- UANOG - uanog.one

бродячий коммивояжер
by Volodymyr Litovka 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

привет е сть населенные пункты есть дороги между ними а есть какая-нибудь бесплатная тулза, чтобы на ней можно было считать расстояние, которое проходит коммивояжер по определенному маршруту? спасибо -- /doka

8 8

Интересный прогноз с год назад
by Paul Arakelyan 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yg1rXMSjFk залито, если ютуб не врет - 22 февраля 2014. Но сбылось дофига - и кучи беженцев, и падение жизненного уровня. Не сбылось - Крым не остался в Украине. Хотя та ещё параноййя. Ну а тут вскользь наобещали гражданскую войну у нас https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5nGGsAf1AI -- Best regards, Paul Arakelyan.

2 1

iphone SSH/VPN tunnel - посоветуйте что-нить ?
by Paul Arakelyan 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Тут клиенту надо пробросить tcp с софта в телефоне (iphone 5s, хотя может уже и 6) - ну есть пара вариантов - строить VPN (какой?) или просто прикрутить ssh с ключиком - но в любом случае, в айфончегах я не шарю :). -- Best regards, Paul Arakelyan.

4 3

email? нет, не слышали
by Valentyn Klindukh 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

http://www.inau.org.ua/146.3081.0.0.1.0.phtml <http://www.inau.org.ua/146.3081.0.0.1.0.phtml> Відповідно до рішення Правління ІнАУ від 19.02.2015 р., оголошується конкурс на заміщення посади директора ДП «Українська мережа обміну трафіком». Пропозиції кандидатів приймаються до 09.03.2015 р. за адресою ІнАУ - 04053, м. Київ, вул. О.Гончара, 15/3, оф.22.

1 0

Запитання про іноземного провайдера інтернет-доступу
by Oleh Hrynchuk 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

Доброго здоров'я всім. Хто порекомендує/дасть "на водку". Чи є якісь зарубіжні альтернативи Датагрупу та Укрсату по підключенню *в межах України* точки доступу до Інтернет по супутниковому каналу? Чим викликане запитання - в умовах військового стану, як відомо, може обмежуватися доступ до Інтернет. І тоді маса ІТ-спеціалістів, котрі працюють віддалено на закордонні компанії, фактично залишаться без роботи, а їхні кантори якщо й не збанкрутують, то точно зазнають величезних збитків. Тому деякі компанії ВЖЕ розглядають action plans for urgent circumstances. -- Regards, /oleh hrynchuk P.S. Хоча "й коню понятно", що набагато простіше та дешевше було би провести сеанс "бодрящої евтаназії" для Хуйла та його найближчого оточення.

18 57

Підкажіть де купити репітер на 400-470 Мгц
by Oleh Hrynchuk 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

Доброго вечора, колеги. Сабдж. Аналоговий зв'язок. Бажано в комплексі, разом із антенами на прийом/передачу. -- Regards, /oleh hrynchuk

1 0

E1/PVDM
by Volodymyr Litovka 22 Feb '15

22 Feb '15

Друзья, у Главного Управления Связи при Генштабе ВСУ есть потребность в маршрутизаторе Cisco 26/28/29 серии с одним или двумя FE-портами и E1/T1+PVDM. Буду признателен за помощь. -- /doka

1 0

Mobile Wi-Fi
by Volodymyr Litovka 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

привет, нужен портативный WiFi+CDMA(Интертелеком) раутер. Если у кого-то есть неиспользуемый - буду рад принять в помощь. Если нет - посоветуйте работающую модель. На сайте Интертелеком я был и про предложение Хуавей за 950 гривень (+470 гривень на счет) знаю. Имеет смысл покупать или можно дешевле пристроиться? Спасибо. -- /doka

4 3

Інсайд із Мінська 8-)
by Oleh Hrynchuk 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

http://ibigdan.livejournal.com/16631073.html Нема слів :)

