Your phone might be capable of blocking numbers by itself. My phone can, and I have it block anything "Unknown" (no caller ID or whatever), which immediately took care of all the telemarketers.
A 'fair' trial isn't a basic human right, it isn't necessary for life
Due process has been considered a basic human right for at least 800 years now. The US constitution (I know, not where the article takes place) also enumerates it as such.
I don't know about you, but I'd consider not being arbitrarily locked up in a prison a right. It seems very basic to me.
Don't worry about it much. Their paper is mostly bullshit, and they have no real mechanism for effectively poisoning the networks they claim they can attack. Either they don't know what they are talking about, or they intentionally wrote bullshit for some unknown end.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure their paper is bullshit. Aside from the whole anti-academic feel of the paper, I use Freenet myself and the little know enough about its architecture is enough to see through this paper. To poke at the other Freenet parts,
The popular BitTorrent and Freenet networks are still facing many lawsuits against their content distribution operations
I'm not aware of any Freenet lawsuits at any time, let alone "many". The way Freenet is built, it would be very difficult to find who to sue. For BitTorrent, the relatively small number of trackers have been under attack rather than the clients.
Applying our protection scheme, the Gnutella family, including Gnutella, Ares, KaZaA, LimeWire, Freenet, BareShare, etc., demonstrates the highest penalty on pirates because poison detection is only possible at the file level. Even a few chunks poisoned, the entire file must be discarded and downloaded repeatedly.
At the fundamental level, files injected into Freenet are split into 32kB (or less) chunks, which are inserted individually. That list of chunks that makes up a file is put into another chunk as a manifest, which becomes the address of the file. Freenet itself is not aware of files, just these small chunks. There is no "file level". It's the applications that run on top of Freenet that work with files.
It's content-addressable storage, so the hash of the chunk is its address. This makes it trivial to see if a chunk is good or bad. If a chunk is poisoned, the first clean node along the route will recognize this immediately and toss it out, which is a mere 32kB, not the whole file. Then search will continue elsewhere for the same chunk, as there is redundancy in the system specifically to thwart this attack (and deal with node downtime).
All in all, I'd rather the media cartels fall for fabricated papers like this than actually make effective attacks on p2p networks. So this paper is probably a good thing.
This is exactly what happened with the National Portrait Gallery in the UK. They have old paintings, and don't allow any photography whatsoever in the museum. They made their own careful, high-res photography copies and put them on their website claiming copyright. Wikipedia used the images as public domain. The NPG wasn't happy about this and started hassling Wikipedia and its users.
The thing is, Wikipedia is right: copies of public domain works are in the public domain in the US, which the NPG acknowledges too. It's probably public domain in the UK too, but this hasn't been sorted out yet. Their argument, instead, is that the user circumvented some alleged copy restriction system they put in place, which is a DMCA issue.
So, in the US at least, those scans of the books would not be under and kind of copyright, as there was no creative input. Hard work doesn't mean copyright. I'm no lawyer, but I bet the text of the OCR probably wouldn't be under copyright either.
Despite all this, it doesn't mean the owner of the physical work won't harass you with copyfraud though, like NPG is doing.
And as more and more public domain items come into the light, there will be more and more "stake holders" trying to protect their cash cows.
If it comes to that, I bet either we see copyright laws change to increase it to the scope of copies of public domain works, or there will be draconian DRM over it so that making your own copies breaks the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA.
That's why I don't let Firefox keep my passwords for anything important. For passwords sent over plaintext anyway, I let it save them for me, like Slashdot.
So if you see my Slashdot account start going crazy and posting nonsense, it's not me.
Right on. With the kind of errors that would produce, I probably would have run Memtest86, which takes more than a few minutes, before opening up the machine or doing anything with hardware.
First of all, those numbers are from 7 years ago. We have many more cell phones than that now, so that number is surely much higher now. With the numbers you did give, that's a 5% increase in deaths due to cell phone use. You also failed to mention the quarter million accidents caused cell phone use (again 7 years ago so it's higher than that now). That's a lot of money and resources which we all pay for through insurance.
