Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Enigma, Google, Java Games

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Enigma security concerns, German ISP targets net companies "free lunch", Total Information Awareness program lives on, Higgins takes on Microsoft, Google answers analyst concerns, Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists, and Java 4K game contest submissions available -- Read on for details.

Enigma security concerns. Chris writes "The Enigma cracking client mentioned [this past week] is a huge security risk -- it creates an 'enigma-client' user on Windows systems with the password 'nominal'. I daresay that most /. users who installed the client would want to know about this so they can take corrective action." Thanks to Chris and other who pointed out the security flaw the enigma client has updated their changelog to warn users about this potential flaw and point out a quick work-around. "Users should change 'nominal' to a random password in eclient-XP-Home-install.bat or eclient-XP-Pro-install.bat."

German ISP targets net companies "free lunch". TheAxeMaster writes "Deutsche Telekom AG is the latest ISP to decide to suck money from both customers and content providers according to Computer World. From the article, 'The CEO of Deutsche Telekom AG became the latest head of a major telco to call for Web companies, such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., to help pay for the billions of dollars required to build and maintain high-speed Internet infrastructure.' CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke said 'Web companies that use this infrastructure for their business should also make a contribution.' The article suggests that, if implemented, both you AND web sites would have to pay for the privilege of delivering you content through a tiered, 'quality of service' internet."

Total Information Awareness Program lives on. notmtwain writes "Democracy Now follows up on reports that the NSA has continued the TIA (Total Information Awareness) program, which was building an enormous database merging information on internet usage, phone calls, purchase, banking records and reading material. Democracy Now's Amy Goodman interviews Shane Harris, the National Journal Reporter who broke the story. The Total Information Awareness program was supposedly killed by Congress in 2003."

Higgins takes on Microsoft. An anonymous reader writes "InternetNews reports that IBM, Novell, and Parity Communications announced today increased support for the Higgins project at Eclipse. The project, based on early work done at Harvard's Berkman Institute and by SocialPhysics.org is focused on providing open source 'user-centric' identity management. The initiative has been widely reported as a challenge to Microsoft's new Infocard online identity-management system."

Google answers analyst concerns. imlepid writes "Earlier this week Analysts were asking Google to provide more insight into future earnings reports. Well, it appears that the analysts calls have been answered as the Google CFO has warned that growth has slowed. However, today's decline is still being blamed on the tight lips at Google."

Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. An anonymous reader writes "Pass a law to go after certain criminals, and it will be used for everything possible. A basic lesson, but one that we learn again from an article in the New York Sun, describing a couple of U.S. District Court decisions unsealed earlier in February. The two judges both agree that Congress intended the 'nationwide search' provision for going after email or other Internet data to apply to the investigation of all federal crimes and not just to cases involving terrorism."

Java 4K game contest submissions available. CuriousKangaroo writes "Java Unlimited, as previously reported on Slashdot, is running a contest to develop a game in Java using only four kilobytes of bytecode and resources. Entries are now closed, and judging is about to begin, but you can check out and play all 55 of this year's entries for yourself!"

120 comments

  1. Of course NSA continuing TSA by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    They never intended to get rid of it, they just gave it a name change so the media would stop asking questions.

    Aren't you glad your new US passport has a trackable RFID in it, Citizen Comrade?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > They never intended to get rid of it, they just gave it a name change so the media would stop asking questions.

      In United Soviet States of America, old bureaucracies keep changing names, but never die.

      In Soviet Union... old bureaucracies never die, they just keep changing names.

      Under Dzerzhinsky, you was the Cheka.
      In the 20s, Cheka was reorganized as the GPU/OGPU.
      In the 30s, OGPU became part of the NKVD.
      After WW2, NKVD and NKGB were renamed to MVD and MGB.
      Under Beria, MVD and MGB were merged to form the MVD.
      After Beria's execution, MVD was split into MVD and KGB.
      After the failed coup against Gorbachev, the KGB (where Putin worked) was dissolved.

      Under Putin, the Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD, and KGB are dead... long live the FSB.

      > Aren't you glad your new US passport has a trackable RFID in it, Citizen Comrade?

      Hey, freedom can't be on the march without spiffy uniforms and shiny black boots!

    2. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The problem with Total Information Awareness is that the public (a.k.a. the terrorists) became totally aware of the program.

      Now that the terrorists have infiltrated even suburban households in their quest of destruction, it's important to draw a greater distinction between the good-doers (such as government workers, Congressmen, jail wardens, etc.) and the evil-doers. When choosing names like "Total Information Awareness" we should take that into account. For a replacement name, I nominate "Patriotic Anti-Terrorist Child Protection Program." That's something we can all stand behind with pride.

      For you surveillance critics, I have only this to say:
      What are you so afraid of?

    3. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      All hail our benevolent dictator King and his Royal Guard! ... um, is the microphone on my monitor off yet? ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Now that the terrorists have infiltrated even suburban households in their quest of destruction, it's important to draw a greater distinction between the good-doers (such as government workers, Congressmen, jail wardens, etc.) and the evil-doers. When choosing names like "Total Information Awareness" we should take that into account. For a replacement name, I nominate "Patriotic Anti-Terrorist Child Protection Program." That's something we can all stand behind with pride.

      I vote for Patriotic Anti-Terrorist Spy Environ (PATSE)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your suggestion more than my own, but as to publicly admit this would make me appear weak before the electorate, I will instead condemn you as a traitor to this country and all for which it stands. I'll also declare you "irrelevant."

      I hope you understand, nothing personal.

    6. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      I'm also glad that it's easily made untrackable by the inadvertent application of heat.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    7. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's TIA.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by Mark_Uplanguage · · Score: 1

      What are you so afraid of?

      I'm afraid that being part of the government is not a defacto statement about one's ethical behavior.

      All of this information can be abused, and people with power are in the best position to abuse it. Everything has two sides. Guns don't kill, it's the people who use them, and some of those people are using the guns defending me from other people with guns (which is how I like it). If we didn't have guns we'd certainly kill each other by different means, and I'd still want somebody to defend me - I'd be happier if we could all just get along.

      I'm sure there could be great and benenficial uses to this information, but a government by the people for the people has to allow for the debate on something as dangerous as this due it's potential abuses. Of course if we all got along, then what would be the need for such a collection of information outside of marketing.

