Slashdot Mirror

And you'd have difficulty finding a Mac that can run it.

I had no trouble scoring a Quadra 800 for under $50.

The A/UX FAQ lists several models that are still pretty easy to find.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

RFC1323 - TCP Extensions for High Performance: -> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1323.html

Specifically, as regards "Window Scaling", & these pertinent quotes (& how Tcp123Opts = 0 shuts off ALL of these hi-performance TCP/IP options (slower, but sounds like a safety measure vs. this setsockopt 0 "silly windows syndrome" attack))

Please, read on:

"The window scale extension expands the definition of the TCP window to 32 bits and then uses a scale factor to carry this 32-bit value in the 16-bit Window field of the TCP header (SEG.WND in RFC-793). The scale factor is carried in a new TCP option, Window Scale. This option is sent only in a SYN segment (a segment with the SYN bit on), hence the window scale is fixed in each direction when a connection is opened

(Note that LAST bolded statement? THAT only "holds true", IF these RFC1323 options are 'turned on', first of all, & what turns them COMPLETELY off (@ the price of performance, perhaps, but not of safety vs. this "sliding windows scale/sliding windows/silly window syndrome" attack? Tcp1323Opts does))

http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157

Tcp1323Opts is a necessary setting in order to enable Large TCP Window support as described in RFC 1323. Without this parameter, the TCP Window is limited to 64K.

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
Tcp1323Opts="1" (DWORD, recommended setting is 1. The possible settings are 0 - Disable RFC 1323 options, 1 - Window scaling but no Timestamp options, 3 - Window scaling and Time stamp options.)

Like SynAttackProtect = 2?

Tcp1323Opts = 0 "turns off" the ability to use "scalable windows" that RFC1323 allows, & which it appears that this setsockopt 0 command exploits, via the "Silly Window Syndrome"...

So, by setting them properly against this attack, by altering them, here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters accordingly.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302363.aspx

PERTINENT QUOTE -> "NOTE: The following socket options no longer work on any socket when you set the SynAttackProtect value to 2: Scalable windows"

You can nullify this attack it seems, because SynAttackProtect = 2 AND Tcp1323Opts = 0 (& using a set TcpWindowSize also) can stall out "sliding/scaling TCP Window Sizes", which this attack seems to exploit a vulnerability of via setsockopt 0 calls...!

APK

P.S.=> See my point now? Using Tcp1323Opts = 0, SynAttackProtect =2, & setting a TcpWindowSize to 64k (or whatever)? This setsockopt 0 type DOS/DDOS attack may be nullified it appears, because "sliding windows/tcp scaling" doesn't even take effect anymore, & this "setsockopt 0" seems to exploit it, via the "silly window syndrome" here -> http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPSillyWindowSyndromeandChangesTotheSlidingWindow-4.htm

PERTINENT CONCEPT QUOTE -> "Key Concept: Modern TCP implementations incorporate a set of SWS avoidance algorithms. When receiving, devices are programmed not to advertise very small windows, waiting instead until there is enough room in the buffer for one of a reasonable size. Transmitters use Nagles algorithm to ensure that small segments are not generated when there are unacknowledged bytes outstanding."

Which, per the setsockopt 0 call & parameter?

Does sound a LOT like this problem is, via setsockopt 0 calls issued by an attacking malware to exploit this for DDOS/DOS attacks!

Hope you see my point... &, again, I'd like your "Feedback/Thoughts" on this as well - Thanks for your time, because I am trying to figure out a way, hopefully, to stall this attack on Windows 2000 rigs (I h

RFC1149 - Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

RFC2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html

RFC1149 - Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

RFC2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html

Looks like a similar method has been suggested before: RFC1149 :)

RFC2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service

That's the specification. This was the implementation test case. There's a world of difference between saying it will working and showing it to work.

RFC2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service

How is it this is moron modded informative while I'm modded flamebait when he is quite WRONG?

The patent on the the technology: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080267456

Or did I get modded flamebait because somebody got their feelings hurt?

Stupid, useless mod system.

Okay, I'll try again...

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080267456

Please try and READ the text. I'm sorry, but it doesn't include pictures.

This isn't World of Warcraft, dude, so don't pull this "Screenshot, or it didn't happen." shit.

And by the way, this patent was applied for by Honeywell, a legitimate company that is known for biometrics work. If they applied for a patent, it is more then likely because they want to make some money from it. It is pretty hard to make money from non-existent technology, unless, of course, you are Nathan Myhrvold.

