At best that was a 2-Insightful<.Insightfull-3, Redundant-1, Flaimbait-1>.
I can't believe this is passed off as even interesting drivel. Its rehashed opinions from an apparent "expert" which have absolutely no impact on the code that is being written now.
Look, there are some fundamental truths to the limitations of open-source design/implementation in terms of traditional software design. He's right, I don't do feasability studies, or form focus groups before I write a utility, but this is something _we_all_understand_, and since the problem is one of degree rather than one of distinction, it amounts to so much hand waving.
Whatever, I have work to do.:/
Re:Yes, the user really uploads their cd to mp3.co
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 1
A 'signature' cannot be considered compression.
I dont mean to contradict what you are saying or play devils advocate, but where do you draw the line between lossy compression and signiture?
:) There has to be one... probably its the point at which a reasonable replication of the original data can be inferred from the cypherblock. Of course, if you have local copies of probable plain texts, a signiture may qualify.
Lets see... I reemeber about twenty years ago. I was about 3 or 4 feet high, and I remember I used to mistake the words to a motley crue song and would walk around the house singing "Shout at the Pickle".
I guess I don't think I should necessarily judge people for what they said 20 years ago.
No one has ever had a "right to evaluate" an information good (music in this case). That priviledge is extended in such forms as radio play and "in store samples" because it is in the sellers best interest to convince the purchaser that the good has information.
(Information goods, and experience goods in particular cant be priced on cost like normal goods since the marginal cost is zero):)
I'm not contradicting what you said- just pointing out that this one aspect of what you wrote isn't about opinion. Its economics.:)
(thats supposed to be funny, but I'm serious too).
Thank you very much. So-this really has nothing to do with a proxy and everything to do with a misconfigured service, which makes a lot more sense for me.
Well, no- but that isn't really the point. When I argue for a public policy, I usually argue against monopolies because of the costs they (usually) force on society.
We are discussing what is "best" for society, for the internet, and to some largely abstracted amount the world. (Actually, we're replying to a thread blasting journalism, but what the hell. We _should_ be talking about the big stuff).:)
OH NO!!! MONOPOLIES, LINUX IS A MONOPOLY
Even if linux is a monopoly (which I am not nearly convinced it is), it operates under a license which forbids monopolistic action which would force us to bear a social welfare burden.
I understand that your point is that a monopoly isn't in and of itself bad, and I agree with it. However, remember that if a monopoly acts in its own best interest, the conditions in which that interest would coincide with the net benefit of society at large are fairly rare (increasing returns to scale, etc). They exist, but I couldn't name an industry that favors these kind of properties off the top of my head.
My voice matters, my voice counts, and I think my voice makes sense.
Some people may dissagree with this, but I do not. You do matter, count, and to some extent make sense, but there is more to this than just the labeling of entities. We are deciding our opinions on the public policy of a government that has the power to enforce its will. If the government is to act in the best interest of its constituents, it must keep corperations, and monopolies in particular, under close scrutiny. Not necessarily to hinder them, but to make sure they aren't violating the trust of the public which supports them.
Wow. I sound like a anarchist. Ah well... caution is never ill advised.
heh...2am message tag... OK, we're probably having some communications issues, but I'll play one more time before I have to crash...
At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you?re going.
This seems irrelevant to me.
Where we are going is the open release of information.
The question regarding "the best way" is: Is the best way to get there by creating an economic incentive to release information, or let information be released at a different pace through non-economic incentives?
Do we agree on that?
you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind.
I'm with you 100 %. I also agree that profits are not a goal... but you said :
creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world)
There are 2 seperate items there. Stronger patents will help getting medical technology "created" faster, but it will adversely affect the dissemination of the information.
Or more specificly, while the information will be disseminated, it will not be done in a method which allows it to be useful. The only way to get the use out of it would be to violate or render useless the economic protectionthat the patent extends. What good is a cure for breast cancer if the patenting company prices it above the means of most people. I can show theoreticly that any company acting as a monopoly in a contstrained market will restrict quantity, or inflate price to maximize thier profits (there are some exceptions based on increasing returns to scale and such, though this is not one).