      It's a difficult line to walk, but it would be nice if we were all allowed to participate in deciding where the line should be drawn.

      --
      "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
    9. Re:Of course NSA continuing TSA by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I'm also glad that it's easily made untrackable by the inadvertent application of heat.

      I prefer using tin foil, myself.

      Actually, it's a good thing I got my passport before all this and my non-RFID drivers license renewed this month, so it will be five years before the man tracks me ... um, why is my shirt beeping?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  2. Wow, only 4k, crazy by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
    So cool to see compartively so much in 4k (the thescene 64k demo also surprised me -alot-):

    The one game that has been downloaded the most until now (Miners4k is great fun: Reminds me alot of the (a href=http://chir.ag/stuff/sand/>Falling Sand-game.

    1. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really trying to be impressed, but I'm not impressed. (Granted, I'm not a java programmer, so maybe getting it down to 4K is some amazing feat.)

      Atari 2600 games were limited to 4K originally and didn't have the compression and massive built-in virtual machine and libraries of these java apps. Those games were original (not just rehashed) and truly only 4K in size.

    2. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      True story: back around 1985, I had a mail merge program that was about 5K, written in Assembly. I had a programmer that worked for me whose project was to convert it to C. He did so... and it was 64 friggin' K, compiled, when he was done. Man, I chewed his ass out. :D

      It wasn't just a question of C being larger, incidently. I expected that. He did a lot of stupidity like copying big sections of code over and over instead of writing a subroutine. I should mention that the multiuser computer in question only had 64K partitions for each user, so it was a real problem.

      But you can do a lot in 4K or thereabouts. Look at the size of MAME roms in classic era video games. A few samples (remember, this includes graphics, which is most of the space):

      Asteroids: 8K
      PacMan: 16K
      SpaceWar: 4K
      Donkey Kong: 34K
      Defender: 26K (! That's a lot of game for 26K)
      Robotron: 52K

      -sigh- Ah, the good ol' days. I always cry the blues about the fact that programmers think Assembly language is so mysterious. It wasn't that hard, and you could do a LOT in a small space, and it was WAY faster than compiled code. And don't even bother quoting me the myth of the "optimizing compiler that produces code much better than humans can these days." It didn't exist then, and it doesn't exist now. And won't exist until we have true cognitive artificial intelligence. Optimization is a much harder problem than most people think.

      -double sigh- I'm rambling tonight. I'm fighting a big-ass cold. Better not post on any political topics. :D

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, "only" 4k. That must be why my Java install takes up "only" 461 MB. Hell, "java.exe" itself takes up 84KB.

      Somehow I'm rather unimpressed that you can create games that use "only" 4KB when the platform they run on requires over 450MB of space.

    4. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The statistics arent necessarily all that representative. If I would have used the counting link from the very beginning, the download counter for fuzetsu (try this link in case of downage) would be over 10k already. Yes, it actually made some megabytes *gasp* of traffic.

      (Well, Miners also didnt use that counting link from the beginning, but the percentages for counted starts vary a lot obviously.)

    5. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      That miners game is fun, but I can't seem to get past the 3rd level.

      there's ~480 gold available, and 1000 required to move to the next level. Am I doing something wrong here?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people impressed with these games are rabid Java zealots. The overhead of the virtual machine is ridiculous and all of these games could or already have been written in other programming languages at a fraction of the size. Most of these games resemble old Commodore64 games except that they're 4K in size and require a virtual machine that allocates roughly 40MB of RAM for a 4K program.... After seeing these Java games, I decided to go and try some of the other Java games that were mentioned in the previous thread, such as Wurm online and Jake. Both ran pathetically slow compared to an equivalent game written in other languages. I'm sitting here on a machine that can run Quake 4 at a high frame rate with no problems and yet in Wurm online and Jake I get random pauses due to garbage collection and about 5 frames per second. And yes, I'm using Java 1.5 and I've also tried with the 1.6 beta.

      I know some rabid Java zealots will come out and say that bad programs can be written in any language but I challenge you to show me a Java program that's used outside the enterprise environment, that isn't a web application that isn't a slow memory hog. I've tried a ton of client side Java applications and other than the Java IDE's (Eclipse and IDEA) I have yet to find a single non-enterprise Java program that both runs at an acceptable speed and isn't a complete resource hog. Don't say Azureus or jEdit... those are the two programs that the Java community always points to and they fail at least one, if not both, of the mentioned requirements. Even the original author of jEdit has moved on and openly admits that Java sucks for most tasks. He's even gone on to create his own programming language called Factor. This isn't even getting into the horrible look and feel of most client side Java applications...

      I program in Java for a living but Java has very limited uses and is far far to slow at making improvements.

    7. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're using Java wrong.

      See, Java is designed to sell over-priced hardware that's required to get reasonable performance out of "web applications" that could have been written using LAMP and a tiny fraction of the cost, but are instead being written in a language that gets interpretted by a VM that's run on a VM. So instead of a $2000 server, you can sell a $20,000 server.

      That's what Java is supposed to be used for.

    8. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      du -bs /usr/java/j2re1.4.2_10/
      60991692 /usr/java/j2re1.4.2_10/

      Something is seriously wrong with your java installation.

    9. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by alarosa · · Score: 1

      Scroll down using your arrow keys - there's more gold in them thar hills!

    10. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I haven't played Miners but in Boulder Dash you could convert enemies into emeralds by dropping stones on them.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people impressed with these games are rabid Java zealots.

      Well, duh.
      If someone wanted to make an impressive app in 4kb, they'd use assembler.

      The reason I find this competition fun is the contrast between an extremely high level language and the challenge of crushing it down into just 4kb.

      There are so many small little tricks to keep in mind, like reusing static integers to keep the constant pool small, or the fact that unrolling small loops can end up being SMALLER (and faster) in the end after the zipping.

      Yours,
      Rabid Java Zealot
      (Also developer of wurm online)

    12. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4KB games are also useful for Java-enabled cell phones.

    13. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people impressed with these games are rabid Java zealots.
      ...and anyone who appreciates clever programming.

      The overhead of the virtual machine is ridiculous and all of these games could or already have been written in other programming languages at a fraction of the size. Most of these games resemble old Commodore64 games except that they're 4K in size and require a virtual machine that allocates roughly 40MB of RAM for a 4K program....

