All posts by Rand Simberg

General

Firewalling Problem

OK, I think I’ve found the culprit. Zone Alarm does seem to be blocking UDP between host and client, and I can’t figure out how to stop it without completely disabling my Internet firewall. It thinks that the ethernet adaptor for the LAN is to the internet, and it won’t allow me to edit or change that. It’s the only firewall I have, so I can’t take it down.

I may have to upgrade from the free version to Zone Alarm Pro, because while the Help menu says that there’s an option for setting it up for ICS, it doesn’t seem to display it for the version I have.

[Update a few minutes later]

I finally figured out how to change the zone for the adaptor from “Internet” to “Trusted.” My LAN is working properly now, but clients are still not seeing the internet.

[Late afternoon update]

I’m having trouble thinking that it’s a Zone Alarm problem at this point, because I’m watching the log, and I’ve seen no activity on the LAN being blocked, even when I attempt an internet connection from a client.

I can ping the host machine, but I can’t ping anything on the internet, either by name or IP.

This is most frustrating.

[Update a couple hours later]

At Ian Woollard’s suggestion, I momentarily disabled Zone Alarm, and that was the problem. It seems to work if I reduce the security level for the Internet Zone from “High” to “Medium.”

I’m not sure that I can configure it more specifically without getting the full version, though.

Now the question is, do I spend the forty bucks on Zone Alarm Pro, or on a router…?

I’m inclined to the former, because I can buy it on line, and it will be a good belt-suspenders system for when I get a good hardware firewall up.

Economics

Economic Confusion

Stories like this, about how much owners of intellectual property are losing to piracy, always bug me, because the industry press just accepts the figure without criticism or comment.

They claim that they lost almost thirty billion dollars last year to pirated software. They derive this number by estimating the number of pirated software installations, and multiplying by the price of the product. But it’s almost certain that their losses aren’t that high. The only amount of money that they’re out is the amount that the people using the software would have been willing to pay if they hadn’t been able to get it for free.

This kind of disingenuous story occurs because people don’t understand the difference between price, cost, and value. For software, the marginal cost (resources required of the seller to produce it) for the software is almost zero, while the price (the amount asked by the seller) may be very high relative to its actual value, which varies from individual to individual. No rational person will pay more for a product than they value it, so if they can’t get it for free, the only amount of money that the vendor is out is the sum of the value of it for all potential buyers. Clearly, it wasn’t worth the full price to many of those individuals, or they would have paid it, and I think that the amount of loss is vastly overstated–many of them would have simply gone without, rather than pay full price, so the revenue in that case would still be zero.

General

I Want To Share

My internet connection, that is.

Until I complete the move from California, and bring my Linux firewall and wireless router to Florida, I need to set up a quick’n’dirty router and port forwarder for the network here. I had a spare switch, so I just went out and picked up a second NIC for my main Windoze 2000 machine. The instructions for sharing the internet connection are seemingly simple, but they don’t seem to work. I’ve got the new network set up in DHCP mode, and the machines are talking to each other, but I can’t see the internet from the client (i.e., pinging a known IP address times out, though I can do internal network pings). I tried turning off the Zone Alarm firewall for the LAN, but it didn’t seem to help. I’m obviously posting this from the machine with the working connection.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Update on Thursday morning]

OK, when I do ipconfig on the host machine, I get this:

***************************************
Windows 2000 IP Configuration

Ethernet adapter Interglobal LAN:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

Ethernet adapter AT&T DSL Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 67.101.124.115
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 67.101.124.115

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Autoconfiguration IP Address. . . : 169.254.163.94
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

*******************************************

Note that “Local Area Connection 2″ is the physical ethernet connection for the DSL (called here AT&T DSL Connection”)

netstat -n yields:

*******************************************

Active Connections

Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
TCP 127.0.0.1:445 127.0.0.1:3093 ESTABLISHED
TCP 127.0.0.1:3093 127.0.0.1:445 ESTABLISHED

*******************************************

I’m having trouble talking to client machines right now–the LAN seems to be flaky. I can ping client from host, but I can’t ping host from client. More when I get one of more of the in communication.

War Commentary

Dominoes Lining Up?

Well, well, well…

They’ve captured two Iranian agents in Baghdad, fomenting much of the murder and terrorism in the newly emerging nation. This, of course, is an act of war.

Allawi has been making justifiably belligerent noises toward Syria as well, saying that he wouldn’t necessarily mind if coalition forces were to take offensive action there.

I wonder how far off we are from a war between Iraq, and Syria and Iran (in which we would participate on the side of Iraq)? That would be a continued draining of the swamp, and we know that a majority of the Iranians, if not the Syrians, would like to see the end of their current government. If so, it would be the next step on the path toward a saner Middle East.

The problem, of course, is that if it happens before November, the conspiracy loons will claim that Bush is going to war out of desperation, in the face of the “exciting” (oh, be still, my heart) John-John ticket, to distract the populace with another war based on “lies.”

One thing that might help in the near term would be a UN resolution condemning Syria and Iran for their attempts to destabilize Iraq. Any bets on whether such a thing would pass? After all, it wouldn’t be condemning the US and Israel, which is the only kind of condemnation in which the UN has shown any historical interest…

Space

Political Tourism Barriers

Here’s an interesting article, on a couple of levels.

With demand waning for its traditional service – clearing Arctic shipping lanes – the Murmansk Shipping Company, which operates the world’s only fleet of atomic icebreakers, has started offering tourists a chance to chill out at the top of the world for $20,000 per head.

The business has outraged environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth Norway, which is urging would-be ticket buyers to consider the damage a nuclear accident can do to the pristine region’s fragile ecosystem…

… The green group has found an unexpected ally in the Russian Audit Chamber. Parliament’s budgetary watchdog, after investigating partially state-owned Murmansk Shipping’s finances earlier this year, urged the government to revoke the company’s license to operate the fully state-owned icebreakers because it had “improperly used $79 million worth of state property and cheated the state out of $7.3 million in revenues,” auditor Yury Tsvetkov said June 29.

The superficial (i.e., obvious) one is the issue of whether or not we’ll let environmental groups object to tourism on grounds either real or spurious (and in particular, the notion that it shouldn’t be allowed because it’s a nuclear-powered ship is extremely spurious, and one that we should expect to confront in the future as we start to use nuclear reactors in space).

But the other one is that the Russian government itself is opposed to such tourism. That indicates to me that some there are starting to figure out what things actually cost, and that the tourist dollars don’t actually cover the operating costs.

While popular legend has it that Dennis Tito paid twenty millions bucks for his ride into space, reality is that such things are extremely negotiable, and that he actually paid much less (perhaps a little over half) of that amount. The Russian space program has survived largely on the basis of its prestige (one of the few things that Russia can surpass the US at, at least by some criteria). If they discover that tourist flights (and NASA payments) aren’t covering the true costs, will that continue?

Political Commentary

My Heart Bleeds

Not.

The SF Examiner is crying over the upcoming death of the “assault weapons” ban.

Boo hoo.

Remember all the upset with Bush when he said that he would sign a renewal?

I said that it didn’t matter, because he knew that there would never be a bill to sign. It still looks that way. Whether his pledge to sign it will still hurt him politically still remains to be seen, of course, but I can’t imagine the gun-rights activists being indifferent to a Kerry-Edwards presidency.