Emacs can actually do this by itself with X, with each user getting their own cursor so they can type at the same time too. The command is make-frame-on-display, which simply asks for what display to use in addition to the current one. This will even work with Emacs running on one machine, and being displayed on two other machines which have X forwarded via ssh.
They might be trying to abandon the name "DRM" because it has become so stained, and replace it with a new name. Stardock was trying to do this, saying they don't use DRM, but something called "Goo" (just DRM by another name). Valve too, claiming "DRM is obsolete", then using something called CEG, which is just more DRM.
There was no "hacking" involved in the sense of breaking into their systems unauthorized. He asked their servers, probably via HTTP, for the images, like anyone else wanting to view them, and the servers handed it to him. The difference is that he saved them to a file instead of just throwing them in a cache.
Check out their site, I was going to quote some of it but you can't even right click the page without their stupid JavaScript alerting you that their site is their content
In Firefox: Tools->Options->Content. Next to "Enable JavaScript" click Advanced. Uncheck "Disable or replace context menus". Fixes all the anti-right-click JavaScript malware. I've had this turned off since I stopped using NoScript.
The museum doesn't allow photography, meaning they are the only ones capable of making any digital copies of the paintings. Then they did the digitizing work themselves and handed out the work for free to a country where the images have no copyright status. Everything is their fault. And through all this their stated mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" but all of their actions are exactly the opposite of this. They are severely restricting access to the paintings to maximize the museum's income.
If I needed to choose, I'd rather have freedom than museums.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, a self signed certificate is ten times better than no certificate at all.
I disagree: false security is worse than no security.
Your phone might be capable of blocking numbers by itself. My phone can, and I have it block anything "Unknown" (no caller ID or whatever), which immediately took care of all the telemarketers.
fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption.
Don't they mean 119-bit encryption? :-)
but in a world where genocides and starvation and slavery still occur, to speak about "human rights" about internet access is overly pompous
So because someone else's life sucks we can't improve our own?
It is applicable to a utility, when there is no one else to go to for service. Internet access isn't a utility yet, but it will be someday soon.
A 'fair' trial isn't a basic human right, it isn't necessary for life
Due process has been considered a basic human right for at least 800 years now. The US constitution (I know, not where the article takes place) also enumerates it as such.
I don't know about you, but I'd consider not being arbitrarily locked up in a prison a right. It seems very basic to me.
Don't worry about it much. Their paper is mostly bullshit, and they have no real mechanism for effectively poisoning the networks they claim they can attack. Either they don't know what they are talking about, or they intentionally wrote bullshit for some unknown end.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure their paper is bullshit. Aside from the whole anti-academic feel of the paper, I use Freenet myself and the little know enough about its architecture is enough to see through this paper. To poke at the other Freenet parts,
The popular BitTorrent and Freenet networks are still facing many lawsuits against their content distribution operations
I'm not aware of any Freenet lawsuits at any time, let alone "many". The way Freenet is built, it would be very difficult to find who to sue. For BitTorrent, the relatively small number of trackers have been under attack rather than the clients.
Applying our protection scheme, the Gnutella family, including Gnutella, Ares, KaZaA, LimeWire, Freenet, BareShare, etc., demonstrates the highest penalty on pirates because poison detection is only possible at the file level. Even a few chunks poisoned, the entire file must be discarded and downloaded repeatedly.
At the fundamental level, files injected into Freenet are split into 32kB (or less) chunks, which are inserted individually. That list of chunks that makes up a file is put into another chunk as a manifest, which becomes the address of the file. Freenet itself is not aware of files, just these small chunks. There is no "file level". It's the applications that run on top of Freenet that work with files.
It's content-addressable storage, so the hash of the chunk is its address. This makes it trivial to see if a chunk is good or bad. If a chunk is poisoned, the first clean node along the route will recognize this immediately and toss it out, which is a mere 32kB, not the whole file. Then search will continue elsewhere for the same chunk, as there is redundancy in the system specifically to thwart this attack (and deal with node downtime).
All in all, I'd rather the media cartels fall for fabricated papers like this than actually make effective attacks on p2p networks. So this paper is probably a good thing.