      First, though top or other tools might report 40mb, that does not mean that the JVM uses this because of memory paging and the rt.jar, there are many other threads about this so I won't rehash it. Secondly, J2ME devices do not use that much memory.

      After seeing these Java games, I decided to go and try some of the other Java games that were mentioned in the previous thread, such as Wurm online and Jake. Both ran pathetically slow compared to an equivalent game written in other languages. I'm sitting here on a machine that can run Quake 4 at a high frame rate with no problems and yet in Wurm online and Jake I get random pauses due to garbage collection and about 5 frames per second. And yes, I'm using Java 1.5 and I've also tried with the 1.6 beta.

      Odd, they work fine for me.

      I know some rabid Java zealots will come out and say that bad programs can be written in any language but I challenge you to show me a Java program that's used outside the enterprise environment, that isn't a web application that isn't a slow memory hog.

      Limewire, Moneydance, Sitebuilder...

      Yeah, I read the JEdit guys blog. He seems like quite a jerk. Big Microsoft lover too these days.

    14. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      The actors in Miners4k look remarkably like Lemmings.

    15. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No!? Really?

    16. Re:Wow, only 4k, crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as compared to building a Visual Basic program that runs on only one 1.5GB+ operating system?

  3. Re:In other news... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Trolling is STILL for fags

    Fixed that for you.

  4. "Free Lunch" by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The annoying part of this free lunch thing is consumers are already paying, and so are content providers. They pay for bandwidth. I cost Apple 4 MBs of bandwidth everytime I get a song on iTMS, and Google must buy bandwidth by the truckload. So it's not like anyone is getting a free ride in the current system. And I'd love to see how well an ISP that cuts out the top 50 sites will do. I'm sure Joe Average will need Internet at home when he can't use Google, MSN, theWashingtonPost.com, Yahoo, Apple, Ebay, Amazon, Wikipedia, and CNN.com

    I wonder when the ISPs will get the memo: WITHOUT CONTENT, THEY ARE USELESS!!

    1. Re:"Free Lunch" by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      it gets hilarious if you think about it interms of how the internet shunts content around as packets. just substitute packets for packages, and the internet for mail services. This is as if you paid either FedEx, UPS, or DHL not just for sending a package, but as if the recepient also paid for the package.
      As it stands, I pay for my access to the comcast network. Google isnt accessing the comcast network when I google something. I AM. the network that I pay to access is interacting with the network that Google is paying to access, and hence we get the internets. Furthermore, if we're going to go to such a colossaly stupid system as the ISPs want, I'd better fucking see a reduction in my fucking bill, for ALL the down bandwidth that I should no longer be paying for.
      Thats right, if Google has to pay for what they send onto comcast's network when I google something then I'd better not be fucking charged for that same access.
      When will the ISPs realize that we already have the most effecient business model possible, with everyone paying both for up and down bandwidth at their point of entry to the network? when will they realize that if they succeed in pushing this bullshit through into law that all they're going to do is force google to start building its own networks and offering its own internet access... that will actually work at advertized speeds... and without retarded bandwidth shaping... wait a minute...
      I've forgotten why I was complaining...

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    2. Re:"Free Lunch" by eclectro · · Score: 1

      The annoying part of this free lunch thing is consumers are already paying,

      No, the really annoying part is that most of the so-called "infrastucture" that they already have is mostly dark fiber. Which means this is extortion.

      What google needs to do is buy up/purchase an interest in the companies that have fiber already. And start laying some of their own fiber.

      That way when some ISP comes out of their crack haze long enough to say that content providers owe them money, they can tell them to get lost.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:"Free Lunch" by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point: WITHOUT CONTENT, THEY ARE USELESS!!

      One could easily make the argument that it is the ISPs that are getting the free lunch. If there was no content, they would be out of business. In the 1980's, before the internet and when dial-up BBS ruled, the ISPs were the one who had to produce the content. AOL hired news people, GEnie had to manage their own forums, The Source actually had to be The Source for information. Now all the content is produced by other people, and most of it is now provided free (like this post).

      I say the ISPs should pay me money because I'm providing a valuable service to their customers, which makes them want to pay for broadband. Of course, that's only valid if they cared about customers. In reality, they treat my interesting content as a cost because they have to transport it. Ideally, they'd like to have to transfer no data and still get a monthly payment from their subscribers.

    4. Re:"Free Lunch" by drachenstern · · Score: 1
      Ideally, they'd like to have to transfer no data and still get a monthly payment from their subscribers.
      Don't forget no maintenance fees for the idle equipment either! Or not having to pay the linemen!

      "Wait," they say, "we could set this up like a tax on the bottom of the bill, so that the customers don't recognize what it's for, and they pay it anyways, and we just pocket the money for existing! Great Idea!!!"

      <before I get off my rant box> Pardon me, could you pass the KY.
      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
  5. 3 Things by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

    1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked. 2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story. 3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:3 Things by Y3J5cHRpYwo · · Score: 1

      One question: Who would Google have to pay? SBC (or at&t there new name, notice the lower case. :-) Qwest? etc? Or are we starting to talk about a transit tax. Basically if Google wants to have quick access to people on an ISP, they have to pay more than Yahoo? But I as a client to an ISP, if I want fast access to Google, I'll have to pay more. I'm beginning to see why Google is creating their own network. If it gets big enough, Google will be charging at&t to transit their network. :-)

    2. Re:3 Things by vialation · · Score: 1

      It hurts me every time I see someone post something like this -- it creates such a bad name for libertarians, as I can just imagine someone responding "Oh you silly immature libertarian, you need government", when really the view you state is such an impartial perspective on libertarianism that it isnt worth recognizing.

      The libertarian belief is that there should be less government, but we do understand its place, and understand that some government is needed. Just spouting that you hate government and how we are all "fucked", without any connection, any evidence, even some analysis as to how you came to this conclusion... I hope nobody actually think's libertarians are like this.

      About ISPs -- ISP's provide connectivity between points. It's what they do -- they are the common point in the pipe between Google and the enduser. Are they supposed to be paying Google for it's content? No, Google pays them for the connectivity that gives them the users that watch their ads and creates their profits. Google, nor the ISP, is "evil" here, theyre just providing a service, a very much needed one.

      Please, grow up, and don't give the people you are trying to emulate a bad image.

