time ago), there was (to my
knowledge) no fraud involved.
If you see more recent cases of this occurring, please report them.
Or are you indicating the
On 4/7/10 10:22 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2010/04/msg2.html
(There's also a PDF version with easier to enlarge images at
http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.pdf )
It was a nice read. But it didn't indicate where (source
Or are you indicating the mechanisms I described are in some way
fraudulent?
Potentially, yes.
pfui. the current security level is chartreuse. you will get 15,000
free flier miles for spying on your neighbor.
john, addresses are assets. people will transfer assets. get over it.
two
Excellent questions... The direction with respect to ARIN is that the
Board has spent significant time considering this issue and the
guidance provided to date is that ARIN is to focus on its core mission
of providing allocation and registration services, and be supportive
of other related
1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6
numbering resources,
Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way.
And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that
would replace ARIN.
Using the organization to justify the need
I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN
is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to
fix.
I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the
membership
can come to consensus is broken will be relatively easy
$quoted_author = Joe Greco ;
Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is
circular reasoning.
I would have thought the role ARIN (and the other RIRs) has to play is clear
from it's charter (registration of number resources to ensure uniqueness and
fair allocation of a
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6
numbering resources,
Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way.
And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that
$quoted_author = Joe Greco ;
Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as
working
as intended by much of the community and membership?
That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community
and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6?
On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
john, addresses are assets. ...
Randy - You may believe that IP addresses are assets; feel free to do so.
ARIN's position follows RFC 2008 and RFC 2050 and will continue to do so
until the community directs otherwise. For the legal discussion,
In my experience ARIN/RIR policies have not been a noticeable barrier to
IPv6 adoption.
Lack of IA/security gear tops the list for my clients, with WAN Acceleration
a runner-up.
/TJ
On Apr 9, 2010 7:23 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of
The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review
as a result of fraudulent applications.
no. what was being discussed was transfers. you turned left, asserted
that they were fraudulent, and told people to turn in their neighbors.
randy
The vast majority of people who need address space in North America
are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current
organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards
being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it
for a new system, which
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
The problem, as I've heard it, is that ARIN's fees are steep in order to
pay for various costs. Since there isn't the economy of scale of hundreds
of millions of domain names, and instead you just have ... what? Probably
less than a hundred
[context restored]
If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide
you with anything?
[I replied]
Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN
i do not think that statement is defensible
there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space
would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.
I'd hate
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:29:07PM -0600, Beavis wrote:
Is it possible for you to share that filter list you have for china?
See ipdeny.com for allocations covering about 225 countries. Alternatively,
please see http://www.okean.com/asianspamblocks.html for lists that cover
China and Korea only.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various
directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC.
Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to
ARIN.
Correct (ARIN is the successor
In Europe you rarely encounter courts circumscribing regulatory power.
And it is well known that the District Court is dominated by anti-regulatory
judges.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
Sent: Tue 4/6/2010 7:40 PM
To: Patrick W.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr
thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year
thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. ATT, Comcast,
Time-Warner pay $100.00/yr
One important note for NANOG folks -
The ARIN XXV Public Policy and Members Meeting will be held in
10 days in Toronto. There are policy proposals which may effect
you being discussed. You may participate in discussing these on
the ARIN PPML mailing list or during the meeting via remote
Is it possible for you to share that filter list you have for china?
im getting bogged down by those ssh-bruts as well coming in from
china.
Good ones available here : in several notations (including Cisco ACL) :
http://www.okean.com/antispam/china.html
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is
*always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being
unregulated to regulated, whatever that means.
ARIN is not a
On 4/9/2010 10:10 AM, John Curran wrote:
A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs
pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year,
proportional to the size of aggregate address space held.
I stand corrected. I misunderstood the doc. I could never read.
So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more than
what it inflicts to itself?
How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again?
I'm totally against this practice, but if you (stupidly) want to apply
it, do it for good.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6
numbering resources,
Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way.
And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that
would replace ARIN.
This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space
in
North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current
organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being
happy
with the current system, there is no reason to
On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Martin Barry wrote:
$quoted_author = Joe Greco ;
Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as
working
as intended by much of the community and membership?
That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community
and
John,
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:43 AM, John Curran wrote:
ARIN's position follows RFC 2008
This seems to be contradicted by ARIN's (perfectly reasonable) policies
regarding the assignment of provider independent address space to end users.
