Hmm, I take your point, but you need to understand just how technologically inept the members of the house of parliament are! When they are not sleeping through session, they are more worried about what's for lunch half the time. The demographic is pretty worrying!
This should be ringing alarm bells with everyone. The Internet community in the UK just does not have a strong enough voice to prevent this being rushed through. Here is an email I've just sent to the Minister for "Culture"... I hope that he can stop golfing long enough to read it:
Dear Mr Vaizey,
I've been reading with interest the world you're doing against net neutrality. In the States, net neutrality has really taken centre stage, with the online community as a whole outraged over the proposals to do just as you are doing, restructuring the Internet in a commercial and self-serving way. The only real difference is that in the States, law makers are more up to date with technological advancements, coupled with the fact that the American Internet community is more vocal, meaning that it is not an issue which can be bundled through. I believe that in parliament though this could very well happen, members of the house often lack the technical knowledge to see just how damaging this would be to the Internet as a whole.
Free, unrestricted, non-capped access to the Internet is something which must be protected at all cost. Your suggestion would mean that a class based system would exist on the Internet, with the better system being available to those that could afford it. Your original proposal may not allow for this directly, but once bandwidth capping is in place, it would only be a matter of time. In essence, it would completely restructure the Internet as we know it, changing the very essence of what is has achieved since inception; the removal of class and creed. This can only be bad for the consumer, and in turn, your constituents.
I would urge you to reconsider your position, and the actions you are planning to take, unless you want to permanently damage something which is sure to be the cornerstone of our futures. You would indeed be historically remembered as such, the "culture" minister that was responsible for the sell out of the Internet.
I agree that there has to be some moderation system. But its interesting that we've never seen it come to fruition on MMORPGs. We've seen it work with community based sites (like Neopets) which actually balance their entire world on user-generated content and feedback, but nothing as dynamic as WoW.
I agree that user generated content is the future, but think that it needs some serious controls put in place to avoid scenarios such as the ones plover points out.
On a more fiscally related note though, if MMORPGs did start to allow user submitted content, then would it be right to continue their pricing structure? Therein lies another discussion!
Thanks for that volsung, a really detailed post. I've been thinking about picking up a DX for a while now, so this article really got my attention. I really WANT one of these things, and am just trying to justify NEEDING one. It's a slow process, especially with a $500 price tag and no immediate availability, but I'll get there:).
I've just sent a note to Be referencing this story. There is just so much to be concerned about here, the sheer fact that this article has been arbitrarily censored is bad enough, but the crude blocking method and lack of any communications with members just adds insult to injury.
Apparently, you can Be anywhere, just don't BeThere.
Makes for interesting reading... even if it is Verisign's! I would have thought China would take a more proactive role in monitoring its domain names, especially being such a closed and censored country.
I've had to register some pretty interesting domains in the past; some country level registrars will make you jump through exorbitant amount of hoops before processing your application while others will simply refuse unless you can prove physical residency.
It does make you wonder whether China has fallen into this trap accidentally, or if they have been enjoying the revenue a little too much?
OK, poor call by Microsoft. Seems like a pretty pants way of recovering from a bad situation... but surely there is some logic to trying to avert Vista prejudice.
I have not used Vista extensively... I switched to Linux in the Windows XP era and haven't looked back... but I have to admit that I have become afflicted by Vista prejudice promoted by the tech community.
Have I properly trialled Vista before reaching my conclusion of it being the spawn of Hell? No. Have the majority of Vista-haters out there? I wonder.
So yes, I can see why this would seem like a viable test, although they needed to keep it a closed one, and then work on the findings.
Will not seek a fine? Pretty poor; I guess they get a hall pass because they were the first to try and exploit people without permission.
Its moves like this that people need to take notice of, and act appropriately towards Comcast. If I used their services it would certainly be a reason to stop.
Agreed, they need to have the authority though. Like so much online law... it just needs to be written. Judges are pretty useful here, but lack the knowledge and have to rely too heavily on consults (which reduces their power).
Exactly, Ubuntu has gone WAY commercial recently. As a previous Ubuntu user I can't help feeling a little sold out!
If the big guys keep allowing closer source, nothing will change, and nVidia and the like will remain in the driving seat.
Gobuntu perhaps epitomizes everything that a Linux distrib should not be, by its very existence it supports open software as a "specialist choice" rather than the mainstream. Linux seems to be at a juncture here; I just hope there are enough people like us to help it take the right path.
