Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ip'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station


  • Drivers
  • Filesharing
    • BitTorrent
    • eDonkey & Direct Connect (DC)
    • NewsReaders (Usenet)
    • Other P2P Clients & Tools
  • Internet
    • Download Managers & FTP Clients
    • Messengers
    • Web Browsers
    • Other Internet Tools
  • Multimedia
    • Codecs & Converters
    • Image Viewers & Editors
    • Media Players
    • Other Multimedia Software
  • Security
    • Anti-Malware
    • Firewalls
    • Other Security Tools
  • System
    • Benchmarking & System Info
    • Customization
    • Defrag Tools
    • Disc & Registry Cleaners
    • Management Suites
    • Other System Tools
  • Other Apps
    • Burning & Imaging
    • Document Viewers & Editors
    • File Managers & Archivers
    • Miscellaneous Applications
  • Linux Distributions


  • General News
  • File Sharing News
  • Mobile News
  • Software News
  • Security & Privacy News
  • Technology News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 3 results

  1. Most VPN providers have given an option to disable IPv6 and an option of a built in Kill Switch. You might already know what they mean. But on many occasions they fail or somehow leak your IP. Below is a simple yet an effective way to block such issue. Do not enable "Auto-Connect" to Wi-Fi. This is the biggest issue. Users will get connected to a local network as soon the PC boots. Solution is to connect manually at each boot. Windows will still remember the Wi-Fi credentials so this is a one-click connect. Most critical step is to disconnect before powering off the machine to be safe. Many BIOS too have option to disable Wi-Fi as needed if you forget the steps here. Ethernet is even more easier as the authentication is done without having to rely on Windows. All you have to do is disable it after a power off and re-enable it after turning on machine. Once you memorize these steps, if anything goes wrong, you can always go paranoid and pull the plug of the Ethernet and stay further protected. Remember, that Ethernet will get reconnected after a connection drop, but this won't leak your IP. Now, feel free to connect to a VPN with its Kill Switch always on. Also, in any case your connection drops, the network will remain disconnected and will require your input to get connected to a Wi-Fi.
  2. As 50 State Attorneys General, the U.S. Justice Department, and the House Judiciary Committee investigate Google for anticompetitive conduct, Google is appealing to the Supreme Court a multi-billion-dollar judgment for its infringing use of Oracle’s Java APIs in the earliest versions of Android. While the case—Google v. Oracle—has nothing to do with the antitrust issues dominating the news, Google and its allies, with incredible chutzpah, argue that to a Court that favorable ruling will increase competition. In other words, Google, facing universal antitrust scrutiny, argues that its infringing use of Oracle's Java will increase competition. To briefly summarize the case being appealed to the Supreme Court, Oracle acquired the copyright for Java’s application programming interfaces (APIs). APIs are the underlying protocols designed to allow the different applications and programs to work with different operating systems. Oracle allowed software developers to use these APIs for free but charged licensing fees to operating system administrators that wanted to use it—like Google. But Google, not wishing to purchase the license, instead took thousands of lines of Oracle’s Java code, claiming that APIs are not copyrightable. What does any of this have to do with competition? As I noted in a previous post written after the cert briefs were filed, Google and many of its supporting amici make the almost-laughable argument that allowing Google to use its competitor's programs for free would encourage competition in the very industry Google seeks to control. According to Google’s brief, the Federal Circuit’s ruling, if upheld, “would deter competition, creating often insurmountable barriers to new market entrants and start-ups, leaving consumers with fewer choices.” It urges the Supreme Court to prevent “Oracle from locking Java developers into Oracle-approved platforms,” arguing that letting the Federal Circuit's ruling stand would be akin to allowing Oracle to “monopolize the market.” Many of the amici echo these claims. The R St Institute and Public Knowledge’s brief, filed on January 13, 2020, argued that the court should deny Oracle’s copyright because “nteroperability promotes flexibility and competition.” All of these arguments misunderstand interoperability as it relates to both competition and copyright law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that “granting copyright protection to functional concepts in computer programs confers on the copyright owner a de facto monopoly over those ideas and functional concepts’ and ‘defeats the fundamental purpose of the Copyright Act.’” Similarly, Google’s brief claims that Oracle’s copyright “prevents Oracle from locking Java developers into Oracle-approved platforms.” Yet Oracle only has a “monopoly” on Java’s API in the same way George R.R. Martin has a monopoly on the Game of Thrones franchise. All copyrights confer a monopoly over the actual intellectual property. But that by no means deters competition. As the Supreme Court held in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, “a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee.” Courts have repeatedly applied this principle to software copyright claims. In this case, Oracle provided the Java license to software developers for free. They were not locked into the “Oracle approved” platforms; they merely had to produce for people who paid the fee. Moreover, Apple and Microsoft were both capable of creating their own APIs without using Java, and these products clearly competed against Android and sought to have developers use their platform. That said, these concerns about entrenching monopoly power have little relevance to the question of fair use. In antitrust situations, market harm occurs by reducing consumer output and substantially increasing prices. On the contrary, for fair use, “market harm” involves actual damages to the copyright user. And as the Federal Circuit noted, precedent shows that “market harm can be presumed where a use is commercial and not transformative,” which Google’s use undoubtedly was. Finally, while Android often touts its own interoperability, it used Java’s stolen IP specifically to create Android and integrate its apps. It is virtually impossible for an average consumer to use anything other than the Google Play Store to acquire apps. Moreover, Google does not allow auto-updates and security protection for apps that are not downloaded through the store. By locking in all the apps into the Google Play Store, Google can then charge an exorbitant commission on all fees and can also arbitrarily ban apps which it does not like. Android’s platform, it seems, isn’t nearly as interoperable as they claim. While this is independent of the questions presented to the Supreme Court, it demonstrates Google’s chutzpah of invoking concerns about interoperability and monopolization on Android apps to justify appropriating IP, which they then used to restrict interoperability and entrench their vertical monopolies. As Google indisputably appropriated thousands of lines of code for its own commercial purposes, the company and its allies have had to concoct an inverted and hypocritical policy argument to muddy the waters. The Supreme Court should focus on the facts and precedent, which weigh heavily against the tech giant in this case. Source
  3. Hey All, So we have 10 PC's on a network which are connected through LAN and there is a issue connecting to one system (Let us call that as System A) from another System (Let us call that System B ), So A is able to connect to B and all the other PC's on the network. However B is not able to connect to A only and is connecting to all other PC's. Requesting help to resolve the above issue
  • Create New...