    3. Re:3 Things by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      I imagine ISPs will petition our corrupt political system to levy some sort of "bandwidth tax" on internet connections that would then go towards "supporting internet infrastructure." Obviously this money would then go straight to back to the large ISPs as they represent themselves as struggling entities trying to keep the internet afloat.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    4. Re:3 Things by Y3J5cHRpYwo · · Score: 1
      True, but the way these companies bring up Google as the poster child, they want to share in the profit or the popularity of Google not a realative flat tax on bytes.

      But that still leave some ISP in the cold. What if the traffic traverses an ISP? ISP1 may not connect to the client or to Google, but traffic from client to Google travels over ISP1. (I'm thinking of the old WilTel days.) ISP1 would want its share from both parties.

      Thus I do not see a bandwidth tax is what these ISP's are ultimately after.

      But I do agree with you, they do want the government and everyone to think of them as starving arts trying to better man-kind, if those evil corporations will only allow them.

      Thanks.

    5. Re:3 Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does the poster disown government as an institution? The poster said "the government", which implies the current government, not just "government". As a libertarian, you are almost required by definition to agree that the current government sucks.

      Google, nor the ISP, is "evil" here, theyre just providing a service, a very much needed one.

      Actually, ISP's are trying to provide less of a service and make more of a profit. Google is already paying Google's ISP, who has deals with different networks allowing traffic to go both ways. The ISP is already being paid by its customers. In essence, the ISP is being paid both ways: once by their customers in currency and once by Google in the form of network access.

      Now the ISP wants the Google side to pay again. And undoubtedly the ISP will want the customer to pay for "Premium" or "High Speed" content from Google as well. So, the ISP is asking to be paid three or four times for the same service. If you're okay with that, heck, go sign up. I'll stick with the ISP that doesn't try to control my content, thanks.

      At the same time, many such ISP are also competing with Google and other content providers. That is fine now, but if they start charging Google and other content providers for premium access - well, it will have anti-trust written all over it.

    6. Re:3 Things by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked. 2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story. 3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.


      As much as you hate government eminent domain may be the only way to stop those greedy shitbag ISPs from interfering with interstate commerce on the information superhighway.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    7. Re:3 Things by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you're so hurt, but I'm going to have to stand by what I've said. For decades the citizens of this country have slowly given up their supposed god given rights, liberties, and soverignty at the whim of those few in power. I don't think we're simply in some temporary bad postion due to government. I really think we are and have been FUCKED. Maybe you don't agree with the "immature" choice of words, but I really can't think of anything else so simple, yet so direct and to the point articulating how I feel about the position our government has put us in. The obscense governement actions that have perverted what the REAL core values of this country are deserve the most obscene word to describe them. In my opinion these actions, the politicans that support the actions, and the current system of governance that has developed which encourages and supports these politicians, (i.e. The Government), deserve nothing more there sheer contempt, and I HATE what they have done to my country. I refuse to shy away from such strong words when they so accuratly describe equally strong feelings I have about the subject of our government.

      I have no need for your lecture on Libertarian beliefs. I could care less for your insinuation that I'm not a "real" Libertarian. They are simply a political party. My alligence is to not to them, nor any other party. My alligence is to the concepts of freedom and liberty set forth by the founding fathers and enshrined in what I consider the greatest political texts man has ever written. If that is what Libertarians are about, then so be it, we're on the same page. But I could care less about being considered a member of your club.

      Back to my original post, lets be clear, "the Government" != "Goverment." The Goverment, in this case, refers to our United States Federal Government. As I said, in its current form, I hate. HATE IT. I wish it could be gutted. But I never said I hate Government. I'm not an anarchist for Christ's sake. As for connection, evidence, and analysis to support my conclusion, I would be happy to provide all sorts of materials and references demonstrating instances of how the goverment has unconstitutionally usurped power from the states and people. I will if you want me to but a) you, coming off as an "enlightened" libertarian probably know a lot about that anyway, and b) I didn't want to write a term paper about it, I wanted to write a quick 3 sentence post on slashdot expressing my complete and utter disgust.

      About ISPs. Thank you for your description of what an ISP does. I just had no idea what they did. Really. Thanks for clearing that all up. You've been so helpful. Really....
      I think the ISP is evil because they are LYING about this so-called "free lunch" and are perpetuating these lies in order get a free lunch of their own. There is nothing evil about profit or obtaining money, but companies using deceit in order to obtain it are NOT going to receive kind remarks from me.

      On a side note: Telekom was formed in 1996 when state-owned monopoly Deutsche Bundespost was privatized. Accoriding to wikipedia, as of 2005, the German government still holds a 15.7% stake in company stock. There are definate goverment interests at stake and lots of money is going to be involved. Bandwidth tax is coming. You've been warned.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    8. Re:3 Things by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      Two words: Mesh Routing.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    9. Re:3 Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, you've given in to the bulllshit and you now swear by a term that your government created. How pathetic.

      Libertarian - someone with no balls to see that they're choosing to be passive instead of applying some critical thinking.

    10. Re:3 Things by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Telekom has been slapped with anti monopoly rulings quite a few times. The only party that the legislators would listen to regarding a content tax is the GEZ because those can already collect a fee on every TV and radio, they want to expand that to computers because the ARD has a website. Personally I'd prefer them taking the public stations' websites off the net instead.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:3 Things by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It hurts me every time I see someone post something like this -- it creates such a bad name for libertarians,

      It doesn't, really. What does create the bad name for libertarians is their willingness to remove social security - and let poor people starve to death on the streets - just so they can avoid paying taxes.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:3 Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it sucks, vote it out.

      Can we get this printed on T-shirts, or something, because I think its a principle that americans, especially the sort of intelligent, enraged citizens that have thought about the issues and have something to say.

      Politicians get the message when you remove the incumbents, esp. if you remove _all_ of them.

      Vote It Out.

    13. Re:3 Things by operagost · · Score: 1

      I think you should note that the grandparent poster used the word "libertarian" uncapitalized, representing the political philosophy of libertarianism (aka "classical liberalism") and not the Libertarian (big "L") Party. Suggesting that one must support the Libertarian Party to be a libertarian is like suggesting that one must belong to the Democratic Party to support democracy. You're attacking a straw man.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:3 Things by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, I'd say libertarians oppose Social Security and welfare as we know it because of the unwarranted power it gives to government, not because they want to "avoid paying taxes," which is another absurd straw-man argument.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  6. Well, this whole double charge thing. by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    Maybe darpa should charge the telecom companies for using the internet. I mean if it wasn't for their invention, none of us would be here.