Agreed, the very nature of kernel interaction requires complete transparency. That is my only qualm with ndiswrapper, it effectively bypasses several safeguards to achieve connectivity.
Of course us diehards actually buy hardware we KNOW have native support:).
OK, I have to agree with byolinux on this one. Many distribs are now moving towards the world of "market share" and dare I mention it, commercialism.
It is a shame that distribs have to include (or give repository access to) closed source software. Ideally the user needs to be made very aware of the closed source nature of the software prior to installing, which distribs do not commonly do.
For me, its not about usability but transparency. I'm not worried that closed source software is somehow unpure from a social standpoint, we just happen to know how closed source applications have been outed in the past.
IMHO of course:).
I also had to re-read this a couple of times. I also firmly believe that 2008 is the Year of Linux. All we need to do is show our schools and universities just how interoperable Linux is now and we will be set! GO TEAM LINUX!
Actually the Washington Post article is based on raw data entitled 'Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities in 2006' and contains both known vulnerabilities and exploited vulnerabilities.
... Okay okay... a little quick off the mark maybe. Taking a look, I can see that on average Microsoft took 41.2 days per vulnerability (26 per critical vulnerability). The IE team did have to patch 12 vulnerabilities last year though, to Mozilla's one. My point still stands though, the bigger you are, the more of a target you become. Granted, Microsoft's response time IS unacceptable......
Okay okay... a little quick off the mark maybe. Taking a look, I can see that on average Microsoft took 41.2 days per vulnerability (26 per critical vulnerability). The IE team did have to patch 12 vulnerabilities last year though, to Mozilla's one. My point still stands though, the bigger you are, the more of a target you become. Granted, Microsoft's response time IS unacceptable...
Hmm... seem to be missing the point. If you look at individual issues and measure response time, I think you would find that about one week is an average response time per vulnerability for Microsoft. Mozilla's response time? 9 days... so about the same.
Hmm... all hail the Washington Post for very neutral reporting on this one. Although I am BY NO MEANS a defender of Microsoft I feel we have to put this in perspective. How much market share does Microsoft hold vz Mozilla? I would imagine that the people trying to find security exploits are for the most part looking at Internet Explorer... not only does it still hugely command market share, but it's also the choice for less savvy users.
A little like a virus comparison between say Macs and PCs... its all a matter of statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I take your point, but you need to understand just how technologically inept the members of the house of parliament are! When they are not sleeping through session, they are more worried about what's for lunch half the time. The demographic is pretty worrying!
This should be ringing alarm bells with everyone. The Internet community in the UK just does not have a strong enough voice to prevent this being rushed through. Here is an email I've just sent to the Minister for "Culture"... I hope that he can stop golfing long enough to read it:
Dear Mr Vaizey,
I've been reading with interest the world you're doing against net neutrality. In the States, net neutrality has really taken centre stage, with the online community as a whole outraged over the proposals to do just as you are doing, restructuring the Internet in a commercial and self-serving way. The only real difference is that in the States, law makers are more up to date with technological advancements, coupled with the fact that the American Internet community is more vocal, meaning that it is not an issue which can be bundled through. I believe that in parliament though this could very well happen, members of the house often lack the technical knowledge to see just how damaging this would be to the Internet as a whole.
Free, unrestricted, non-capped access to the Internet is something which must be protected at all cost. Your suggestion would mean that a class based system would exist on the Internet, with the better system being available to those that could afford it. Your original proposal may not allow for this directly, but once bandwidth capping is in place, it would only be a matter of time. In essence, it would
completely restructure the Internet as we know it, changing the very essence of what is has achieved since inception; the removal of class and creed. This can only be bad for the consumer, and in turn, your
constituents.
I would urge you to reconsider your position, and the actions you are planning to take, unless you want to permanently damage something which is sure to be the cornerstone of our futures. You would indeed
be historically remembered as such, the "culture" minister that was responsible for the sell out of the Internet.
Yours faithfully,
Luke O'Connell
I agree that there has to be some moderation system. But its interesting that we've never seen it come to fruition on MMORPGs. We've seen it work with community based sites (like Neopets) which actually balance their entire world on user-generated content and feedback, but nothing as dynamic as WoW.
I agree that user generated content is the future, but think that it needs some serious controls put in place to avoid scenarios such as the ones plover points out.
On a more fiscally related note though, if MMORPGs did start to allow user submitted content, then would it be right to continue their pricing structure? Therein lies another discussion!
