Is this (BMD + border guards) indeed Libertarian Party policy, and do you think it sensible or not?
Yes, it is, and no, I don't.
But I disagree with a hell of lot more Democrat policies and actions, and Republican policies and actions.
George Bush wants to greatly increase defense spending. Al Gore wants to greatly decrease defense spending.
Harry Browne wants to basically leave defense spending alone, but shift a lot of it away from foreign adventures and into a national missile defense system. That sounds pretty sensible to me.
George Bush thinks the answer to prosperity is to cut taxes on the rich, so they'll be able to pay more to employees. Al Gore thinks the answer to prosperity is to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor.
Harry Browne thinks the answer to prosperity is let people keep their damn money, instead of taking it away from them in the first place. The founding fathers agreed, it wasn't until the early 20th Century that we strayed.
Yes, Harry and I disagree on a couple of points; but George and I disagree on more, and Al and I probably couldn't agree on a restaurant. We certainly don't agree on Tipper.:-)
I will not vote for anyone who doesn't agree with me on both of these points:
1) No restriction of my First Amendment rights, short of a clear and present danger to others.
2) No restriction of my Second Amendment rights, short of a clear and present danger to others.
Bush fails on the former, and Gore fails on both. Browne passes with flying colors.
I saw this guy on the PBS Newshour, and, sorry, this guy is a loon.
And George W. "there should be limits on freedom" and Al "I invented the Internet, and v-chips should be in your TV whether you want them or not" Gore aren't loons?
Do you think either of these guys supports the hacker agenda?
If you do, you're sadly mistaken. They are both quite in favor of government sticking it's nose into your bedroom and PC. Their own public statements and records make it quite clear.
A vote for either is a vote against freedom, and what's the alternative? Pat Buchanan? There's a paragon of mental stability for you.
(This has no relevance, but I'm abusing Slashdot to say that I think Bush is a rotten candidate, and while I don't like Gore, I would vote for a malignant carbon rod for president before I would vote for GWB).
So instead of doing something rational, like voting for a candidate who shares your views, you're going to vote for a schlub who thinks it ought to be legal for the government to tell you to shut up.
I've met George Jr., and while I haven't met Al I've met Str^H^H^HTipper Gore, and told her she was a dangerous idiot to her face. (Well, she heard me, anyway.)
Between the two of them, I'd have to vote for Harry Browne
sendmail can do that already. The problem is that not everybody runs a version that can, so unless you only send mail to servers that do, you have a problem.
And not everybody uses sendmail. Fortunately, you can use SSL for this, so most servers could be doing this if their Admins wanted to set it up.
And this is all coming from the tech culture that has no shared political issues, if you belive Mr Katz.
Perhaps you should have read Mr. Katz more carefully.
He never said we didn't have political issues, he just said that most of 'em weren't about concrete issues like food, clothing, and shelter; they're about more esoteric issues, like speech and freedom. And that we don't do anything substantive about them.
How many of us have actually *DONE* something about this issue? Not buying a damn t-shirt, actually showing up at political fundraisers and asking your Congressman what his position is?
Actually writing a letter to your Senator, not just yet another completely ignored form email?
The biggest political stand most geeks take is changing their fucking signature line, or the background color of their web page.
And most of us won't even do that much; how many people are taking this opportunity to actually BUY one of those t-shirts, not just/. the Copyleft site viewing it?
I find it truly ironic that the criticism of this post, in which Jon discusses someone else's claim that geek culture is ugly and selfish, consists largely of ugly, selfish responses.
You are not freaking listening. I use Gnapster daily, I'm quite familiar with what it does.
Listen carefully this time:
THE RIAA IS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE NAPSTER SERVICE. IF THEY DO SO, WHICH THEY VERY NEARLY DID TODAY AND COULD SUCCEED IN DOING REAL SOON NOW, GNAPSTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO IT EITHER.
Exactly how did you construe my comments that Gnapster wouldn't work on Windows to mean that there was no client available for Linux?
There are several clients available for Linux. I've used two of them.
That is completely irrelevant to the 99% of Napster users who aren't using Linux.
Before you hit "reply", go back and read this post again.
Most Napster users are on Windows. Gnapster is not for Windows, nor is it likely to be anytime soon.
Secondly, the problem isn't so much the client; it's the server network.
There are lots of OpenNAP servers, but people don't know where they are.