This is exactly what happened with the National Portrait Gallery in the UK. They have old paintings, and don't allow any photography whatsoever in the museum. They made their own careful, high-res photography copies and put them on their website claiming copyright. Wikipedia used the images as public domain. The NPG wasn't happy about this and started hassling Wikipedia and its users.
The thing is, Wikipedia is right: copies of public domain works are in the public domain in the US, which the NPG acknowledges too. It's probably public domain in the UK too, but this hasn't been sorted out yet. Their argument, instead, is that the user circumvented some alleged copy restriction system they put in place, which is a DMCA issue.
So, in the US at least, those scans of the books would not be under and kind of copyright, as there was no creative input. Hard work doesn't mean copyright. I'm no lawyer, but I bet the text of the OCR probably wouldn't be under copyright either.
Despite all this, it doesn't mean the owner of the physical work won't harass you with copyfraud though, like NPG is doing.
And as more and more public domain items come into the light, there will be more and more "stake holders" trying to protect their cash cows.
If it comes to that, I bet either we see copyright laws change to increase it to the scope of copies of public domain works, or there will be draconian DRM over it so that making your own copies breaks the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA.
So if you see my Slashdot account start going crazy and posting nonsense, it's not me.
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS
That's why I don't let Firefox keep my passwords for anything important. For passwords sent over plaintext anyway, I let it save them for me, like Slashdot.
So if you see my Slashdot account start going crazy and posting nonsense, it's not me.
Right on. With the kind of errors that would produce, I probably would have run Memtest86, which takes more than a few minutes, before opening up the machine or doing anything with hardware.
Naw, I like being doomed to repeat it.
Yup, it's true: http://www.mne.psu.edu/edwards/projects/psbr/psbr.htm
Here's some,
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/01/30/10-strikes-against-nuclear-power/
They don't say it explicitly because they don't know what they're talking about, but it's what they are really advocating.
First of all, those numbers are from 7 years ago. We have many more cell phones than that now, so that number is surely much higher now. With the numbers you did give, that's a 5% increase in deaths due to cell phone use. You also failed to mention the quarter million accidents caused cell phone use (again 7 years ago so it's higher than that now). That's a lot of money and resources which we all pay for through insurance.
When you use your cellphone while driving you are significantly increasing the risk to other people, not just yourself.
Emacs can actually do this by itself with X, with each user getting their own cursor so they can type at the same time too. The command is make-frame-on-display, which simply asks for what display to use in addition to the current one. This will even work with Emacs running on one machine, and being displayed on two other machines which have X forwarded via ssh.
They might be trying to abandon the name "DRM" because it has become so stained, and replace it with a new name. Stardock was trying to do this, saying they don't use DRM, but something called "Goo" (just DRM by another name). Valve too, claiming "DRM is obsolete", then using something called CEG, which is just more DRM.
That's what I would do in the first place anyway.
I am an atheist too, but I thought we worshiped the Goddess Athe. I've been doing it all wrong.
I came across this recently, though I haven't used it yet.
http://openbittorrent.com/
An open tracker, and they don't know what they are tracking since they don't host the .torrent files.
There was no "hacking" involved in the sense of breaking into their systems unauthorized. He asked their servers, probably via HTTP, for the images, like anyone else wanting to view them, and the servers handed it to him. The difference is that he saved them to a file instead of just throwing them in a cache.
Check out their site, I was going to quote some of it but you can't even right click the page without their stupid JavaScript alerting you that their site is their content
In Firefox: Tools->Options->Content. Next to "Enable JavaScript" click Advanced. Uncheck "Disable or replace context menus". Fixes all the anti-right-click JavaScript malware. I've had this turned off since I stopped using NoScript.
The museum doesn't allow photography, meaning they are the only ones capable of making any digital copies of the paintings. Then they did the digitizing work themselves and handed out the work for free to a country where the images have no copyright status. Everything is their fault. And through all this their stated mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" but all of their actions are exactly the opposite of this. They are severely restricting access to the paintings to maximize the museum's income.
If I needed to choose, I'd rather have freedom than museums.