Summary: Patents have a social cost. Mathematicly. In this example, in human lives, and disproportionately human lives who are already facing the suffering of poverty.
Of course, your point about speed of rollout is valid. Patents can be shown to have a social benefit.
But that gets us back to the "extent to which" argument.
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly.
OK, in that case, what you are saying is valid. I may take umbrage at that much, much part, but that is only because I haven't seen data.
What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Ahh...but our laws don't do that. To guarentee the maximum rate of discovery, we should guarentee the monopoly for life! Maybe even extend patents in other ways. But your point about pragmatism is well taken.
I agree that a pragmatic solution is best. I would favor modifying the patent system to provide protection for 2 years. Enough to guarentee return on research, but enough to bring in competition quick enough so that the dissinfranchised can get the same quality of care as the rest of us.
Bear in mind that 96% of research (in the world) is done in less than 10 countries [1]. We are quickly getting into a social justice issue if there is a distrobutional conflict with dispersing technology to 3rd world nations (hint: there is).
I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
Hmmm... I care how others feel because I think they have wisdom to share with me. However, Im not really concerned with morality. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity as a whole. You have failed to convince me that the good of protection outweighs the bad of protection (not that it matters).
What I really want to say is that there are times in economic analysis where we can say that something is true based on theories of rationality, competitive behavior, and a myriad assortment of other factors. With patents, we have a fundamental positive result pitted against a fundamental negative result, and we can't say what is best without studying data. I have looked hard and not found any (non-anectdotal) data.
In the absence of data or undisputed theory, opinionated people such as ourselves can discuss our thoughts, but can't be sure of our "correctness".
I guess I should apologise for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.:)
[1] Bayoumi, Tarnim, Coc, Helpman "R&D spillovers in global growth" : 1995
An argument for genetic patents (or patents in general) that I see again and again are to the tune of "without patents, we will not have the research".
To which I say "Of course we will have the research, just at a different pace. The fact that the human genome project exists is testiment to the will of (some) people to get this research done despite the prospect of future monopoly profits".
Please convince me otherwise.
Also, as a country where we can theoriticly change the law through taking action in the political process, we could impose such rules as lowering patent protection to 3 years.
Could not that be beneficial?
I guess my point is that the benefits of patents are a function of deltas in multi-variable functions, and that any truely black and white statement really isn't going to be correct (although it may be politicly efficacious).
I've seen good arguments for patent protections of some kind, but I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to limit the current system. (This without regard to pragmatic and ethical issues with such things as software, business models, or genetic algorythms).
For what it is worth, the older I get, the less I find I know. I hope I don't come across as preachy- I really am searching for an argument to change my mind.
You both picked archtypical arguments on the poles of the issue. Patents are useful to the extent which they speed "discovery" (or innovation, or whatever you want to label it).
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents. It certainly can be shown to have happened again and again in the past (It can also be shown how some technology was kept hidden through trade secret mechanisms which could have benefitted society more had it been released under patent). Its the rate of innovation that is at question (again, I'm using innovation, but discovery would work just as well).
IMHO, Patents have a valid use, but the extent to which they are applied is negatively correlated with the cost to society so they should be scrutinized and limited as much as possible.
Unfortunately that isn't happening. And as much as the middle ground is probably where the answer to this lies, I think it may be better to argue against patents, at least until they become more reasonable.
Ah well.... I do think the original posters point about the original intent of patent is a valid one.
Specificly, I am referring to an interesting story I heard on NPR this morning referring to a report on the British public health system.
To summarize, it said that even though the current flu epidemics were throwing into sharp relief the problems of the public system, that system would survive. What it would NOT handle would be the costs of using genetic processes that were currently being patented, and would presumably come into economic use in 10 to 20 years (these may be conservative numbers- I really don't know).
The interesting thing is to what extent liberal governments will be willing to bear the brunt of a foreign nations intellectual property.
You see various well known international violations of IP now, but even in those situations, it is hard to see how the governments are in direct conflict with supporting the IP. Once an incentive is in place to circumvent the international law, I would expect far more countries choosing to shun WTO involvement just to avoid the TRIPS agreement.