I tried the three OpenNAP servers listed in my version of Gnapster earlier, and the results were:
Two were down, and the third had 8 people logged on. When I logged in, it went from 22 songs available to 230+. That means my pathetic MP3 collection was 10 times as large as the entire body of people using that server.
That's not very useful for the average Napster user, don't you think?
Gnapster is pretty useless without the Napster network being up.
Knocking out the "important" 4% of the Internet would require hitting several dozen sites simultaneously, widely scattered around the world (but mostly the US).
And then private peering nobody knows about would take up most of the slack very quickly.
4% sounds small because it's a single-digit number, but it would be easier to assassinate every member of Congress simultaneously than it would be to take down the Internet this way.
Admittedly, we spend more money defending against the former, but a lot of that money is ALSO spent defending against the latter.
To coordinate such a strike, you'd have to risk butting heads with an FBI that has ALWAYS found out about anything attempted on a similar scale.
I'm not worried about it.
DDoS attacks are orders of magnitude less costly, and nearly as effective.
Ahhh, if only the opposite were true. No more nagging uncle sam...
To an extent, it *IS* true.
The US has(had) arbitrary anti-encryption rules, so the web interpreted that as damage and routed around it, in the form of every major Open encryption method being hosted on non-US sites.
Partially because of this, the US is relenting, slowly but surely, on this policy.
The big difference is the US protections on free speech, which are taken very seriously by our courts.
Our courts don't always make the right decisions, but they do take those decisions very seriously when they regard free speech.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll end up saying it again:
The only solution that will get Yahoo out of court is if they completely block access to their services for the entire.fr domain, and to all major French ISPs that use.com.net etc.
Just cut as much of the entire country off as you can, and don't come back until the courts wise up.
It'll mean a financial loss, and it'll even mean some piddly contract lawsuits, but it'll get them out of an issue that's winding up in the hands of clueless judges, not negotiated settlements.
Put up a page that shows up to anybody from France saying "This web site has been cut off per order of Judge Pepe Le Frog, French Court jurisdiction blah blah yada yada yada."
Any US web site that gets this kind of crap from any other country should do this.
You can't firewall the backbone. There's not a firewall on the planet that could handle the full output of an OC-192, even if you blocked hardly anything.
Plus, anything you choose to block is something that somebody else won't blocked.
Unless you want to replace all the current big iron backbone routers with multi-million-dollar superclusters, and thus have your dialup internet access cost you $1,000 a month, this can't happen with current technology.
Some filtering can be done, and not enough is done, but it can't all be filtered, and it can't be firewalled in the core.
When a service that's of value to the "average slashdot user" is endangered, we'll see like six articles with updates, and interviews with the agency trying to shut them down. But when the little guy is actually getting screwed when they really aren't doing anything wrong, it gets shrugged off because it doesn't affect you people.
So what? This isn't a general news site, it's a community. It covers news that matters to the community. If we don't care about something in significant numbers, it would be inappropriate to cover it here.
Only if you're dealing with some bonehead distribution that customizes the kernel instead of using kernel modules and a userland (or at least non-invasive) process to do whatever the hell it is they think is so important they should modify the kernel in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM is two years behind on this one, playing catchup to the Open/Free Source community again.
--
Beer, if it were introduced as new today, would not make it to market.
Why not? Aspartame did. If that poison is legal, you should be able to sell a kick in the nuts as a safe product.
--
Is this (BMD + border guards) indeed Libertarian Party policy, and do you think it sensible or not?
:-)
Yes, it is, and no, I don't.
But I disagree with a hell of lot more Democrat policies and actions, and Republican policies and actions.
George Bush wants to greatly increase defense spending. Al Gore wants to greatly decrease defense spending.
Harry Browne wants to basically leave defense spending alone, but shift a lot of it away from foreign adventures and into a national missile defense system. That sounds pretty sensible to me.
George Bush thinks the answer to prosperity is to cut taxes on the rich, so they'll be able to pay more to employees. Al Gore thinks the answer to prosperity is to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor.
Harry Browne thinks the answer to prosperity is let people keep their damn money, instead of taking it away from them in the first place. The founding fathers agreed, it wasn't until the early 20th Century that we strayed.
Yes, Harry and I disagree on a couple of points; but George and I disagree on more, and Al and I probably couldn't agree on a restaurant. We certainly don't agree on Tipper.
I will not vote for anyone who doesn't agree with me on both of these points:
1) No restriction of my First Amendment rights, short of a clear and present danger to others.