As to whether addresses are assets, I suspect we'll have
Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably
talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have
provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6
policies regarding address space?
Reasons:
+ Fear
People
On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably
talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have
provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6
policies regarding address space?
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
showing how CGN
is more expensive would be very helpful.
It depends.
...
That math may or may not make sense for your network..
Right. My question was more along the
Put less tersely:
We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to
guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders,
we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated
with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation,
If you have downstream customers, even if they're just dialups, expect
to assign at least a /60 to each one. Many folks recommend /56 or /48.
ARIN counts a /56 or a /48 per customer, your choice. There is no
point in allocating less.
More to the point, soon the IPv4 address shortage and the
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 4/8/2010 7:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64.
That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys.
According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:
On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is
*always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being
unregulated to
On Apr 10, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
are we all freaking out especially much because this is coming from china
today, and we suppose there must be some kind of geopolitical intent because
china-vs-google's been in the news a lot today?
There's been a fair amount of speculation
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:34 AM, John Curran wrote:
Another bright gentleman many years ago suggested that we have an online
website which allows anyone to pay a fee and get an address block. This
is not inconceivable, but does completely set aside hierarchical routing
which is currently an
Owen,
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with
guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.
I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove
whois
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.
No they are not.
Regards,
-drc
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:
BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will
issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator.
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:
Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns.
Much like ARIN, really.
Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I
don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't
stop, what
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:26 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against
end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given
IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is
obvious, the
On 09 Apr 2010 12:34, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with
guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.
I'm a little confused on the distinction
Unless the ip you takes belongs to the rbn, mafia, or a three letter
government org.
--
--
Brian Raaen
Network Engineer
bra...@zcorum.com
On Friday 09 April 2010, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:
Last I heard, the FCC has access to people
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:
Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns.
Much like ARIN, really.
Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I
don't have
On 09 Apr 2010 12:43, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:
BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will
issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator.
http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize
common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy
files to facilitate the development and manipulation
of network access control filters (ACLs) for various platforms.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 12:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:
The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review as a
result of fraudulent applications.
Actually, no. The question was whether the practice of creating a company to
hold IP addresses then selling that company to
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith
On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to
people with
guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.
The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not
a regulator.
Last I
Regulatory bodies can fine you. Not all regulation comes with guns, hippies. ;)
And .. The FCC does have access to people with guns, as does any US Federal
Agency. Try transmitting illegally on an FM band for a while and see who shows
up. I'd be shocked if people with guns didn't arrive in
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:14 PM
To: John Payne
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
See ipdeny.com for allocations covering about 225 countries. Alternatively,
please see http://www.okean.com/asianspamblocks.html for lists that cover
China and Korea only. The former is furnished in CIDR; the latter in CIDR,
Apache htaccess, Cisco ACL, and Linux iptables.
Are we to believe that filtering .cn will filter all Chinese attacks? I know
that if I was up to no good in China, I'd buy a cheap VSAT connection, tld's
are probably not a good way to identify bad guys.
My two cents..
//warren
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen van Aart
The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review
as a result of fraudulent applications.
no. what was being discussed was transfers. you turned left, asserted
that they were fraudulent, and told people to turn in their neighbors.
If a company can justify a /?? with
Benjamin BILLON wrote:
So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more than
what it inflicts to itself?
And that is wrong why exactly? ;-)
How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again?
It's only port 25, at least here:
On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.
No they are not.
According to https://www.arin.net/fees/overview.html:
The Fee Schedule, is continually reviewed by ARIN's
-Original Message-
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@gci.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:31 PM
To: Jeroen van Aart; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: BGP hijack from 23724 - 4134 China?
Are we to believe that filtering .cn will filter all Chinese attacks? I know
that if I was up to no
So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more
than what it inflicts to itself?
And that is wrong why exactly? ;-)
Nah, I'm not answering that =D
Nice try, though.
How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again?
It's only port 25, at least here:
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, not
Information Service and thus came under the purview of
the FBI and CALEA - directly contravening the language and intent of the CALEA
act?
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network
Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
The FCC has a definition of sorts, in terms of its six principles. Page three
of
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck na...@qualitymail.com wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize
common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy
files to facilitate the development and
BGP Update Report
Interval: 01-Apr-10 -to- 08-Apr-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS629840434 4.5% 15.5 -- ASN-CXA-PH-6298-CBS - Cox
Communications Inc.