To throw out an incredibly ill thought out prediction= It is possible that the costs of supporting international IP will outweigh the gains of WTO membership sometime in the future- especially for developing nations, or nations which can utilize semi-protectionary measures such as regional free trade zones to mitigate the loss of truely international trade.
...Is that no matter how well you do it, it will never compare to having the source.
They can document the interface as well as they want (I actually think they do a fairly good job with most of the Win32 SDK), but without knowledge of the implementation, or concrete knowledge of API interdependence, you can easily get burned.
In the long term, the main advantage of splitting out the OS from the rest of the company would be to force them to have the same access to the source that the rest of the industry has.
As it is, I would do _much_ to get my hands on the source for GDI or RichEd32 source. I can't count the times that RichEd AV's on me for no reason that I can see.:/
First drop about another 40 to 60 pounds on each one.
Next, you need to dress them properly. Maybe a white short sleeve button up. Fix that hair too...just let it grow for 6 months without any trimming.
After that, maybe glue a very small amount of food crumbs to the side of their faces... (This may be extreme- maybe only one of them should get the crumbs).
The article opens : There is a widespread, but false, belief that time and technology necessarily improve people's lives. CPSR members know that we have to work to make sure that technological advances reflect our values.
I think that part of the reason that this statement is true is that people define "technology" differently.
Now my caveat: In (macro) economic terms, it is true to say that technology necessarily improves people's lives. That is because technology is more generally defined to be that which increases productivity and is not an "input". A rise in productivity, ceteris paribus, increases standard of living. So by definition, technology improves peoples lives.
Of course this isn't the definition that the rest of the world uses.
The point isn't to protect anyone... its to further innovation.
Or at least, that is what the constitution says [Article 1 Section 8].:)
If your goal is to protect someone (the inventor, the little guy, the big guy, yourself, etc.), you will be able to come up with a lot better arguments for patenting things like software that seem to have a very low "critical mess" for innovative feedback).
I personally am on the side of "science" rather than any other interest here.
Can't one take the argument that the creation of a mathematic algorythm is in fact discovery? (The same as the genetic situation).
I mean, code aside [copyright covers that just fine], what you are talking about is patenting algorythms (or in lawyer terms- the method and apparatus for implementing an algorythm on a universally generic "machine"). Once we have that, can't an arbitrary algorythm be independently "discovered" from multiple independent sources? And isn't it possible for said algorythm to be present in nature in the form of some natural process?
I think it can be deduced somewhat trivially that the extent to which patents are detrimental to the societal good is inversely correlated to the extent to which they speed up the public release of information. (That is, the speed at which the released information causes new innovation that would otherwise have taken longer to occur).
The problem is, I have yet to see any credible evidence one way or another that isn't annectdotal or highly biased. I think that this is probably more of a political issue than an academic one right now, but...Does anyone know of any references/research on this?
As an interesting aside, I recently looked for classes in IP at the University of Michigan, but all I could find were Law classes, not Economics classes (my central interest).
That picture again! [clearly offtopic]
on
Etoy Update
·
· Score: 2
I'm sick and tired of seeing that silly picture of Hemos's head with the stupid comb mustache.
From what I was reading about this, they were claiming that a (roughly) 40 byte ICMP query could generate a 1500 byte response creating a multiplier of about 38x.
I though that the standard ethernet frame size was 1500, and that would effectively make that a 1 to 1 DOS attack. (That is, the multiplier is meaningless because the packets aren't bundled within a frame).
What am I missing? Can you package multiple packets within a frame? Is that a MAC, ICMP, IP, or TCP convention?
Slashdot Mirror
...that will give those 15 men of tain...er... microsoft security something to do for a while. :)
At best that was a 2-Insightful<.Insightfull-3, Redundant-1, Flaimbait-1>.
:/
I can't believe this is passed off as even interesting drivel. Its rehashed opinions from an apparent "expert" which have absolutely no impact on the code that is being written now.
Look, there are some fundamental truths to the limitations of open-source design/implementation in terms of traditional software design. He's right, I don't do feasability studies, or form focus groups before I write a utility, but this is something _we_all_understand_, and since the problem is one of degree rather than one of distinction, it amounts to so much hand waving.