2) No restriction of my Second Amendment rights, short of a clear and present danger to others.
Bush fails on the former, and Gore fails on both. Browne passes with flying colors.
--
Look at Ethereal - is there an equivalent useful product than can work in a terminal?
Yeah; tethereal.
GUIs make great shortcuts, but they are not the only way to design a useful interface.
--
I saw this guy on the PBS Newshour, and, sorry, this guy is a loon.
And George W. "there should be limits on freedom" and Al "I invented the Internet, and v-chips should be in your TV whether you want them or not" Gore aren't loons?
Do you think either of these guys supports the hacker agenda?
If you do, you're sadly mistaken. They are both quite in favor of government sticking it's nose into your bedroom and PC. Their own public statements and records make it quite clear.
A vote for either is a vote against freedom, and what's the alternative? Pat Buchanan? There's a paragon of mental stability for you.
--
(This has no relevance, but I'm abusing Slashdot to say that I think Bush is a rotten candidate, and while I don't like Gore, I would vote for a malignant carbon rod for president before I would vote for GWB).
So instead of doing something rational, like voting for a candidate who shares your views, you're going to vote for a schlub who thinks it ought to be legal for the government to tell you to shut up.
I've met George Jr., and while I haven't met Al I've met Str^H^H^HTipper Gore, and told her she was a dangerous idiot to her face. (Well, she heard me, anyway.)
Between the two of them, I'd have to vote for Harry Browne
At least he doesn't think the government should be able to force all schools to censor Internet access if they want Federal funding, or support the v-chip. (Which they both do.)
--
But look when Star Trek first aired. Wasn't that after Roswell.
Yeah, 22 years after Roswell.
*EVERY* TV show is after Roswell. Hell, is "I Love Lucy" supposed to prepare us for an invasion of Cuban nightclub singers?
--
sendmail can do that already. The problem is that not everybody runs a version that can, so unless you only send mail to servers that do, you have a problem.
And not everybody uses sendmail. Fortunately, you can use SSL for this, so most servers could be doing this if their Admins wanted to set it up.
--
And this is all coming from the tech culture that has no shared political issues, if you belive Mr Katz.
/. the Copyleft site viewing it?
Perhaps you should have read Mr. Katz more carefully.
He never said we didn't have political issues, he just said that most of 'em weren't about concrete issues like food, clothing, and shelter; they're about more esoteric issues, like speech and freedom. And that we don't do anything substantive about them.
How many of us have actually *DONE* something about this issue? Not buying a damn t-shirt, actually showing up at political fundraisers and asking your Congressman what his position is?
Actually writing a letter to your Senator, not just yet another completely ignored form email?
The biggest political stand most geeks take is changing their fucking signature line, or the background color of their web page.
And most of us won't even do that much; how many people are taking this opportunity to actually BUY one of those t-shirts, not just
--
I find it truly ironic that the criticism of this post, in which Jon discusses someone else's claim that geek culture is ugly and selfish, consists largely of ugly, selfish responses.
Ironic, but not surprising.
--
You're kidding, right?
/., Timothy.
How about solving the question of whether it formed here or was captured? And, if the latter, learning about how planets form around other suns.
If you don't understand what we're looking for on Pluto, you shouldn't be editing Science stories on
--
Hubble isn't the world's most powerful telescope.
It's the most powerful telescope in space that's pointing away from the planet, that's all.
--
You are not freaking listening. I use Gnapster daily, I'm quite familiar with what it does.
Listen carefully this time:
THE RIAA IS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE NAPSTER SERVICE. IF THEY DO SO, WHICH THEY VERY NEARLY DID TODAY AND COULD SUCCEED IN DOING REAL SOON NOW, GNAPSTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO IT EITHER.
Exactly how did you construe my comments that Gnapster wouldn't work on Windows to mean that there was no client available for Linux?
There are several clients available for Linux. I've used two of them.
That is completely irrelevant to the 99% of Napster users who aren't using Linux.
Before you hit "reply", go back and read this post again.
--
You guys are all not getting it.
Anybody with half a brain can type "napster" into a search engine and find Napigator etc.
The problem is that Napster users are increasingly the great unwashed masses, who *CAN'T* figure out how to use a search engine.
The beauty of Napster is that the client just figures it out; it asks their server for a reference, and goes there.
The average dumbass on the street can't go use Napigator.
