As with *EVERY* analogy, there's some way in which it is different. (otherwise it wouldn't be much of an analogy, "a box of chocolates is like a box of chocolates," duh)
But the part of the analogy which *is* valid is the "consumer protection" aspect. If you had the source code to IE, you could patch it weeks before Microsoft fixes it, or if you aren't allowed to patch it, you can at least not use IE (same with food, you can not eat food that you're allergic to, or you can at least know that the soup is 16 grams of fat per serving, and adjust your meal accordingly, what have you).
Which is to say, it would be a valid consumer protection measure. Even so, RMS said he does not currently advocate such a law, so he clearly sees the limitations (if it were really so compellingly similar, he'd at least officially suggest that such a law is necessary).
Well now what happened is, one of the asteroids, it had a sort of, well it went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, it went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what it did, it took a trajectory... to hit the planet. Well let me finish, Dimitri...
Perhaps Mr. Powell and I have a differing view of "social progress" than you do.
I'm certain of it.
I don't believe that confiscating wealth from one group to give to another is a just way to achieve an illusion of equality.
I explicitly denied that equality was my goal. There are two extremes on the "equality" front: Capitalism and Communism. Both are flawed, Capitalism because it leads to the few being super wealthy, and the masses being their impoverished serfs. The middle class we have now is due to Socialist things such as the minimum wage, overtime, 40-hour work week, unions, etc. Communism (I'm sure I don't need to tell you) is flawed because it is essentially slavery.
Now I'm all about enabling people to achieve and accumulate wealth on their own (hence we have "equal opportunity"), but simply taking from those who have, and handing it (whatever IT is) over to those who don't doesn't serve a just cause, IMHO.
The problem here is that you aren't "stealing" when you tax (you *can* steal via taxation, but taxation itself is not theft). The reason is that taxes are the price of doing business within a society. For example, if you are a delivery truck owner, you must pay for the roads you use (I'm sure you can see I've simplified it greatly, you also must pay for the police that keep the roads working, the dams which power the traffic lights, the FAA which protects the skies above the roads, etc).
It's not the government's job to provide "things" to people just because they want them.
It's not so much that the individual wants some specific thing, it's that we (as a society) want to live in a society which, for example, doesn't have sick and homeless people roaming the streets, that we want to be well educated, etc.
Health insurance and financial safety nets may be one thing (we could probably go round-and-round on that one), but "technology" is still something people can do just fine without.
I wouldn't advocate something as foolish as "an iPod in every home, by law" or anything, but the internet you are using now is *ONLY* possible due to government spending. If we went 100% Ayn Randian Capitalism, unless you are very privileged, you would never be let anywhere *NEAR* the internet.
While you will find people who think they are entitled to achieve whatever they wish, regardless of whether they can earn it, on the poor side (the so-called "wellfare queen"), you will also find just as many *wealthy* people who are just as worthless and greedy, the only difference is they wear a suit, so it must be ok.
What I do advocate, very much, is to enact laws and spend government money to direct the system (society) in such a way as to provide reasonable access to technology to everyone. Maybe that's subsidizing dial-up to everyone who wants it, while those who are able, can pay for broadband (from regulated private sources), or maybe it's setting up WiFi hotspots in metropolitan areas and stocking libraries (another socialist enterprise--under pure Capitalism, you only get to read the books that the wealthy decide you can read) with PCs, etc. The details I leave to the elected officials and democratic processes.
It's a *BIG* mistake to think it's all or nothing, either all Capitalism, or all Communism. Even the most cursory glance at the real world shows this to be false. Still, many people make that very mistake (I've been known to) all too often. My goal here is to show that it's the middle where the real progress is.
I think you're reading a little more into my post than I actually wrote.
That's for certain, but that's also what I said I did:-). The question is how on the mark I was.
nobody should have been surprised that the MPAA went after these websites
I don't think anyone was terribly surprised (or like you said, at least they *shouldn't* have been, except maybe the foreign sites, who would be surprised at the humor of such an attempt to shut them down).
I'm going to read a little more: I often see responses of "why is this news?" If this is what you mean, it's news because it's what *is* happening, and the specifics of *how* it's happening. That's certainly newsworthy.