Wait...How did you read the article without a subscription(I didn't need one)? Don't tell me you subscribed just to TRY and prove me wrong.

As far the technology discussed in the article, did it occur to you that the information about the screen itself, combined with the sensor tech would do exactly what I stated? A little imagination, please.

Ok, lets try again, same Google search keywords. (touchscreen fingerprint analysis)

The fucking patent work for you, dude?

As a matter of discussion, this patent fits my original post TO A TEE. Screen, camera and microphone, all combined to provide damn near perfect biometric acquisition.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080267456

Sheesh.

we lost all the plans for Apollo and the Saturn 5

Not quite. According to Henry Spencer, what we lost was not the plans, but the know-how to turn the plans into hardware.

There is a whole lot of undocumented know-how. Suppose you want to build some part. What kind of heat treatment was used on the metal? Are you certain you know the exact alloy used, or what might change by using a slightly different alloy? How did the master machinist shape the part... did he have some sort of custom jig, and if so, what did it look like? It's too late to ask him; that was 40 years ago, and you probably can't find him now.

We could, with great effort and cost, recover all this missing know-how, being certain to test everything at every step to make sure we know what we are really doing. And if we did all that, the end result would be a 40-year-old design. We know more now, and we could improve on the design; and the amount of time and money it would cost to reproduce the Saturn V is probably similar to what it would cost to develop a new launch system.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/space/controversy/

In any event, what we really need is not another Saturn V. We need a cheap and reliable way to put small payloads into orbit over and over and over. A "space pickup truck" if you will. You can do almost everything by sending up modules and assembling them in orbit, and anything you can't do, you could handle with a few heavy-lift launches; and then use the pickup truck to send fuel, supplies, and crew up.

steveha

Remember ARSbomb?

Scientology flooded USENET to keep their documents from being distributed.

However, as someone who believes in freedom, I think we're going to have to extend it to nutty cults. After all, we extend freedom to secular cults who believe 9-11 was an inside job, or that natural selection doesn't exist among humans.

We need to respect that Scientology is a choice, these people aren't morons, and while we (I, at least) disagree with their choice, it's their right.

People have the right to do things we/I think are insane, in other words.

I have to say I am surprised that the whole concept of serial consoles, serial cards and what not are completely lost on the Windows generation.

Here are the kernel configs for using a serial dongle (costs around 5 bucks) on a USB port for as a serial console.

If you don't want to do that buy a serial port on a PCI card (costs around 10 bucks) or just buy a cheap watchdog card (most expensive least work since it emulates vga over serial).

As for "The Prisoner" after years of hype by fans I finally watched it last year, and I was unimpressed. Yes it is an intelligently-written series, but there were a lot of moments where I wanted to reach for the fast-forward button because many of the middle episodes were excruciatingly dull.

Patrick McGoohan made a list of seven episodes that "really count". See question #4 here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tv/the-prisoner/part1/

storage. If you honestly -fill- that 1.5TB that you purchased in such a short amount of time that you do not have the budget to purchase another 1TB, 1.5TB, 2TB drive (etc.) at the end of that time, then you need to reconsider either..
- what you store (do you -really- need to save all the pictures you're saving now?) - how you store it (do you -really- need them in RAW/TIFF format?)

I save all my film and all I have scanned so far is low res images, when I've turned in my film for development I ordered a CD of the photos as well. However I plan on rescanning my film with the scanner I got, which scans at higher resolutions than most film developers offer.

The 5D Mark II 21.1MP is NOT 21,100,000 pixels. It's only 21,026,304. Did you know that?

Complain to Canon then, the specs say "Total pixels: Approx. 22.0 megapixels" and "Effective pixels: Approx. 21.1 megapixels". However medium format cameras, I'd like to get a 645 with a film back to use until I can afford a digital back for it, use larger film for larger digitized images. Doing quick calculations a 6mm X 4.5mm film, which my scanner can scan, is 2.4" X 1.6". My scanner optically scans 6400 dpi so a frame of 645 film would generate a file bigger than 150MB. And that's not counting colour depth, my scanner can scan 48 bit colour depths.

Of course by the tyme I'd need space to store those digitized images I should be able to afford multi-terabyte raid storage. However going back to my original reply, just because some people can't imagine needing terabytes of storage doesn't mean it won't be used by anyone.