Telling him to use Gnapster as his client doesn't help. Telling him to use Napigator to find servers doesn't help.
Napster isn't about the client, it's about the service.
--
Two problems with that, NetJunkie:
Most Napster users are on Windows. Gnapster is not for Windows, nor is it likely to be anytime soon.
Secondly, the problem isn't so much the client; it's the server network.
There are lots of OpenNAP servers, but people don't know where they are.
I tried the three OpenNAP servers listed in my version of Gnapster earlier, and the results were:
Two were down, and the third had 8 people logged on. When I logged in, it went from 22 songs available to 230+. That means my pathetic MP3 collection was 10 times as large as the entire body of people using that server.
That's not very useful for the average Napster user, don't you think?
Gnapster is pretty useless without the Napster network being up.
--
So which one are you?
--
Knocking out the "important" 4% of the Internet would require hitting several dozen sites simultaneously, widely scattered around the world (but mostly the US).
And then private peering nobody knows about would take up most of the slack very quickly.
4% sounds small because it's a single-digit number, but it would be easier to assassinate every member of Congress simultaneously than it would be to take down the Internet this way.
Admittedly, we spend more money defending against the former, but a lot of that money is ALSO spent defending against the latter.
To coordinate such a strike, you'd have to risk butting heads with an FBI that has ALWAYS found out about anything attempted on a similar scale.
I'm not worried about it.
DDoS attacks are orders of magnitude less costly, and nearly as effective.
--
NFR salespeople, if you're reading this:
This is why I don't return your phone calls.
--
Ahhh, if only the opposite were true. No more nagging uncle sam...
To an extent, it *IS* true.
The US has(had) arbitrary anti-encryption rules, so the web interpreted that as damage and routed around it, in the form of every major Open encryption method being hosted on non-US sites.
Partially because of this, the US is relenting, slowly but surely, on this policy.
The big difference is the US protections on free speech, which are taken very seriously by our courts.
Our courts don't always make the right decisions, but they do take those decisions very seriously when they regard free speech.
--
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll end up saying it again:
.fr domain, and to all major French ISPs that use .com .net etc.
The only solution that will get Yahoo out of court is if they completely block access to their services for the entire
Just cut as much of the entire country off as you can, and don't come back until the courts wise up.
It'll mean a financial loss, and it'll even mean some piddly contract lawsuits, but it'll get them out of an issue that's winding up in the hands of clueless judges, not negotiated settlements.
Put up a page that shows up to anybody from France saying "This web site has been cut off per order of Judge Pepe Le Frog, French Court jurisdiction blah blah yada yada yada."
Any US web site that gets this kind of crap from any other country should do this.
--
How much can they filter?
Can they function with a huge list, or do they break down quickly when you start adding site specifics?
--
You can't firewall the backbone. There's not a firewall on the planet that could handle the full output of an OC-192, even if you blocked hardly anything.
Plus, anything you choose to block is something that somebody else won't blocked.
Unless you want to replace all the current big iron backbone routers with multi-million-dollar superclusters, and thus have your dialup internet access cost you $1,000 a month, this can't happen with current technology.
Some filtering can be done, and not enough is done, but it can't all be filtered, and it can't be firewalled in the core.
Firewalling belongs on the edges.
--
The poster of that NANOG message is one of my employers, and we discuss this often.
The more shit you filter, the slower things get. In the core of the big backbones, you can't slow things down or everybody suffers.
Even just filtering RFC 1918 packets is controversial, especially since the RFC doesn't even recommend it, just pronounces it "reasonable".
Go read Shawn's message, and you'll see from the traceroute he included that some pretty big folks leak this crap out into the 'net.
As for the little guys, your average Cisco 2501 would self-destruct if you tried to filter everything that's not from your blocks.
--
When a service that's of value to the "average slashdot user" is endangered, we'll see like six articles with updates, and interviews with the agency trying to shut them down. But when the little guy is actually getting screwed when they really aren't doing anything wrong, it gets shrugged off because it doesn't affect you people.
So what? This isn't a general news site, it's a community. It covers news that matters to the community. If we don't care about something in significant numbers, it would be inappropriate to cover it here.
Your bitch is with CNN and the networks.
--
Only if you're dealing with some bonehead distribution that customizes the kernel instead of using kernel modules and a userland (or at least non-invasive) process to do whatever the hell it is they think is so important they should modify the kernel in the first place.
Userland processes to fix kernel security bugs?
--