    I also think that local cities should ban this kind of extreme billing;. We all are paying for this anyway. I soubt that google et al. is gettin free acess.

    Seattle did this with bank machines. They banned extra-user fees. They figured that the banks were getting the monthly money from you, and the interac fee, and now some are charging a 'convience' fee.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    1. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      With regard to ATMs: Why ban extra usage fees?

      They are clearly stated. You can avoid banks that charge a fee when you use some other bank's ATM, and you can avoid the other charge by the ATM operator by avoiding such ATMs.

      No one is getting tricked here. As an aside, as the market for money clears, you find that on the balance, [fees + interest] (aka the price of money) tends to equilibrate.

      Just because something takes some extra thinking or is not necessariliy convenient is no reason in my mind to outlaw it.

      Best,
      Paul

    2. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      When you are young, or are able to drive, and live in an area that allows one to choose, of course, you tend to move.

      When it is a small town, with one bank machine, and the old-folks get off a bus. They are being forced to use that machine. No-where does that bank tell them that there are other banks around(Not that they should).l Now if they only want to take out 40$. The 1.50$ Interac fee, and now a 1.50$ 'convince fee'. Now it cost them almost 10% to take their money out. Of course it scales up. If your taking out 1000$ the fee is relative. But isnt this the same as me walkig into a convience store, buying a bottle of pop for a dollar, then being tacked on an extra quarter at the counter, because its a convience store ? Your already paying for an inflated price for a service.

      Its double dipping, double charging.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    3. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I mean if it wasn't for their invention, none of us would be here.

      Odd, I always thought that if it wasn't for our parents, we wouldn't be here.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      I agree that it is double dipping, and I am against the idea; however, I think that this is something that should be between banks and their customers.*

      As someone on both the content and the consumer side of the broadband argument, I am also against double dipping on that front. In this case, I think that the major players will be our biggest advocates here. The people who are using the bandwidth (Google, Alexa, etc.), are the same one's with the clout to say no. Together, they have considerable monopsony power. And they do have a common interest in ensuring that rates for internet access are fair.

      As people have said before, Google (and their users) would not stand for a tiered internet.

      Best,
      Paul

      *lets forget for a moment that banks today are defacto government corporations which changes things a little.

    5. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by msbsod · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. But if DARPA gets a share, then so should CERN for inventing the world wide web. Both organizations have one thing in common: they are funded by the tax payers. To simplify this matter I suggest that governments represent the people's interest and tell the ISP's to accept the status quo or face a bill from the tax payers. It might be also important to notice that the federal government still is a major shareholder of Deutsche Telekom shares. And they control Deutsche Telekom through regulations and laws. If the German government wanted to avoid double charging, they simply had to say no. Maybe some MdB's have other interests, too.

    6. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by suricatta · · Score: 1

      It's sort of like charging the local businesses a tax on roads because without roads, traffic wouldn't be able to get to them. Complete BS.

    7. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      No one is getting tricked here. As an aside, as the market for money
                      clears, you find that on the balance, [fees + interest] (aka the
                      price of money) tends to equilibrate.

      yeah, a couple of billion per year in the banks favor

    8. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the moderation system were working, the mods would certainly mod you funny/insightful.

    9. Re:Well, this whole double charge thing. by samjam · · Score: 1

      In the UK the banks closed branches "cos there's cash machines and its cheaper".
      Then they decided to charge a quid a time to use the cash machine (now there's few branches left).
      Idiots.

      it didn't last long before all the banks were boasting they THEY didn't charge for ATM use.

      Co-op bank NEVER charged for ATM use and also allowed post offices to be used as branches.
      -Which also makes it funnier about pensioners complaining about pensions being paid into bank accounts and not collectable from the post office, and even stranger that the Co-op bank didn't say "hey guys, get your pension paid into a co-op account and then come and get it out the post office".

      Weird.

      Sam

  7. New name... by wuffalicious · · Score: 1

    A slew of three-letter acronyms come to mind on the subject of new names for the NSA's little project. I, for one, am voting for "TMI".

    1. Re:New name... by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      How about UFIA?

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  8. Why oh why no sandbox? by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    First of all, I know that you can't do a lot of under-the-radar damage in 4k of code, and I'm sure they audit the programs to ensure they're just games. Additionally, I'm not paranoid enough to think someone would submit malicious code to a game contest.

    That said, this is one instance where it would have been nice to be able to play the games as applets in the browser. Note that I am not suggesting that they be submitted (for judgment at least) in this form, as making an applet+application would add some minor but unnecessary overhead to the bytecode; however, it could be a requirement that the entrants also submit an applet version for viewing on the web (inside of the java sandbox), so that guests visiting the site wouldn't have to download and run untrusted code.

    Also, it would be much more convenient for us /.ers that way.

    Best,
    Paul

    1. Re:Why oh why no sandbox? by Teckla · · Score: 1
      That said, this is one instance where it would have been nice to be able to play the games as applets in the browser.

      I couldn't agree more. Having them available to play as applets would be incredibly convenient for people who want to test drive the games a bit. It's one reason HTML/JavaScript is so popular...it's incredibly easy and accessible to the consumer of the technology.

      Java Web Start is interesting and cool technology, but I feel so much less safe running Java Web Start programs compared to applets. Also, JWS programs need to be uninstalled from Add/Remove Programs (on Windows) one at a time.

      I feel applets still have a lot to offer, and that Sun (and others) should keep doing their best to improve the applet experience and use them where appropriate.

    2. Re:Why oh why no sandbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A webstart application *is* sandboxed unless it asks for extra privileges, which you have to grand (same goes for applets... the user is asked for extra rights).

      Most 4k entries will run just fine in a sandbox. There are only a few which need extra privileges for going fullscreen.

    3. Re:Why oh why no sandbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >Also, JWS programs need to be uninstalled from Add/Remove Programs (on Windows)
      >one at a time.

      Run javaws(.exe) for launching apps, removing apps or installing shortcuts.

    4. Re:Why oh why no sandbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the games run in a sandbox via the jnlp.
      The ones that don't pop up a huge "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO TRUST L33T_HAX0R WITH YOUR COMPUTER!?" dialog thingie.
      Perhaps the games should be more clearly marked if they require full access to the computer.