There's 8 bits in a byte, so... 1,009,262,592 bits / 8 bits = bytes. That's the RAW data in bytes. That's nowhere near 500MB.

That depends on how "near" is defined. 126,157,824 divided by 1024, 1 Megabyte = 1 Kilobyte X 1024, equals 123,201 MBs. That tymes 4 equals 492.804 MBs. That raw file is more than 100 MBs and 4 of them use almost 500 MBs.

That's not even counting compression

And if you don't want to lose details you don't compress. Especially if you're opening, editing, and resaving the photos. Every time a jpeg is opened, edited, and resaved the photo degrades.

Honestly, that article brings up a heck of a lot more issues about Alamy than just the MB vs MiB thing;

The only reason I provided the link to the article was to highlight the issue, because it is an issue, of whether a megabyte is 1 Kilobyte X 1024, 1 Kilobyte X 1000, or 1 byte X 1,000,000 and the same with terabytes. There was no other purpose of posting the link, whether you agree or disagree with those in the thread.

P.S. Love that you do film;

I grew up on film, I don't even have a cheap point-and-shoot digicam. I thought of getting one that's easy to modify to shoot infrared though. "Make" zine had a good article on converting cameras to shoot IR.

I like the dynamic range of film much better than digital

Although not the best, the Epson V500 scanner I have has a DMax of 3.4.

if you already have the film rolls it doesn't burn money so much anyway (developing still costs, of course).

Yeap, I have film. I have some C41 negatives but I shoot mostly E6 slides now. As for costs of developing, there's a local organization, IFP, I plan to join that has darkrooms members can use. I've got that Epson scanner so I can digitize my film so when I join IFP I'll have access to a darkroom as well. I'll need to learn to develop slides though, all I've developed so far is B&W and C41 film. That is if IFP has the chemicals for E6. If not I'll have to pay someone else to develop my film or use C41 negatives again.

Falcon

They should ask for RFC3514 compliance from hardware and OS manufacturers.

That would be RFC 1149, for those that are interested.

I have not yet seen anyone post this rfc document which would probably be most useful to this question.
RFC1178 - Choosing a name for your computer

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html

There is actually an RFC you can refer to for help on the difficult problem of naming computers:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html

RFC 1178 addresses this.

I think you're being a little unfair (or trolling). I'll bite. First, a qualifier:

I'm not a huge fan of MS, but I confess that I like Windows 7. (To qualify: I used Gentoo as my primary desktop OS for about 1.5 years, switched to XP when I had a semester of .NET development at uni, and then recently switched to Win 7 to try it out with the public beta--I've been impressed thus far.)

Looks and 'feels' aren't going to increase productivity. The complete lack of text on the task bar means I have to learn what each icon represents and then have to mouse over it or open the item to figure out what it actually is. In XP or Vista I can just look at the task bar and figure out which server's I've RDP's and SSH'd into, what page my browser is on, any IM's demanding my attention and who they are from. I'm going to lose a crap load of productivity from this alone and probably some hair as well. There are good reasons we favour text based language over a pictogram or hieroglyphic language, complex text is far easier to read.

Spend about 5 minutes learning the OS. The new taskbar wasn't something I appreciated at first--but it grows on you. Although another couple folks have already suggested this fix, here's mine: Right-click your start button, go to properties, and under the Taskbar tab, change "taskbar buttons" to "combine when taskbar is full." Poof! Text magically appears on your buttons. I don't select "never combine" as someone else suggested, because I happen to like having similar applications groups together.

Fancy that.

That stupid "network and sharing centre" is still there, still trying to tell me that it knows what to do with my network. Why do I have to assign a "location" popup to every different DHCP address I get, the OS should handle this invisibly.

I agree the network and sharing center is stupidly designed (and severely dumbed down). I'll grant you this. I haven't noticed the DHCP issue, but then... I don't use 7 on a laptop. I suspect this might just be specific to your configuration, however.

Customisability is a two edged sword, with customisability comes more chances for something critical to fail. I'm not saying that extenisve customisability is a bad thing but most users will only change their screensaver and background. Some will pick a different pre-selected colour "theme" but most will leave it as default. Most users do not care about customisability beyond major superficial points like the background.

That's being a bit petty, IMO. Gnome, KDE, and just about every other user-facing desktop allows for the customization of some things. Are they bad? Maybe.

