Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
For all but the largest generators, liability for an accident like Fukushima would involve bankruptcy. But for an investor with shares in say ten electricity generators, that wouldn't matter, as they'd only lose 10% of their investment.
Of course, if the assets of the failed company are insufficient to pay for the damage, the government or the injured parties will be left carrying the cost. Privatisation of profit, socialisation of risk - as per usual.
This nuclear industry site is illustrative - damage is typically:
= capped at a miniscule level USD23-700 million, depending on the state
= limited in time
= excludes environmental damage, preventative measures and economic loss
= backed up by the national government (i.e. the taxpayer) providing additional compensationThe joke is, they actually think those terms are reasonable.
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Yeah, but it says IP address specifically, not IP address and port.
So if you ask an ISP using NAT for details on an IP, they'll give you a number of users that *could* be using that IP at a given time.
It's a flaw with legislation that gets hooked up in technical details. Saying that anyone providing a communication service has to be able to provide details of the customer behind any interaction would be "better". (as in more robust, not a good idea).
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
That's true most of the time, except that ISPs are now starting to use NAT at the ISP/Internet gateway level to reduce their usage of IP addresses.
None I know of in NZ do this (apparently Vodafone and Telstra in AU). It's a bit of a downgrade for a few reasons, but maybe not being able to be traced will make it more popular..
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to chris mcnair,
You have to read it again now, coz I was wrong the first time :-)
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to BenWilson,
[Deleted wrong information]
If a user's coming out of a shared IP address (such as NAT), then that does create an interesting issue.
If a complainer knows their IP and outbound port and the NAT server has adequate logs, then it would be possible to trace the user. But the legislation is silent about logging and retaining this data - it only requires the user / IP mapping. So an ISP could, I think, comply by responding that an IP was in use by any of a whole tranche of users.
That's a bit of a fail, isn't it?
[Edit to the edit]
But a NAT server will screw up most forms of true peer-peer filesharing anyway (because it's a one-way, outbound street).
File sharing services in the cloud, maybe (these do have the advantage of actually working and are thus preferred over BitTorrent and the like).
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes, but did the Statute of Westminster (adopted 1947) not make a difference to the role of the G-G? Colonial governors (as the representative of the imperial government) did have substantive powers (and still do in places like Gibraltar). It's reasonable that a G-G of not-quite-independent NZ could have also felt they had wider powers that a modern figure. (Moreover, they were a British appointment).
The actual monarch hasn't refused assent to anything (AFAIK) since Queen Anne.
-
re these two clowns list MPs or did someone actually tick a box and vote for them!?!?
People ticked a box to vote for list MPs - it's the one that says "National" or "Labour" by it. If you don't like the people on the list, don't vote for the party in question. If you agree with a party but think their list could do with a tweak, join the party (assuming it's one that actually gives a fuck what rank and file members think).
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to Andre Alessi,
A court order would seem to apply to a single ISP. There isn't any provision for a register of banned users (it might be possible for a rights holder to try and gain an order banning a user from a second ISP, but they'd need to identify them as a customer first).
-
… with the assent of the Governor General.
That’s like me saying that this post was written with the assent of my computer.
The G-G in approving Orders in Council (as in most other things) acts on the advice of ministers and has no discretion to disagree.
As far as this measure is concerned, Brownlee and Key could have lunch with a Big Music rep in the morning and pass it in the afternoon. Why enact it if they don’t intend to implement it?
I’d doubt it would be very effective, because it seems to be easily circumventable by simply switching to a different ISP.
But it’s great that something is radicalising the iPhone buying classes, many of whom voted in this goverment, fueled by outrage and glee. (Outrage at having to put a name on an election poster, glee at a 6% reduction in higher rate income tax).
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to SteveH,
Well, well.
The liability is now estimated as topping $80bln and the Japanese government is talking about a cap. (or of course, TEPCO could file for bankruptcy).