Whatever, I have work to do.
A 'signature' cannot be considered compression.
I dont mean to contradict what you are saying or play devils advocate, but where do you draw the line between lossy compression and signiture?
:) There has to be one... probably its the point at which a reasonable replication of the original data can be inferred from the cypherblock. Of course, if you have local copies of probable plain texts, a signiture may qualify.
Just thinking out loud...
Lets see... I reemeber about twenty years ago. I was about 3 or 4 feet high, and I remember I used to mistake the words to a motley crue song and would walk around the house singing "Shout at the Pickle".
I guess I don't think I should necessarily judge people for what they said 20 years ago.
:)
So, can we swap VA or RHAD stock for it?
Finally a good place to invest those IPO dollars.
If I had moderator points, you would get them all.
This is absolutely rich...
:)
No one has ever had a "right to evaluate" an information good (music in this case). That priviledge is extended in such forms as radio play and "in store samples" because it is in the sellers best interest to convince the purchaser that the good has information.
:)
:)
(Information goods, and experience goods in particular cant be priced on cost like normal goods since the marginal cost is zero)
I'm not contradicting what you said- just pointing out that this one aspect of what you wrote isn't about opinion. Its economics.
(thats supposed to be funny, but I'm serious too).
...and as Foogle implied, but did not say explicitely: set top players can play unecrypted DVDs.
Personally, I am against all copyright law.
You talk about art as if it is ideas. You are roughly equating an algorythm for encrypting text with "Starry Night".
I personally oppose patent law, but I would like to hear why you feel you "own" a song just because you heard someone play it.
Thanks
Thank you very much. So-this really has nothing to do with a proxy and everything to do with a misconfigured service, which makes a lot more sense for me.
:)
1. Does anyone know how a misconfigured proxy could enable spamming? Are they talking proxies like masquerading, wingate, and what not?
:/
2. Is this just news spam? or email spam as well that they are accused of?
I really ought to purchase that Orielly book.
Thanks!
Monopolies are not really that threatening.
:)
Well, no- but that isn't really the point. When I argue for a public policy, I usually argue against monopolies because of the costs they (usually) force on society.
We are discussing what is "best" for society, for the internet, and to some largely abstracted amount the world. (Actually, we're replying to a thread blasting journalism, but what the hell. We _should_ be talking about the big stuff).
OH NO!!! MONOPOLIES, LINUX IS A MONOPOLY
Even if linux is a monopoly (which I am not nearly convinced it is), it operates under a license which forbids monopolistic action which would force us to bear a social welfare burden.
I understand that your point is that a monopoly isn't in and of itself bad, and I agree with it. However, remember that if a monopoly acts in its own best interest, the conditions in which that interest would coincide with the net benefit of society at large are fairly rare (increasing returns to scale, etc). They exist, but I couldn't name an industry that favors these kind of properties off the top of my head.
My voice matters, my voice counts, and I think my voice makes sense.
Some people may dissagree with this, but I do not. You do matter, count, and to some extent make sense, but there is more to this than just the labeling of entities. We are deciding our opinions on the public policy of a government that has the power to enforce its will. If the government is to act in the best interest of its constituents, it must keep corperations, and monopolies in particular, under close scrutiny. Not necessarily to hinder them, but to make sure they aren't violating the trust of the public which supports them.
Wow. I sound like a anarchist. Ah well... caution is never ill advised.
heh...2am message tag... OK, we're probably having some communications issues, but I'll play one more time before I have to crash...
At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you?re going.
This seems irrelevant to me.
Where we are going is the open release of information.
The question regarding "the best way" is: Is the best way to get there by creating an economic incentive to release information, or let information be released at a different pace through non-economic incentives?
Do we agree on that?
you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind.
I'm with you 100 %. I also agree that profits are not a goal... but you said :
creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world)
There are 2 seperate items there. Stronger patents will help getting medical technology "created" faster, but it will adversely affect the dissemination of the information.