      By the way, my entries (Miners4k and Dachon4k) both run in a sandbox.

  9. Time to aim for 3k by wetfeetl33t · · Score: 1

    Seems like keeping the games smaller than 4k still doesn't prevent the slashdot effect.

    --
    Register the editry.
  10. 4K really does allow a lot. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    The first game that I wrote was on a Radioo Shack model I Level I with 4K of memory.

    It was a real-time moon lander program with simple graphics, and it's own input-editing code (since it had to read the keyboard 'the hard way' to avoid blocking input).

    Given how much can now be done with a single call in Java these days, I'm not going to bet against much of anything.
    I'll try running some of the programs later.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:4K really does allow a lot. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      I'll try running some of the programs later.

      Like when they put their DNS servers back online.... I guess that, even with 4K programs, they have some bandwith limitations that a good slashdotting can still exceed.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  11. Just like RICO by nsayer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Pass a law to go after certain criminals, and it will be used for everything possible

    RICO is the quintesential example of this. While intended to go after organized crime, it has been used to go after everyone from the RIAA to anti abortion protesters to Major League Baseball and even video store owners who rent adult movies.

    Absolute power, and all that.

  12. Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    SURPRISE!!

    Everyone with a fucking clue knew that the Patriot Act was going to massively change the legal landscape when it came to warrants and privacy.

    Even your representatives in the Government who obviously didn't RTFA (Read The Fucking Act) knew that parts of it were oppressive enough to warrant a sunset clause.

    I won't say that there was significant public outcry before The Patriot Act was passed, because there wasn't. The Nation was hysterical over what had happened and as a result, a grab bag of previously rejected legislation was rushed to get included in several hundred pages of legal code.

    If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      "If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?" This is the stupidest comment I've heard on this issue. If the terrorists win, we won't have a constitution. If the Constitution has to adapt to survive continual, international warfare by unregulated, rogue elements across the world, then that's why it was made the way it was. As long as soldiers don't burst into my home, and the police aren't snatching me off the street without cause or warrant, then the fourth amendment has retained its intent. You have to remember that privacy isn't absolute, only reasonable. It's unreasonable to think your "right" to talk over interstate or international telephone calls unobserved should protect the terrorists plans to destroy America unobserved.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

      Yes because that is the whole point of terrorism.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would be more harmful to America - several more thousand dead civilians, or becoming a police state with fewer liberties than Saddam's Iraq?

    4. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would be much more confident with the intellects of my fellow americans if they all read 1984

    5. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by Linnen · · Score: 1
      If the terrorists win, we won't have a constitution.
      So to save the Constitution, we must change it by gutting it of any inconvenient liberties and check-and-balances mentioned therein.

      Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing the latest version of "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
    6. Re:Patriot Act provision not just for terrorists. by Anonymous+Slacker · · Score: 1
      If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

      Yes.

      --
      "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
  13. Obligatory Walt Whitman... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 2, Informative
    Long, but a decent message.

    Europe [The 72d and 73d Years of These States] by Walt Whitman

    Suddenly out of its stale and drowsy lair, the lair of slaves,
    Like lightning it le'pt forth half startled at itself,
    Its feet upon the ashes and the rags, its hands tight to the throats
    of kings.

    O hope and faith!
    O aching close of exiled patriots' lives!
    O many a sicken'd heart!
    Turn back unto this day and make yourselves afresh.

    And you, paid to defile the People--you liars, mark!
    Not for numberless agonies, murders, lusts,
    For court thieving in its manifold mean forms, worming from his
    simplicity the poor man's wages,
    For many a promise sworn by royal lips and broken and laugh'd at in
    the breaking,

    Then in their power not for all these did the blows strike revenge,
    or the heads of the nobles fall;
    The People scorn'd the ferocity of kings.

    But the sweetness of mercy brew'd bitter destruction, and the
    frighten'd monarchs come back,
    Each comes in state with his train, hangman, priest, tax-gatherer,
    Soldier, lawyer, lord, jailer, and sycophant.

    Yet behind all lowering stealing, lo, a shape,
    Vague as the night, draped interminably, head, front and form, in
    scarlet folds,
    Whose face and eyes none may see,
    Out of its robes only this, the red robes lifted by the arm,
    One finger crook'd pointed high over the top, like the head of a
    snake appears.

    Meanwhile corpses lie in new-made graves, bloody corpses of young men,
    The rope of the gibbet hangs heavily, the bullets of princes are
    flying, the creatures of power laugh aloud,
    And all these things bear fruits, and they are good.

    Those corpses of young men,
    Those martyrs that hang from the gibbets, those hearts pierc'd by
    the gray lead,
    Cold and motionless as they seem live elsewhere with unslaughter'd vitality.

    They live in other young men O kings!
    They live in brothers again ready to defy you,
    They were purified by death, they were taught and exalted.

    Not a grave of the murder'd for freedom but grows seed for freedom,
    in its turn to bear seed,
    Which the winds carry afar and re-sow, and the rains and the snows nourish.

    Not a disembodied spirit can the weapons of tyrants let loose,
    But it stalks invisibly over the earth, whispering, counseling, cautioning.
    Liberty, let others despair of you--I never despair of you.

    Is the house shut? is the master away?
    Nevertheless, be ready, be not weary of watching,
    He will soon return, his messengers come anon.

    So, in response to "3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.", I say, you are only fucked if you allow yourselves to be.

    Come on, America. Please wake up!

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Obligatory Walt Whitman... by Dhar · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points...

      -g.

    2. Re:Obligatory Walt Whitman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O hope and faith!

      A dollar worth of
      hope and faith bought, but someone
      in Ohio won it.

  14. Tiered Internet by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The only people who want a tiered internet are the telecom companies. Users don't want it, web companies don't want it...how in the hell do they expect to get this to get through? If they all colluded to make sure everybody in their industry did this, wouldn't that be illegal and violate some price fixing laws (not necessarily in Germany, but in the States)?

    My other question is...if this does get pushed through, is there anything preventing another company from starting up and basically offering things the way are currently? I mean, if the whole telecom industry decides to force us into tiered internet, couldn't some company just NOT do it, and rake in the cash hand over fist from all the users and companies that flock to them?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Tiered Internet by rblum · · Score: 1

      There is no free market for ISPs. The telcos own the last mile, and they're going to gouge you for it. Why do you think DSL in the states is still so expensive.