Also, the main thrust of my original reply was in response to an attitude of "what else did you expect" which is often used to justify an injustice by blaming the victim. Both sides (rehashing what I already said) are essentially 'victims' (of an unjust system) here, but proper reform will not come if the *AA's are allowed to steamroll over their opposition, which is why I take exception to the "duh, of course they'll get taken down, nothing to see here" which is *exactly* the attitude which will give them what they want.
As to my sig; again, it's not social commentary. It's a (and rather witty, IMHO) quote by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, as a sarcastic response to a question about the percieved "technology gap" separating "the disadvantaged poor" and "the priveliged elite".
Ah, I didn't know it was a quote (there was no attribution). The thing about that thinking is that it keeps society from progressing (again, it says, "things are as they are, it's foolish to expect things can be different"). We can change the rules of society, if we wish, to help promote technological affluence (not equality, but just making some minimum level of technological affluence available to all), but only if we first identify that as something desirable. His quote (going on how you've described it) ridicules such an idea as social progress.
What the hell are you talking about? This article is like *any* article in that it applies only in the areas it applies.
The relevant data here is that if you are going to set up an internet server, a computer that will connect directly to the internet, or a computer in an untrusted environment in general, that Linux and Mac OS X are statistically least vulnerable to remote exploits (with some caveats related to the configuations tested).
It's just another (and a very important, but not necessarily the *most* important) metric to use when choosing a server OS.
Duh. So actually, yes, this *IS* a potential reason to choose Linux over Windows (or Mac OS X over Linux and Windows, if you don't mind the single-vendor limitation).
To quote the story:
Needless to say, from my viewpoint this is a good reason to limit Windows installations in IT that any PHB and/or Smiling Man can understand. Have them put into a spreadsheet and see what this kind of security means to their bottom line.
Looks right on the mark. "this is a good reason to limit Windows" that "any PHB... can understand".
I think you've mistaken the story for one which says Linux is perfect for all situations, or something.
It should read something like "Bittorent Site Operators Invite Lawsuits". Seriously, who could have predicted that posting so many links to copyrighted works would draw the ire of the MPAA?
Of the two titles (the one on the actual story, and yours) the one on the story is more accurate.
Your proposed title, and your sig, indicate that you believe in might makes right as long as it maintains status quo of the power structure. This leads to abominations such as the DMCA. Reality is that when you buy a DVD (for example) you own it in its entirety (bits and plastic), but the Constitution (in the US) made a trade-off--a limited (artificial) monopoly on the artistic contents in order to promote the arts. Increasingly, over the last century, the capitalist tendencies of the corporations have utilized the available resources (the art, the artists, and the temporary monopoly granted by the Constitution) to their limit, so have done what such systems always do: sought greater resources to exploit. In this case, they have successfully lobbied Congress to increase the strength of their monopoly, and more and more the common citizen is beholden to the corporation.
This is bad. While I support a healthy system which promotes the arts, I do not, I can not, support a system of oppression. This is the first salvo of the MPAA, and to cheer them on will only encourage them to further abuses.
Go after for-profit sites, and I have no problem, go after central torrent sites, and you'll find them moving off-shore. Eventually, they'll have to go after the individual users, and the only way they can succeed is to win (as the RIAA is doing, by default) excessive awards in order to scare off the other million people they can't get around to suing.
It is possible to design and implement an equitable copyright system, but ours is abusive. Don't act to make it worse, act to make it better.
Finally, back to your sig. Just as desire to own a Mercedes does not, in and of itself, entitle one to a Mercedes, likewise the desire to make money off of the distribution of a movie does not, alone, entitle one to make money off of that distribution--at least, not in a moral society.
Unbeknownst to many, the greatest attack on free speech under Bush wasn't related to terrorism or "homeland security," or even nipplegate, but the CFR bill which outright bans many forms of political speech before an election.
While I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specifics of the CFR bill, something along those lines is desperately needed in the US. The problem is that, in the name of "free speech", we are allowing corporations to buy votes.
For CFR, I'd suggest making it illegal for corporations to donate funds or services to candidates, and that all major media services would have to allow all relevant sides of an issue equal access (define this in such a way that it applies to ABC/CBS/CNN/FOX/NYT/CC/etc and not to SciFi channel or your local non-major papers. Similarly, they have to provide equal access to Bush and Kerry, and maybe Nader if he (or someone else) is an equally serious contender or issue-holder).