Or more specificly, while the information will be disseminated, it will not be done in a method which allows it to be useful. The only way to get the use out of it would be to violate or render useless the economic protectionthat the patent extends. What good is a cure for breast cancer if the patenting company prices it above the means of most people. I can show theoreticly that any company acting as a monopoly in a contstrained market will restrict quantity, or inflate price to maximize thier profits (there are some exceptions based on increasing returns to scale and such, though this is not one).
Summary: Patents have a social cost. Mathematicly. In this example, in human lives, and disproportionately human lives who are already facing the suffering of poverty.
Of course, your point about speed of rollout is valid. Patents can be shown to have a social benefit.
But that gets us back to the "extent to which" argument.
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
Thank you for this discussion!
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly.
:)
OK, in that case, what you are saying is valid. I may take umbrage at that much, much part, but that is only because I haven't seen data.
What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Ahh...but our laws don't do that. To guarentee the maximum rate of discovery, we should guarentee the monopoly for life! Maybe even extend patents in other ways. But your point about pragmatism is well taken.
I agree that a pragmatic solution is best. I would favor modifying the patent system to provide protection for 2 years. Enough to guarentee return on research, but enough to bring in competition quick enough so that the dissinfranchised can get the same quality of care as the rest of us.
Bear in mind that 96% of research (in the world) is done in less than 10 countries [1]. We are quickly getting into a social justice issue if there is a distrobutional conflict with dispersing technology to 3rd world nations (hint: there is).
I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
Hmmm... I care how others feel because I think they have wisdom to share with me. However, Im not really concerned with morality. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity as a whole. You have failed to convince me that the good of protection outweighs the bad of protection (not that it matters).
What I really want to say is that there are times in economic analysis where we can say that something is true based on theories of rationality, competitive behavior, and a myriad assortment of other factors. With patents, we have a fundamental positive result pitted against a fundamental negative result, and we can't say what is best without studying data. I have looked hard and not found any (non-anectdotal) data.
In the absence of data or undisputed theory, opinionated people such as ourselves can discuss our thoughts, but can't be sure of our "correctness".
I guess I should apologise for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.
[1] Bayoumi, Tarnim, Coc, Helpman "R&D spillovers in global growth" : 1995
An argument for genetic patents (or patents in general) that I see again and again are to the tune of "without patents, we will not have the research".
To which I say "Of course we will have the research, just at a different pace. The fact that the human genome project exists is testiment to the will of (some) people to get this research done despite the prospect of future monopoly profits".
Please convince me otherwise.
Also, as a country where we can theoriticly change the law through taking action in the political process, we could impose such rules as lowering patent protection to 3 years.
Could not that be beneficial?
I guess my point is that the benefits of patents are a function of deltas in multi-variable functions, and that any truely black and white statement really isn't going to be correct (although it may be politicly efficacious).
I've seen good arguments for patent protections of some kind, but I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to limit the current system. (This without regard to pragmatic and ethical issues with such things as software, business models, or genetic algorythms).
For what it is worth, the older I get, the less I find I know. I hope I don't come across as preachy- I really am searching for an argument to change my mind.
I have to give this a hefty "bah". :)
You both picked archtypical arguments on the poles of the issue. Patents are useful to the extent which they speed "discovery" (or innovation, or whatever you want to label it).
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents. It certainly can be shown to have happened again and again in the past (It can also be shown how some technology was kept hidden through trade secret mechanisms which could have benefitted society more had it been released under patent). Its the rate of innovation that is at question (again, I'm using innovation, but discovery would work just as well).
IMHO, Patents have a valid use, but the extent to which they are applied is negatively correlated with the cost to society so they should be scrutinized and limited as much as possible.
Unfortunately that isn't happening. And as much as the middle ground is probably where the answer to this lies, I think it may be better to argue against patents, at least until they become more reasonable.
Ah well.... I do think the original posters point about the original intent of patent is a valid one.
(or at least some of them).
Specificly, I am referring to an interesting story I heard on NPR this morning referring to a report on the British public health system.
To summarize, it said that even though the current flu epidemics were throwing into sharp relief the problems of the public system, that system would survive. What it would NOT handle would be the costs of using genetic processes that were currently being patented, and would presumably come into economic use in 10 to 20 years (these may be conservative numbers- I really don't know).