2 - AS23724
This report has been generated at Fri Apr 9 21:11:36 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Looking for clue within Charter HSI realm (or people that can give contact
/ forward issues) .. HSI seems to be taboo even within Charter (even $work's
Charter biz/fiber acct mgrs are without clue as to who to call) . .
Off list help is appreciated .. Thanks in advance
-jamie
I was told :
Charter is very decentralized.
This is for endpoints (currently) GMT-5 - Chicago IL and Madison WI.
Thanks again
-jamie
Benjamin Billon wrote:
And that is wrong why exactly? ;-)
Nah, I'm not answering that =D
Nice try, though.
Hah ;-)
This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major Chinese
ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart?
It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking.
This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major Chinese
ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart?
It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can
work for a home server. You could adapt the list and block port 22
only for production servers
On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
not Information Service and thus came under the purview of
the FBI and CALEA - directly
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
not Information Service and thus
-Original Message-
From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:06 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP hijack from 23724 - 4134 China?
On 4/8/10 7:50 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
Please.
Since there's been alot of requests for the ACLs, i've
On 4/9/2010 16:22, joe mcguckin wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
People are defending the FCC?
After looking at who they elect, why does that surprise?
The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
not Information Service and thus came under
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck na...@qualitymail.com wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize
common definitions of networks
Benjamin Billon wrote:
So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more
than what it inflicts to itself?
And that is wrong why exactly? ;-)
Nah, I'm not answering that =D
Nice try, though.
How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again?
It's only port 25, at least
On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote:
+Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be
deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point
network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no
tangible benefit to deploying IPv6
On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it
through the civil courts.
If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency
communications, I expect they might well call the police for
assistance. But those
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
This DID actually bite my company about 3 years ago.
A customer went to China (usually in NYC) and could not send email
through the mail server because they were using POP-before-SMTP instead
of the mail submission port .
The problem did not lie with blocking IPs.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:09:09AM -0700, William Duck wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize
common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy
files to facilitate the development and manipulation
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Jon Meek mee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck na...@qualitymail.com wrote:
http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
Developed internally at Google,
Would someone from Google kindly confirm/deny this claim? I'm as patient
as any other, but I'm beginning to feel for those who have yet (but are
ready to) to trigger the filters...
Thankfully, my 'reasonable' regex knowledge has me ready to list a
heaping pile of filth into the ether, if the
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, George Bonser wrote:
I suppose it is easier and takes less of your resources to get the world
to block you than it is to block the world.
operating a bullet proof spam network, ignoring complaints, is
certainly one way to achieve that.
anyone remember chinanet's lying
On 4/9/2010 15:42, Benjamin Billon wrote:
This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major
Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart?
It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can
work for a home server. You could adapt the list and
some nut i procmail wrote
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to
people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has
no such power.
I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making.
confusion between the army and the fcc, who, even under
On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
some nut i procmail wrote
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to
people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has
no such power.
I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making.
confusion
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:10 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Would someone from Google kindly confirm/deny this claim? I'm as patient
as any other, but I'm beginning to feel for those who have yet (but are
ready to) to trigger the filters...
Thankfully, my 'reasonable' regex knowledge has me
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:
BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will
issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with
guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.
I'm a little confused on the
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100409_oecd_reports_on_state_of_ipv6_deployment_for_policy_makers/
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100409_oecd_reports_on_state_of_ipv6_deployment_for_policy_makers/
karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in
it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/8/44961688.pdf
karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in
it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it.
On of the best parts of her presentation:
Government’s role *is not about regulation*, but about working with
technical experts and business to:
•Role 1:
One really good thing about spam was that,
before it became a big problem,
all Usenet / Internet discussions had a risk of
devolving into libertarians vs. socialists flamewars,
but that got replaced by *%^%* spammers,
and eventually we got that nice little checklist
as a way to quiet even those
You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack...
It took 3/4 of the time for the government to realize they need to ask the
private sector to help them. The first 3/4 were spent to discuss what the
president can do or not do so they can take over the infrastructure and tell
the
You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack...
you mean the failed chertoff/cheney wanna make the news clueless crap?
puhleeze! the fcc has more guns than that mob had clue.
randy
98 matches
Mail list logo