4 3

громобойная дискуссия у людей :) Fwd: Re: [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism".
by Andrii Stesin 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Vint Cerf воистину акбар :) чета ржу :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Vint Cerf" <vint(a)google.com> Date: Feb 7, 2015 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism". To: "William Smith" <wc.smith(a)me.com> Cc: "internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org" <InternetPolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> yep, that was the plan. worked like a charm. v On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:41 PM, William Smith <wc.smith(a)me.com> wrote: > As he is most capable of doing, Richard has made an impassioned and > well-articulated set of arguments that oppose the current mechanisms that > govern two very small aspects of the Internet, using his definition. Naming > and numbering are certainly important to the technical operation of the > Internet, but are rather inconsequential in terms of the broad and > expanding array of services that Richard includes in his definition. Such a > realization is inconvenient when the thesis is that the US Government > created the Internet as a strategic initiative to further its economic > interests. In his paper, Richard states: > > Great powers have historically used communication systems (transport > routes, telecommunications net- works) to further their economic and > strategic interests. This is certainly the case with the Internet: > its origins can be traced back to US military-funded research in the 1960s, > and subsequent deployment by the military and other government-funded > academic programmes. > > > Presumably the US Government began this initiative well before DARPA’s > public disclosure circa 1969. This tactical disclosure would have been part > of a much larger strategic plan, perhaps begun in the Roosevelt > administration. Bush's seminal article, "As We May Think > <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/>” > is likely the first evidence of this strategic initiative that has resulted > in the Internet. There may be earlier evidence but the two most likely > candidates, Jacquard > <https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Jacquard_loom.html> > and Babbage <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage>, fail the US > hegemony test. An argument could be made that early US statesmen might have > begun this initiative during their revolutionary sojourns in France. I may > pick up this thread in the future but welcome others to investigate as well. > > Moving forward from ARPAnet, the next major tactical operation in this > strategic initiative would be for the US Government to feign a lack > interest in TCP/IP. This was cleverly done through it support for GOSIP in > 1990 by requiring suppliers of technology to the USG to demonstrate support > for OSI. The USG persisted with this plan until 1995 when FIPS 146-2 > permitted use of standards from ISO, ITU, and IETF as it became evident > that TCP/IP was winning the protocol wars. > > Machiavelli would have been proud to see his techniques employed in such > an inspired manner. (To maintain the facade that it preferred OSI, the US > DoD continued to employ OSI in its Defense Messaging System for some time.) > > Fast forward to today and one can’t help but be amazed at the skill the > USG demonstrates through its masterful manipulation of the many strings > necessary to control the activities of ICANN, the RIRs, and the IETF. > Additionally, it has managed to align diverse corporate interests into a > unified front that marches arm in arm with the USG > <http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/>. This > is indeed the best of all possible worlds for the US, its corporate > interests, and its citizens. > > It should be clear to even the casual reader that Richard’s thesis is > correct. The USG, unlike other governments, wishes to “further their > economic and strategic interests” and that with the Internet, the USG’s > activities can be traced to the 1960’s. Using similar logic, I have > demonstrated that we can push the inception date for this strategic plan > back further, perhaps to the mid 18th century. > > I can’t imagine an alternative interpretation of the historical record. > > On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: > > I'm flattered that my polemic published in the 2015 State of Power is > getting so much attention. Since Mr Denton is mostly attacking his strawman > extrapolations of things that I didn't say in my article, I had not planned > to reply to his post. But I will reply to the bits that you post here. > > I don't know who or what "statists" are, so I cannot comment on what > bothers them. I'm certainly not bothered by the fact that the Internet has > increased access to information and freedom of expression. On the contrary, > I'm bothered by the fact that international law allows, at present, what I > consider to be excessive limitations on freedom of expression. I've > proposed in various forums that this be changed, see for example 7.1 at: > > > http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-Marc… > > > And I am bothered by imperialism and corporatism. > > I have no desire to take us back to the old days that Mr Denton > criticises, nor does my State of Power paper say that. Regarding ITU, it is > worth noting that the first international agreement that opened the way for > the present liberalized environment was the ITU's 1988 ITRs, and that the > 2012 ITRs more cleary state that international interconnections may be > based on commercial arrangements. > > My paper is hardly confined to a critique of ICANN. On the contrary, it > critiques states as well as private companies, stating: "It is tempting for > divil society to focus on denouncing the role of governments in regulating > the Internet, and in particular authoritarian governments that use it to > censor dissent. And it is important to do this, and to do it vigorously. > But civil society must also denounce the complicities between governments > and private companies in the North, whose abuses go largely unchecked. > There is also a need for more democratic governance arrangements that will > prevent monopoly profits and monopoly rents." > > I recognize that some people don't think that there are any abuses (except > maybe regarding copyright) and that there aren't any monopoly profits or > rents that need to be prevented (except maybe regarding copyright). Let's > agree to disagree on that. > > My paper also calls for pervasive use of improved encryption, which is > something that is opposed by most states. > > Mr Denton is of the view that my short paper does not engage the relevant > issues. Perhaps, but the endnotes include references to academic works > that, in my view, do engage the relevant issues. > > Best, > Richard > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org > <internetpolicy-bounces(a)elists.isoc.org>]*On Behalf Of *Joly MacFie > *Sent:* jeudi, 5. février 2015 22:19 > *To:* internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org > *Subject:* [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism". > > > In case you missed it, Timothy Denton has published a detailed rebuttal of > purported Richard Hill "statism" on Circle ID > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150203_true_faith_of_internet_governance_st… > > Concluding paras: > > It seems to me that what most bothers the statists is that the Internet > has broken up the tight controls that states used to be able to exercise > over thought, expression, and access to information. I could be wrong. It > might be simply a matter of distaste for the United States and its > commerce-driven governmental system. > Those of us who lived in the days of tightly-controlled telecommunications > and broadcasting structures, such as characterized the 20th century, have > welcomed the bracing possibilities of the Internet, which has linked > computers, and the human beings empowered by them, more effectively than > treaty-based obligations ever could. It is important not to romanticize the > Internet, but it is more important to get the big picture right. The > tightly controlled signals transport system of the 20th century was > shattered by the Internet. It is still possible to achieve police state > goals through communications, if that is your country's desire, but it has > become a lot harder. > If Mr. Hill could achieve his desire of taking us back to the ITU world, > the carrier-monopoly world, we would experience something like a > Counter-Reformation, and the closing of human possibilities from a > different direction than unbridled commerce. Personally I do not want to go > there, and most of the liberal market societies of this world do not > either. Nor do I want unbridled private sector monopolies of distribution > or of applications. There is a role for governments in this, and they > already have the powers they need to control monopolies and market power. > If Disraeli's maxim "power has only one duty — to secure the social > welfare of the people" is the criterion by which we judge government by the > ITU (or its equivalent) or government by ICANN, then my conclusion is that > Mr. Hill's arguments have failed to demonstrate the superiority of the ITU > model. I would go farther, and say that, by confining himself to a critique > of ICANN and the forces that sustain it, without reasonably examining the > statist alternative, he has failed to engage the relevant issues. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

1 0