Yes, this requires someone to "decide" which person or corporation falls under which rule, which is subjective and open to abuse, but with proper oversight and openness, it's possible. Without such reform, however, it puts democracy into the hands of the wealthy and out of the hands of the people where it belongs.
No, it sounds like trusting a private corporation to get me in one piece from one place to another using aircraft.
Without government meddling, I wouldn't trust air flight to corporations either. All they know is profit. If it's cheaper to kill a few people now and then, they'll do it.
Air travel is too difficult and expensive for private enterprise to offer it to the masses safely without government services (like ATC) and oversight (like the FAA).
But, NASA isn't developing space flight in the public interest, so private enterprise has had to step up to either fill the gap, or motivate NASA towards progress in that area.
There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans, and in spite of media (the media is *not* liberal, it's a conservative (corporate) system which employs liberals *and* conservatives who have to support that system to stay in the game) prognostication to the contrary, more Americans are Liberal/Progressive than are Conservative/Reactionary.
The last three elections show concerted effort on the part of the Republicans to suppress as much of the vote as possible. It's sickening. I can understand trying to win, but let democracy work. Educate the people, let them vote, and make certain their vote is counted!
Re:Such an unused potential-Stop abusing it.
on
Examining Bittorrent
·
· Score: 1
They wouldn't be fighting it, if a certain group wasn't abusing it.
Bittorrent users are not "abusing it". They are *using* it exactly in the manner it was intended--to distribute large files to many people efficiently. That's not abuse.
What makes P2P work isn't the technology, but broadband.
That's foolish. First, broadband *is* technology (and part of what makes up "P2P" in practice), but even taking broadband out of the picture, if a file is 300MB, it will still download faster over dial-up if you use something like bittorrent than it would using a standard ftp/http site under higher loads.
"But I'm afraid they are not going to get it in time."
What's the rush?
The reality that P2P and broadband are here now, waiting to be used to enhance our life, but for a few old greedy dinosaurs wish to proscribe *our* use of it. It's like as if we were coming out of an ice age and the people want to go out and bask in the sun, but are being sued by the coat-makers for cutting into their profits. All they have to do is go from making coats to making shorts and t-shirts. Maybe they won't make as much, or maybe they'll make more, that's not my concern. They aren't entitled to profit, only to *try* to profit. The fact that they wish to do so by making *reality* illegal is revolting to the extreme.
Open Source and even Free as in Beer software is NOT socialism
Actually, it is. Socialism is (according to your Econ 101 textbook) where the people own the means of production. What is Free Software if not that?
More accurately (but less in line with first year econ), socialism is gearing society (government, economics, etc) towards enabling everyone (not to make them equal, as many detractors would argue, just to help provide equal opportunity and prevent the few from ruining things for the rest of us, more or less). Again, this is exactly what the Free Software movement is about.
This is just a guess, and if it doesn't apply to you, maybe it'll apply to someone reading this. You sound like you might think "Socialism" a bad word due to indoctrination (in the US, specifically) or seeing what happens when you apply Socialism under a dictatorship (USSR, China). I suggest that a proper society (the kind the USA was a wonderful attempt at) requires a balance of Capitalism, Democracy, and Socialism. Right now we're putting all our resources into Capitalism, and starving the Democratic and Socialist needs of the nation. This has given us a strong GDP and immense military power, but lead to many backwards metrics like the largest prison population of any nation, poor healthcare coverage, sub-par education, etc. I truly doubt the key is to become a Socialist nation, but I *am* certain it requires not being afraid of doing things that need to be done just because these things are Socialist.
What kind of research do they do with actual corpses as opposed to crash test dummies?
Jotted down in a notebook somewhere:
Crash Test Log, Stardate 22107.4 First Test-Officer reporting. Initial test with human subjects. Volvo, 5mph parking lot simulation, all subjects killed in crash. Recommend further testing. Send condolences and heartfelt gratitude to the families of the deceased.
You're going to charge us to use your system, right?
There's a reason you're finding it hard to find open source solutions. They do exist, though. I suggest offering free lifetime WiFi access to all helpful slashdot posters or hiring a consultant to set this up.
Normally, I'd gladly be more helpful, but in this case I won't. It's not that I'm trying to be a jerk, but rather that I don't feel like helping a jerk (not you necessarily, but your boss/management). Tell your boss you'd like to offer WiFi for free. What will he say? Probably something like, "why the hell would we do that?" So you want free help from me? I guess I must ask myself, "why the hell would I do that?"