      So yes, if the telcos push this through, we're screwed.

    2. Re:Tiered Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lord_Dweomer is correct.
      It will only take one Telco to maintain the status quo for this to fail. However, if the Telcos operate as a cartel, then all will change together in lock-step.
      And you will have to take it or leave it.

    3. Re:Tiered Internet by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      The only reason people have broadband is to get the content provided by content providers. All the telecoms revenue is due to the presence of these providers and their content.

    4. Re:Tiered Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, any Provider "doing it the old way" would not have the extra revenue from this new charging system.
      Therefore they could not bring the price down to the same level as being offered to the public from the other ISP's.
      And, since the majority of the public (possibly excluding private content providers) only look at the bottom line, they are only going to choose the cheapest.

      As an example, T-COM DSL Flatrate in germany costs about 40 all in (with line rental etc), last year it still cost 60. T-COM only reduced the price to come in line with other pricing schemes from its competitors. (80% of whom, are resellers of T-COM DSL!!)
      Because of the DSL competition, the ISP Prices are still sinking, this means less revenue for the ISP's, so now they're looking for another way to reduce the prices... but only for the consumer!!
      By charging content providers, they will be able to reduce the prices, possibly to zero for the consumers.
      Now, when faced with the choice, Free for Tiered internet, or 20 per month for Internet "Normal", what are they going to choose. I know I'd like an exra 240 in my pocket each year.

      The only people who can prevent this, are the consumers, but consumers are greedy, so even if the content providers boycott this system, someone's going to pay the money to get through to the consumers.

      That is the sound of enevitability!

    5. Re:Tiered Internet by loraksus · · Score: 1

      You think the prices will drop for consumers after this is implemented? Are you retarded?

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    6. Re:Tiered Internet by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      No, what he said is they'll drop it enough to make it a no brainer to chose the tiered intarweb.

      They have the infrastructure, they'll be getting cash from the content providers, it's going to force some competition, as they'll be able to charge more for more traffic coming through their networks, so the companies will want more users and will be trying to offer the rates which keep more users.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    7. Re:Tiered Internet by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      Collusion is illegal in Germany too. But even if it weren't, should all the ISPs collude to fix prices, there would be a truly *tremendous* opportunity for everybody else to develop o Free Internet, so I don't think it makes much sense for them.

    8. Re:Tiered Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) If this tiered service did exist, it would be a strong incentive to destroy the "Common Carrier" status of the Telco. That is, the telco may currently claim that it is not responsible for the information that flows through its network because "data is data" but as soon as you start saying some data is better than others, then you take responsibility for that data. Thus, if kiddy porn goes across the wires the Telco is liable for that.

      2) Few companies have an infrastructure capable of competing viably with the Telco. The Telco only needs to keep rates low while the new entrant is starting up and (even if it looses money) the entrant will fail to make profit. Then the Telco can return to higher prices. Note that the US heavily regulates the Telcos because of this.

    9. Re:Tiered Internet by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Actually, all it takes is big web companies acting together to stop it. Such, you can save 20 a month and get tiered service, but that means that you can only connect to your ISP, because nobody else is willing to pay.

      If Google just detected Deutsche Telekom AG connections, and put on a note that says that the reason pages are so slow for you is that your ISP makes them slow, DT would probably lose a lot of customers. Google could probably actually extort a bunch of money from DT now, if they wanted to, by threatening to delay responses for DT customers and blame DT (except that DT could prove that it wasn't true, and it wouldn't work if people didn't believe Google).

    10. Re:Tiered Internet by cmj · · Score: 1

      A new competitor absolutely could.

      The problem of course is that dreaded last mile. Since the FCC has decided that telcos and cable companies do not need to share their lines you have an effective monopoly on the existing infrastructure. Any competitor trying to enter the market would have to build out infrastructure reaching each and every home they want to service, and do you know how expensive that is to do?

      If you want to go wireless then you have a bunch of options - satellite, terrestrial fixed with existing technology, lighter than air dirigibles floating over major metropolitan areas (assuming you can get FAA approval for unmanned flights), cellular based services over 3G networks, etc. All are pricey and have their own set of problems and none of them are going to be as ubiquitous as cable and DSL for some time.

      Expect to see few real competitors until WiMax is standardized and the per unit costs begin dropping. Even then you will have to be licensed to offer the service since it will use licensed spectrum, and there is a limited amount of that available.

      Meanwhile the rest of the world gets faster and faster access for less and less money every year. Grrrrr.

  15. tiered internet by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sure, why not. Kill it off completely. with all the garbage/spam/phishing/commercials the internet is barely worth the trouble as it is now. Convert it back to a pay as you go ( like the old days, when it was almost unheard of outside of the miltary and higher education ) and kill it.

    Patriot act? Dont even get me started on that powergrab farce.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Re:FP again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just taking bad Chuck Norris jokes and making them worse. Now be quiet before I Fucking Kill (TM) you.

    Sincerely,
    Steve Ballmer
    CEO, Microsoft Corp.

  17. Java games by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1
    "spring is in the air"/building game is fun, original too, not like the other keyboard driven clones of games that have been cloned so many times, the "Joe Sixpack" browsing the net for games probably thinks the clone is the original...

    anyway, like I said, original and fun...

    1. Re:Java games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun, but not original.

  18. The Judges were right to rule that way by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    The two judges both agree that Congress intended the 'nationwide search' provision for going after email or other Internet data to apply to the investigation of all federal crimes and not just to cases involving terrorism."

    They are right too.

    Since most of congress did not even read the patriot act, then the "intention" in it is pretty much that of the author's - John Asscraft. We all know how upon becoming AG he went from a champion for privacy rights (he was a major vocal opponent to the Clipper Chip backdoor spy-scheme under Clinton's administration) to an abolitionist of privacy rights (and state's rights for that matter, another bit of personal hypocrisy there). So it is safe to conclude that Asscraft fully intended the pat-riot act to be used as broadly as the DoJ could stretch it.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  19. Fraud and extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I come from, when you sell something, the buyer owns it now. You don't get to sell it again to someone else.

    I already paid (indirectly) AT&T to move bits for me. Are they going to honor that contract?

  20. Good feminists abort male fetuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good feminists abort male fetuses
    When you hate make sure your hate is Politically Correct hate.

  21. Monopoly by tepples · · Score: 1

    you can avoid the other charge by the ATM operator by avoiding such ATMs.