If it were as horrible as you suggest, perhaps you should stick with bash? csh, maybe? Actually, forget I said that bit about csh.

Actually, screw this bit about multiprocessing OSes. Why not head back to a modern DOS-based system?

Game performance is nowhere near the level of XP and the old games which didn't work in Vista still don't work in 7. I'm not completely cynical however, I know 7 is still immature and many of the drivers will have issues. It will take time for the drivers (esp graphics drivers) to mature.

Umm, I haven't noticed a difference. Mind you, I don't play a lot of games, but the ones I do play actually appear to have a higher average framerate (~5-10, so it's within the margin of error) than XP.

Unfortunately in the Windows world, upgrades are synonymous with planned obsolescence. If you want your old games to work, run your favorite Linux distro and install them under Wine (no, I'm not kidding). I got Carmageddon 2 to play just fine (joystick included) under Wine. I could never get it working, even under XP.

The RC does not start nearly as quickly as a fr

Just for reference: RFC 1178

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html

While it is not a direct answer to your question, it does give a lot of good why and why not's on this subject. Just as handy now as in the 90s.

Evil Bits.

I don't know of a single marriage where one or both partners have strayed that didn't end in divorce.

I know a bunch of marriages where both partners have "strayed" repeatedly, yet are still happy. That's because I know lots of polyamorous people.

Which brings me to the only useful piece of advice I have: it's up to you and you partner(s) to define the boundaries and style of your relationship. You've already figured out that the "jock/cheerleader" model presented to you is wrong for you: be vigorous in questioning everything else that you're told about how you "should" be.

While replacing the Wii OS with XBox 360 graphics drivers looks attractive, lets remember that Wii's hardware limits the capabilities.
I cannot add v186.18 to nVidia 8600GT card and expect to play Crysis in Full glory. (Although i can fry it )
To extent it is possible, like the brain transplant Pioneer 10 had when it approached Jupiter and the one Voyager 2 had.
But not much.
If that were true, then we'd all be running Windows Vista on 80386 chip and playing Crysis and CoH:ToV parallelly.

This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together.

Basics of the Unix Philosophy

VI. UK and GB domains UK stands for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GB actually stands for Great Britain. GB is therefore a subset of UK. In reality, the GB top level domain has been used mainly for X.400 addressing of sites, while the UK top level domain is more commonly used. While in the early nineties, there was an emphasis towards X.400, and hence towards registration under the GB top level domain, this policy does not stand anymore, and relatively few sites in the UK are now registered under the GB top level domain.

I hear they're ginning up a new RFC to address that

As with most military projects it has been in the works for a long time.

The first thing that sprung to my mind when reading this headline was a headline from 15 years ago in Scientific American. It read "Link Found Between Manic Depression and Creativity", or something to that effect. That article stuck in my mind, because it featured a prominent picture of Charles Mingus. Additionally, it dug into me, because my brother was at the time going through the process of being branded manic depressive.

Here I found the citation. A simple web search will find the whole text.

Except that there is no requirement that a jpeg be encoded in YCbCr. Lossless jpeg is a totally separate mode of encoding. See faq entry.

I've done X over a 28.8k modem. It was ugly.

Moving to 128kbps ISDN made things hugely better. Using SSH compression was better still. And differential X was fairly usable with lots of X11 software at the time.

But in reading this announcement, I can't help but think: Isn't this the same as Broadway? It seems that it was released along with X11R6.3, which Wikipedia says went public on December 23, 1996. Wikipedia's article on XFree86 also implies that it should've been in the hands of Linux users sometime on or before March 8, 2000, when the 4.0 release of XFree86 went public, which was supposed to support X11R6.4.

But: Nobody, as far as I can tell, ever used the silly thing, despite all of the flowery claims about how cool it'd be to run X over teh Intarwebs, having finally solved the latency and bandwidth problems by introducing a standard made to deal with them from the outset.

So, here we are in 2009, about 12 years hence: Can anyone explain to me why this "new" NX Server concept should be any more successful than Broadway? Is it just because we're a decade ahead, now? (Or is that a decade behind?)

It manages flow of traffic, recognizing when one packet belongs with the others. This sounds wonderful, at least for people trying to inject packets.

I hope these things recognize the evil bit.

The later 1050 used double density disks (but could read and write single density disks with a lower capacity).

You had to get the doubler ROMs to get true double density 180k, otherwise the drive did some weird 1 1/2 density 160k...