I didn't broaden the term. I agree that it is a specific term, and I cited two references from the security field where my understanding of the term comes from. What is your excuse?
By specific I'm referring to scope, as in "general" vs "specific". If it is to be a general term, then it applies generally (universally) as anything that more or less "distributes an attempt to deny a service", instead of the specific scope (ie: that it's a an electronic service being cut, and the attack itself directly causes it (or triggers events which will directly cause) the service to be unavailable.
IMO, that belongs to "opinion" not "reasoning".
I like how you state that the above is "IMO".
Irony aside, I agree fully. If the definition was one that left no ambiguity (at least, with regard to the case at hand), there would be no argument from me. The fact is that without an objective answer, subjectivity (opinion) comes into play. I believe my opinion is more reasonable, but, as I've already stated, if the definition is changed (or refined, or made explicit, whatever you prefer) to cover the screensaver, then I won't argue it anymore.
Sorry, but above looks to me as if you are the one who just wants to be right.
I believe I *AM* right WRT the uncertainty of classification. You are correct in that I *want* to be right with regards to how the term will evolve regarding this case.
Interesting example, but not really fitting: there is a "genus" name, and it's "malware", not "virii"*.
And what's the genus of the DDoS? Is *it* the genus, with various species? I don't believe the terms involved are as mature as you imply.
The screensaver and your standard DDoS are both classifiable as a *something*. Right now, we have the choice to call them both DDoS, and make the difference in terms between the screensaver type, a class action lawsuit type, and a ping-flood type, etc, or leave DDoS to refer to directly taking out a technological link on the chain (whether it's a phone, or an apache daemon, or whatever), and have a new term to cover a similar attack that attempts to force someone to take their service down (or face having it taken down by the law or their ISP), such as a class action suit, or this screensaver.
Do you fully believe that this is, with no uncertainty, a DDoS? If so, then I won't argue any further. I've made my case, and if you're not convinced, I'm content to disagree and call it a day.
I believe, fully, that the term DDoS does not directly cover the screensaver. It sort of does enough that one could go either way, but the definition is, itself, ambiguous enough to raise the question. Which way do we go? That's where my virus/trojan/worm example comes in. These terms came out before the term "malware" was their genus. At some point, the issue came up, "do we just call them all viruses (another question was "do we call them viruses or virii?", which has been answered by the English professors as "viruses" and the computer people as "virii", same as SPAM vs spam or e-mail vs email, Internet vs internet, etc), or does it make sense to make clear distinctions?"
Same basic choice with this screensaver. I can live with it being a DDoS, but don't believe the choice has yet been made. My response has been to people who've stated that this *IS* a DDoS, and any statement otherwise *IS* wrong. I don't believe that to be true. If they had just stated, "this sure is like a DDoS," I wouldn't have taken issue.
Initially I was focusing on the screensaver directly (the screensaver itself is *not* a DDoS as it can not directly take down a service except by accident), but when as a component of a broader system (which you brought up), it *is* an attempt to deny service.
A lot of words have general and specific definitions, for example, is your calculator a computer? If someone calls it a computer, one might reply, "that's not a computer--well, it *is* a computer, but it's not what we call it". Is a cl
So you admit that dragging a Spammer to court would seek to deny service, but the Screen Saver does not? Your Honor, I close my case.;)
The difference is what you are *directly* attempting. If you take someone to court demanding their site is shut down, you are *directly* attempting to shut them down. If you try to make their actions more costly, you are trying to *indirectly* shut them down. (if not shut them down, at least discourage others, slow them down, etc).
Again, you denied (no pun intended) that the purpose of Lycos' move was to deny service, yet you say even those absurd examples fit the term. I don't mean to ignore the rest of your post, but you contradict yourself so much here, that I don't think it makes to continue with this.
Any problematic contradiction lies with your assumptions and inferences. You are correct that it makes no sense to continue in that state.
Lycos' overall goal (this is an assumption, but I think a valid one) is to deny spam service. The screensaver is one cog in that mechanism (the other cogs lie with the ISP, the spammer, the spammer's customers, and the costs involved).
The screensaver, on its own, is not a DDoS attack, because the screensaver, alone, does not take down the service (in fact, it's specifically designed not to, as I've already pointed out).