Thanks for that volsung, a really detailed post. I've been thinking about picking up a DX for a while now, so this article really got my attention. I really WANT one of these things, and am just trying to justify NEEDING one. It's a slow process, especially with a $500 price tag and no immediate availability, but I'll get there :).
I've just sent a note to Be referencing this story. There is just so much to be concerned about here, the sheer fact that this article has been arbitrarily censored is bad enough, but the crude blocking method and lack of any communications with members just adds insult to injury.
Apparently, you can Be anywhere, just don't BeThere.
Makes for interesting reading... even if it is Verisign's! I would have thought China would take a more proactive role in monitoring its domain names, especially being such a closed and censored country.
I've had to register some pretty interesting domains in the past; some country level registrars will make you jump through exorbitant amount of hoops before processing your application while others will simply refuse unless you can prove physical residency.
It does make you wonder whether China has fallen into this trap accidentally, or if they have been enjoying the revenue a little too much?
OK, poor call by Microsoft. Seems like a pretty pants way of recovering from a bad situation... but surely there is some logic to trying to avert Vista prejudice. I have not used Vista extensively... I switched to Linux in the Windows XP era and haven't looked back... but I have to admit that I have become afflicted by Vista prejudice promoted by the tech community. Have I properly trialled Vista before reaching my conclusion of it being the spawn of Hell? No. Have the majority of Vista-haters out there? I wonder. So yes, I can see why this would seem like a viable test, although they needed to keep it a closed one, and then work on the findings.
Will not seek a fine? Pretty poor; I guess they get a hall pass because they were the first to try and exploit people without permission. Its moves like this that people need to take notice of, and act appropriately towards Comcast. If I used their services it would certainly be a reason to stop.
Agreed, they need to have the authority though. Like so much online law... it just needs to be written. Judges are pretty useful here, but lack the knowledge and have to rely too heavily on consults (which reduces their power).
Exactly, Ubuntu has gone WAY commercial recently. As a previous Ubuntu user I can't help feeling a little sold out! If the big guys keep allowing closer source, nothing will change, and nVidia and the like will remain in the driving seat. Gobuntu perhaps epitomizes everything that a Linux distrib should not be, by its very existence it supports open software as a "specialist choice" rather than the mainstream. Linux seems to be at a juncture here; I just hope there are enough people like us to help it take the right path.
Agreed, the very nature of kernel interaction requires complete transparency. That is my only qualm with ndiswrapper, it effectively bypasses several safeguards to achieve connectivity. Of course us diehards actually buy hardware we KNOW have native support :).
OK, I have to agree with byolinux on this one. Many distribs are now moving towards the world of "market share" and dare I mention it, commercialism. It is a shame that distribs have to include (or give repository access to) closed source software. Ideally the user needs to be made very aware of the closed source nature of the software prior to installing, which distribs do not commonly do. For me, its not about usability but transparency. I'm not worried that closed source software is somehow unpure from a social standpoint, we just happen to know how closed source applications have been outed in the past. IMHO of course :).
I also had to re-read this a couple of times. I also firmly believe that 2008 is the Year of Linux. All we need to do is show our schools and universities just how interoperable Linux is now and we will be set! GO TEAM LINUX!
Actually the Washington Post article is based on raw data entitled 'Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities in 2006' and contains both known vulnerabilities and exploited vulnerabilities.
... Okay okay... a little quick off the mark maybe. Taking a look, I can see that on average Microsoft took 41.2 days per vulnerability (26 per critical vulnerability). The IE team did have to patch 12 vulnerabilities last year though, to Mozilla's one. My point still stands though, the bigger you are, the more of a target you become. Granted, Microsoft's response time IS unacceptable......
Okay okay... a little quick off the mark maybe. Taking a look, I can see that on average Microsoft took 41.2 days per vulnerability (26 per critical vulnerability). The IE team did have to patch 12 vulnerabilities last year though, to Mozilla's one. My point still stands though, the bigger you are, the more of a target you become. Granted, Microsoft's response time IS unacceptable...
Hmm... seem to be missing the point. If you look at individual issues and measure response time, I think you would find that about one week is an average response time per vulnerability for Microsoft. Mozilla's response time? 9 days... so about the same.
Hmm... all hail the Washington Post for very neutral reporting on this one. Although I am BY NO MEANS a defender of Microsoft I feel we have to put this in perspective. How much market share does Microsoft hold vz Mozilla? I would imagine that the people trying to find security exploits are for the most part looking at Internet Explorer... not only does it still hugely command market share, but it's also the choice for less savvy users. A little like a virus comparison between say Macs and PCs... its all a matter of statistics.