The interesting thing is to what extent liberal governments will be willing to bear the brunt of a foreign nations intellectual property.
You see various well known international violations of IP now, but even in those situations, it is hard to see how the governments are in direct conflict with supporting the IP. Once an incentive is in place to circumvent the international law, I would expect far more countries choosing to shun WTO involvement just to avoid the TRIPS agreement.
To throw out an incredibly ill thought out prediction= It is possible that the costs of supporting international IP will outweigh the gains of WTO membership sometime in the future- especially for developing nations, or nations which can utilize semi-protectionary measures such as regional free trade zones to mitigate the loss of truely international trade.
Just some random thoughts...
...Is that no matter how well you do it, it will never compare to having the source.
:/
They can document the interface as well as they want (I actually think they do a fairly good job with most of the Win32 SDK), but without knowledge of the implementation, or concrete knowledge of API interdependence, you can easily get burned.
In the long term, the main advantage of splitting out the OS from the rest of the company would be to force them to have the same access to the source that the rest of the industry has.
As it is, I would do _much_ to get my hands on the source for GDI or RichEd32 source. I can't count the times that RichEd AV's on me for no reason that I can see.
First drop about another 40 to 60 pounds on each one.
:)
Next, you need to dress them properly. Maybe a white short sleeve button up. Fix that hair too...just let it grow for 6 months without any trimming.
After that, maybe glue a very small amount of food crumbs to the side of their faces... (This may be extreme- maybe only one of them should get the crumbs).
That should about do it.
The article opens : There is a widespread, but false, belief that time and technology necessarily improve people's lives. CPSR members know that we have to work to make sure that technological advances reflect our values.
I think that part of the reason that this statement is true is that people define "technology" differently.
Now my caveat: In (macro) economic terms, it is true to say that technology necessarily improves people's lives. That is because technology is more generally defined to be that which increases productivity and is not an "input". A rise in productivity, ceteris paribus, increases standard of living. So by definition, technology improves peoples lives.
Of course this isn't the definition that the rest of the world uses.
Oh well, just rambling...
The point isn't to protect anyone... its to further innovation.
:)
Or at least, that is what the constitution says [Article 1 Section 8].
If your goal is to protect someone (the inventor, the little guy, the big guy, yourself, etc.), you will be able to come up with a lot better arguments for patenting things like software that seem to have a very low "critical mess" for innovative feedback).
I personally am on the side of "science" rather than any other interest here.
Can't one take the argument that the creation of a mathematic algorythm is in fact discovery? (The same as the genetic situation).
:/
I mean, code aside [copyright covers that just fine], what you are talking about is patenting algorythms (or in lawyer terms- the method and apparatus for implementing an algorythm on a universally generic "machine"). Once we have that, can't an arbitrary algorythm be independently "discovered" from multiple independent sources? And isn't it possible for said algorythm to be present in nature in the form of some natural process?
The original posters problems once again apply.
I don't have any answers... just more problems.
Warning- I am about to get pedantic...
I think it can be deduced somewhat trivially that the extent to which patents are detrimental to the societal good is inversely correlated to the extent to which they speed up the public release of information. (That is, the speed at which the released information causes new innovation that would otherwise have taken longer to occur).
The problem is, I have yet to see any credible evidence one way or another that isn't annectdotal or highly biased. I think that this is probably more of a political issue than an academic one right now, but...Does anyone know of any references/research on this?
As an interesting aside, I recently looked for classes in IP at the University of Michigan, but all I could find were Law classes, not Economics classes (my central interest).
I'm sick and tired of seeing that silly picture of Hemos's head with the stupid comb mustache.
:{)
Sorry.
From what I was reading about this, they were claiming that a (roughly) 40 byte ICMP query could generate a 1500 byte response creating a multiplier of about 38x.
I though that the standard ethernet frame size was 1500, and that would effectively make that a 1 to 1 DOS attack. (That is, the multiplier is meaningless because the packets aren't bundled within a frame).
What am I missing? Can you package multiple packets within a frame? Is that a MAC, ICMP, IP, or TCP convention?
Thanks!