So is the overall plan a DDoS (the term, not the string of words)? Well, would a lawsuit be called a DDoS? If yes, then this could be too. If no, then where, exactly, is the difference that makes one a DDoS and the other not?
I am not sure how you spinned that into implying I was agreeing with you, when it's obvious that I do not.
Then I misinterpreted your words. I took them to mean that this is a new "rose-like" thing, and it's not yet determined whether it's a rose or not.
I think this is main point of our disagreement: I didn't broaden the term. This is how the term is understood by security people to begin with. Cutting the phone lines is an explicit example in the SecurityFocus article I I cited to you earlier.
You *are* broadening the term.
1. SecurityFocus is *not* the definer of words (nor am I or you) 2. Cutting the phone lines is not a DDoS (can you "distributively" cut the phone lines?)
That's what I pre-empted by "The main reason you could argue that it isn't a DoS is the level of indirection",
First you take the strict objective usage of the words with your "cutting of the phone lines" example, then go into subjective values with "level of indirection". The definition says *NOTHING* about indirection.
And besides, this is not a reason I "could argue", it's the one I *AM* arguing. As of right now, we (whatever abstraction of "we" it is that decides the meanings of words) are at the point where we have to make a choice of where that bar is set. You are pretending that it's been set by the l0pht in the '90s. It hasn't.
Read again: it has not.
My argument is this:
Is the screen saver describable by the string of words, "a distributed attempt to deny service?" yes. That alone does not make it fit the term "DDoS". The absurd examples I cited were intended not to prove that the screensaver is in the same category, but that not everything that fits those words fits the term.
Your demarcation point is indirection, which I disagree is the only one (I also disagree, it seems, with where that point lies). For example, if I call your ISP and ask (not as you, but as a concerned citizen) them to disable your account, is that a DoS? If I get three people to help me, is it a DDoS? These are very direct. (more direct, in fact, than the screensaver)
which you decided not to quote (my signature seems to come into this discussion).
Don't be so dim. I'm not going to quote every line and address every sentence. *YOU* don't do the same either. It would be unworkable, after a few replies it would be pointless. We *both* have to cull what we think unimportant.
If you think I'm dodging a point, that's one thing, and I've shown I'm not.
That seems to go with I wondered above: Apparently you are not looking at the technical term, but how the majority understands it.
NO, NO, NO. There are (at least) three options here, and you've guessed wrong. There's the technical term, the string of words, and the common (mis)understanding of the term. I'm stating that the string of words is what fits this case, the common understanding does not, and what I'm contending is that the term *should* not, and as it's currently held, does not yet match or not match because this case is different enough to be ambiguous for the technical term.
I'm *not* focusing on any but the technical term. If the technical term is as complete and objective are you are positing, then all of my absurd examples *ARE* 100% accurately describe, by the technical term, as a DDoS.
So where are you going to put the bar? Do you have a rational argument that the bar has already be set? Please state it. Otherwise this is a waste of time because we are arguing why each thinks the term should or should not apply, not whether it exactly does or exactly does not. The fact that we can have such a long discussion about this implies that it's not a clear case. Is it a DDoS if you convince the guy who's phone line is cut, to cut it himself (and not via social engineering, where he thinks he's doing something else)? Did we DDoS TechTV by not watching it enough to make it profitable? Did we DDoS New Coke by complaining so much?
Hong Kong, under the UK, was a showcase of unregulated capitalism.
The company town is a showcase of "unregulated capitalism" as well.
"Unregulated capitalism" has no minimum wage, no safety codes, no labeling requirements.
You think a 40 hour work week is bad? That's the best the socialists could get from the capitalists at the time, and now we're *undoing* that progress!
Your post is overly simplistic. There's no such thing as "unregulated capitalism" in practice. That doesn't mean certain capitalistic ideals aren't important, just that to pretend it's a real thing, and an all-good thing, leads one to ignore better options, or even just non-imaginary options, simply because they are socialist or democratic in nature.
Slashdot Mirror
I think RMS should take the stance "I support only Free software, but users should have the choice".
That *is* his stance.
That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre.
I believe he'd disagree with him as well...
What I mean is, he's never said (to my knowledge) that all software must be free software.
As with *EVERY* analogy, there's some way in which it is different. (otherwise it wouldn't be much of an analogy, "a box of chocolates is like a box of chocolates," duh)
But the part of the analogy which *is* valid is the "consumer protection" aspect. If you had the source code to IE, you could patch it weeks before Microsoft fixes it, or if you aren't allowed to patch it, you can at least not use IE (same with food, you can not eat food that you're allergic to, or you can at least know that the soup is 16 grams of fat per serving, and adjust your meal accordingly, what have you).