The 1050 supported 130K "enhanced" density". The later XF551 supported true double density and apparently was also true double-sided, but that came out pretty late in the day and it wasn't that cheap by the standards of the time.

Here you go:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc666.html

But wouldn't you at least check if the server you got was the one you wanted before you handed over credentials?

The PERL & PHP POP3 packages don't. I don't believe the Java or Python packages do either. In fact, I don't recall any section of the POP3 server protocol (RFC 1939) to validate the server itself. By convention, the server name is included in the welcome message, but it's not required. The PID, timestamp, & qualified servername are included if the server supports APOP, but that is again optional, and I do not believe it's used by many ISPs.

That's the biggest problem with the internet - the major protocols do not verify identity. That means that you have to trust that the person at the other end of the connection is who they say they are, and that the DNS system has routed you to the correct end point. How many people do you know that have personal certificates validated by a third party. My count is 4, and that includes 2 people in the DoD, a former network admin for a Fortune 50 company, and a professor of forensic science that consults with the FBI. Other than that, the only personal certificates I know people have are self signed by the company requesting them. Verizon for example self signs the certificates that they send out for accessing their internal ordering system.

I have 2 websites, neither of them have certificates, and I'm not planning on getting any. Neither of my sites are set up to respond to https and I do not believe that http requests the certificates. That means anyone who can poison the DNS cache can forge my sites. But let's face it, if they're poisoning the DNS cache, I'm screwed already anyway.

The problem is that it is illegal/unlawful to use the SSN for anything but Social Security. It is NOT supposed to be used as an identity source for everything else. This is just one of those citizen protection laws that have been casually ignored by everyone. I always get strange looks and confusion when I cite the law and even show it to people.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/privacy/ssn-faq/ http://www.glr.com/govt/privacy/ssnuse2.html -- this exposes some of the problems in that many common uses are not required by federal law and that there are few prohibitions on the commercial use and exploitation of it.

However. You can request a federal tax payer ID number and use that when paying taxes. It is the same format as the SSN and can often be effectively used as a replacement for an SSN in many situations.

You're full of shit:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc959.html

Yes. TCP was/is designed to detect and correct data transmission errors. The information coding is highly redundant, and the error correction and detection is implemented in each of several layers. (See, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html ). The probability of an undetected error is very small. The datalink layer in most networks typically provide an undetected error rate in the neighborhood of 2^-32. Then the upper layer tcp does another layer of error coding, providing a combined error rate of something like 2^-64. That is fine for most practical purposes.

Wrong! The TCP checksum is 16 bits, and you cannot know what links your data travels on across the Internet. See Stevens' "TCP Illustrated vol 1" -- he references one guy who saw quite a lot of bad TCP checksums on a live network. Around 1/2^16 of those pass undetected to the application.

Also, TCP does not do error correction, nor is it implemented in "several layers". And "highly redundant" ... I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about here. Have you even *read* the RFC?

Yes. TCP was/is designed to detect and correct data transmission errors. The information coding is highly redundant, and the error correction and detection is implemented in each of several layers. (See, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html ). The probability of an undetected error is very small. The datalink layer in most networks typically provide an undetected error rate in the neighborhood of 2^-32. Then the upper layer tcp does another layer of error coding, providing a combined error rate of something like 2^-64. That is fine for most practical purposes.

You can improve on the available error detection if you want, by computing a checksum of the file, transmitting both the file and the checksum, and then recomputing and comparing the checksum on the receiving end. Various algorithms are available for such a purpose. Two good hash algorithms that comes to mind are MD5 and SHA-1. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions ).

A small modification to RFC 1149 for using camels. That should do it.

Definitely give this a read: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sysadmin-recovery/ (it won't help, but then nothing will). Just remember: down, not across.

The humans aren't nearly adept at carrying out RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers

Alternatively, they could use the "reasoning" of "You mean, if I downloaded up to the intarnetz I can get my stuff from school, my friend's house, or my iphone without having to figure out all those scary cables and thumbdrivamagiggers?"

If your average person can't get access to their files because their internet connection is down... they just go do something else for a while. Your typical (or at least stereotypical) slashdotter should be able to find an alternative way to get internet access if the files are that important... neighbor's unsecured wifi, tethered cell-phone, bringing your laptop to someplace that does have access, or even more, um, exotic alternatives.

Who knew that the evil bit had a smell?