    Unless one bank operates all ATMs within 15 kilometers of where you are staying. I don't know if it is still the case in Terre Haute, Indiana, but when I went to school there, First Financial was pretty much the only bank in town. I learned to rely on Wal-Mart for withdrawals using my Visa check card.

  22. Get it right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not "Harvard's Berkman Institute," it's the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

  23. hrmmm by drachenstern · · Score: 1

    This could just be me, but I would say that Google DOES use the resources of various ISPs, because they have this little thing they use called a bot. When they trawl the 'net, they aren't sniffing every packet that goes by on every network and compiling an image from there, they are actively searching the 'net, thus using a portion of the network providers ability to serve files to the end user. But isn't this what Google is paying their ISP for? Presumably, with an operation as large as Google's, they are paying for multiple OCs, (but that is a best guess without any authoratative proof to confirm. Any info anybody?).

    --
    2^3 * 31 * 647
    1. Re:hrmmm by technos · · Score: 1

      It's give and take. Google, in offering search to millions of users, once in a while requests a copy of a page as so to index it.

      In the case of you searching Google; You're paying for the downstream, they're paying for the upstream. In the case of them indexing a page, they're paying for the downstream, you're paying for the upstream.

      In both cases, both Google's ISP and yours makes money.

      What the ISPs are asking for amounts to "I see you run a successful business, and make millions of dollars. Cut us in or we make a bunch of your customers unhappy and tell them it's your fault so they run screaming to your competitor, who will pay us.". Call it whatever you like, it boils down to "protection money".

      All the whining about "infrastrusture" and "investment in new capacity" boils down to "We think you should pay more for bandwidth because you make money off it"

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    2. Re:hrmmm by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      I would be of the opinion that when the google bot trawls the net caching sites, they are accessing websites whose owners have already paid for access, both up and down, to the network on which they reside. Google is not doing anything, accessing any network, in any way which has not already been paid for.
      If I have a website on ISP X's network, I'm already paying for ALL the bandwidth that site uses. I'm already paying for ALL traffic accessing ISP X's network in order to access my site. If ISP X thinks it should charging google to access its network to access and cache my site, then I should not be charged for that access.
      As I'm already being charged for said access, charging google as well would be inappropriate.
      As I said earlier, no matter which way they word it, it boils down to wanting to charge both ends of a shipment, when one end has already been informed its paying the whole postage.
      Its bullshit and it will not stand.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    3. Re:hrmmm by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      i agree, and this raises another point i had not considered, most isp's charge content provider/owners for up bandwidth, and most content consumers/users for down bandwidth, so they would effectively be charging twice for the same packet transfer anyways, eh?

      corporate + politics
      yay

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
  24. Uh, yeah, that's already covered in the docs. by NNKK · · Score: 1

    The enigma-client installation instructions explicitly tell users to replace "nominal" with a strong random password and provide precise instructions on how to do so. If you're too stupid to follow such simple instructions, you deserve to have your system compromised.

    http://www.bytereef.org/howto/m4-project/enigma-cl ient-winXP-Pro-install.html

    1. Re:Uh, yeah, that's already covered in the docs. by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Okay. And if you're the type of square who always reads and follows instructions, you deserve to be hit by a cement truck.

    2. Re:Uh, yeah, that's already covered in the docs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new instructions you mean? The ones which were "updated...to warn users about this potential flaw and point out a quick work-around." ? Those instructions? The ones which weren't there when /. originally ran the story? Are those the instructions you mean, fucktard?

    3. Re:Uh, yeah, that's already covered in the docs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm... I hate to call you a dumbass but.. You're a dumbass. The instructions you're pointing at are the updated ones which they posted after complaints about the back-door action.

    4. Re:Uh, yeah, that's already covered in the docs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll!

  25. Tagging dupes! by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    Kindof off-topic, but tagging. It's a new /. feature. We (well, subscribers) can finally tag a topic as a DUPE. Joy.

    1. Re:Tagging dupes! by KrisW · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to have to be a subscriber to tag. I just gave it a try and it seemed to work.

      --


      "Think you can take me? Go ahead on. It's your move." --Joe Don Baker in Final Justice
    2. Re:Tagging dupes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG??A slashback without mentioning firefly or serenity?

      WTF?

  26. Deutsche Telekom: Fick Dich. Get WiMax instead. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    I tend to agree with most what you say but especially with the IG Farben of telecommunications you downplay corporate greed. Did you know that Deutsche Telekom charges their DSL subscribers extra when they want to use their own email rather than the @t-online.de address they are automatically assigned? Yes! Unless you pay them extra, no matter what sender address you wish to use, mail going through their smtp server gets it sender address substituted with your @tonline.de address. With that kind of thinking it will only be a matter of time until they block all outgoing traffic on port tcp/25 (smtp) and charge you twice as much not to fiddle with your sender address.

    The most obvious solution to the last mile bottleneck of course is IEEE 802.16 "WiMax". a high-bandwidth wireless network designed especially with getting through on the last mile in mind. Besides being a threat to the last mile cash cow it also competes with telco high-bandwidth wireless services such as UMTS phone and data.

  27. US ISPs do not have common carrier status! by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
    1) If this tiered service did exist, it would be a strong incentive to destroy the "Common Carrier" status of the Telco.

    You nailed on the head the most common misconception in this argument. The telcos DO NOT HAVE COMMON CARRIER STATUS FOR ISPs. Not in America anyway. Yes, the TELCO part of the business has common carrier status, but there is a different article (I believe section 6) of the Communications Act which applies to ISPs and they are not granted common carrier status so you can't hold that over their head.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  28. You're going to do rather well. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    in the new tyranny, aren't you?

    Remarks which support the current leadership will put the people who make them in line for nice cushy positions behind the iron fist of the New Fascism, (served up American-Style).

    I salute you. Really. Please don't report me to the Homeland goon squad for my flagrant association with my brown-skinned friends. I cower under your suspicious glare. Honest. You really do send chills down my spine.

    --After all, that recent contract awarded to Haliburton to build spiffy new Detention Camps on American soil will just be there for show, right?


    -FL

  29. 4k .kkrieger??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the record, awesome game demos like the 96kb .kkrieger that has been on here so many times, assume the presence of the dx 9.0 .dll which is kinda like allowing the java virtual machine; it provides one hell of alot of functionality for free.