Strickly speaking, the data would only have an evil bit while they are being streamed. On disc, the data has no IP header, and thus no evil bit.

I'm unaware of an evil indicator in the DVD / MPEG4 / CSS standards.

Rob

Is your proposed solution simply not to solve the problem?

My proposed solution:

1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago.
2. Hire someone competent to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision.
3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.
3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.
4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation.
5. Arguments should be based on merit, not qualifications and the overuse of jargon.

I'm sure there's more we could do, but these should solve the big problems.

1. No precedent is binding forever and a day. In a common law jurisdiction the highest court of a jurisdiction can and will toss out old and incorrect interpretations of laws. It's only lower courts who are bound to interpretations strictly.

2. That's the job of judges and legislators and frankly judges do a very good job of it much of the time.

3. ? Amended versions with all previous amendments included seamlessly are usually released. The issue is, you need the amendments known so that (a) legislators can VOTE on amendments and (b) when the law changes people can known what it was on any particular day, so that all legislation is not automatically retroactive.

4. There is a big difference between torturing existing laws and applying the principle of existing laws to a new situation.

5. In my experience, they are.

My proposed solution:

1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago.

Our current system of precedents assures that the accepted interpretation (sometimes that of a moron) is the consensus of the Legal community. Without binding precedent, each individual judge, or the same judge in two separate instances, can apply a law differently. Precedent instills certainty, and I think that outways your concern that morons may make binding law.

2. Hire someone competent to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision.

I think that would require rewriting our Constitution. Our founding document requires that laws be drafted solely by our legislators. You might be able to accomplish your goals with administrative code though. But in any case, your idea puts the power that should be distributed among our representatives into the hands of a single individual. I don't find that to be preferable.

3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this, but in the criminal law, keeping a history of a laws progression assures us that individuals are not convicted of crimes which were not in effect at the time they were transgressed.

3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.

In Florida we have this. And searching the federal laws is fairly easy as well. I agree that the administrative code is rather fragmented and hard to research when agency regulatory duties overlap.

4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation.

I'm afraid that "i'm sorry, there's no law applicable to that" is not a solution to most legal problems. The ability of a judge to apply our laws to new and novel legal issues is a strength of our legal system, not a weakness. Does it always work out, no, but it's preferable to an absence of law in most situations.

5. Arguments should be based on merit, not qualifications and the overuse of jargon.

What? I will say this, jargon exists because everyone knows how a judge will interpret it. It offers certainty. And certainty is good.

I'm sure there's more we could do, but these should solve the big problems.

Is your proposed solution simply not to solve the problem?

My proposed solution:

1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago. 2. Hire someone competent to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision. 3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch. 3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone. 4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation. 5. Arguments should be based on merit, not qualifications and the overuse of jargon.

I'm sure there's more we could do, but these should solve the big problems.

All your points pretty much described a conversion from the Common Law system as it is practiced in the UK and its former colonies (US, India, Pakistan, Oz etc) to the Civil Law system that has been introduced practically everywhere else and has been used since the times of Hammurabi and the Romans.

However, the problem is that such a conversion cannot happen while there is a large establishment built on it - the judges would have to re-learn, the lawyers would have to re-learn, the legislators would have a gargantuan task of creating a whole corpus of laws without bad loopholes... It would only happen after a revolution. (The German-style civil law was introduced in China, Japan and Korea in the early 20th century, but the power situation were very different from the status quo in the US today...)

Is your proposed solution simply not to solve the problem?

My proposed solution:

1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago.
2. Hire someone competent to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision.
3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.
3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.
4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation.
5. Arguments should be based on merit, not qualifications and the overuse of jargon.

I'm sure there's more we could do, but these should solve the big problems.

Gotta call BS. I think I know what you mean but you have to agree they capitulated early-on?

http://users.erols.com/whitaker/wordsos2.htm

WORDS - Version 1.97 for OS/2 (i386)
Ported to OS/2 by Fr. Mike Thompson (mbt@gator.net) The latest version, 1.97, was released on August 30, 2001.

And the FAQ actually says 286 or better... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/Team-OS2-FAQ/

4(a) - History of OS/2

In 1987, IBM and Microsoft released OS/2 version 1.0 as the successor to MS
DOS, the PC operating system shipped with the original IBM PC. OS/2 ran on a
286 or better processor, and required a minimum of 2MB of RAM.