Which is to say, it would be a valid consumer protection measure. Even so, RMS said he does not currently advocate such a law, so he clearly sees the limitations (if it were really so compellingly similar, he'd at least officially suggest that such a law is necessary).
Well now what happened is, one of the asteroids, it had a sort of, well it went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, it went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what it did, it took a trajectory... to hit the planet. Well let me finish, Dimitri...
Yes! I now have a 1/233 chance of predicting the Darwin Awards for 2029.
You see, the smart will evacuate the target impact area, and the "Award Winners" will flock to the area for the event.
Damn, I just hope *I* can resist going... after all, it *will* be an impressive show. We're talking 1.9 gigatons!
Perhaps Mr. Powell and I have a differing view of "social progress" than you do.
I'm certain of it.
I don't believe that confiscating wealth from one group to give to another is a just way to achieve an illusion of equality.
I explicitly denied that equality was my goal. There are two extremes on the "equality" front: Capitalism and Communism. Both are flawed, Capitalism because it leads to the few being super wealthy, and the masses being their impoverished serfs. The middle class we have now is due to Socialist things such as the minimum wage, overtime, 40-hour work week, unions, etc. Communism (I'm sure I don't need to tell you) is flawed because it is essentially slavery.
Now I'm all about enabling people to achieve and accumulate wealth on their own (hence we have "equal opportunity"), but simply taking from those who have, and handing it (whatever IT is) over to those who don't doesn't serve a just cause, IMHO.
The problem here is that you aren't "stealing" when you tax (you *can* steal via taxation, but taxation itself is not theft). The reason is that taxes are the price of doing business within a society. For example, if you are a delivery truck owner, you must pay for the roads you use (I'm sure you can see I've simplified it greatly, you also must pay for the police that keep the roads working, the dams which power the traffic lights, the FAA which protects the skies above the roads, etc).
It's not the government's job to provide "things" to people just because they want them.
It's not so much that the individual wants some specific thing, it's that we (as a society) want to live in a society which, for example, doesn't have sick and homeless people roaming the streets, that we want to be well educated, etc.
Health insurance and financial safety nets may be one thing (we could probably go round-and-round on that one), but "technology" is still something people can do just fine without.
I wouldn't advocate something as foolish as "an iPod in every home, by law" or anything, but the internet you are using now is *ONLY* possible due to government spending. If we went 100% Ayn Randian Capitalism, unless you are very privileged, you would never be let anywhere *NEAR* the internet.
While you will find people who think they are entitled to achieve whatever they wish, regardless of whether they can earn it, on the poor side (the so-called "wellfare queen"), you will also find just as many *wealthy* people who are just as worthless and greedy, the only difference is they wear a suit, so it must be ok.
What I do advocate, very much, is to enact laws and spend government money to direct the system (society) in such a way as to provide reasonable access to technology to everyone. Maybe that's subsidizing dial-up to everyone who wants it, while those who are able, can pay for broadband (from regulated private sources), or maybe it's setting up WiFi hotspots in metropolitan areas and stocking libraries (another socialist enterprise--under pure Capitalism, you only get to read the books that the wealthy decide you can read) with PCs, etc. The details I leave to the elected officials and democratic processes.
It's a *BIG* mistake to think it's all or nothing, either all Capitalism, or all Communism. Even the most cursory glance at the real world shows this to be false. Still, many people make that very mistake (I've been known to) all too often. My goal here is to show that it's the middle where the real progress is.
I think you're reading a little more into my post than I actually wrote.
:-). The question is how on the mark I was.
That's for certain, but that's also what I said I did
nobody should have been surprised that the MPAA went after these websites
I don't think anyone was terribly surprised (or like you said, at least they *shouldn't* have been, except maybe the foreign sites, who would be surprised at the humor of such an attempt to shut them down).
I'm going to read a little more: I often see responses of "why is this news?" If this is what you mean, it's news because it's what *is* happening, and the specifics of *how* it's happening. That's certainly newsworthy.
Also, the main thrust of my original reply was in response to an attitude of "what else did you expect" which is often used to justify an injustice by blaming the victim. Both sides (rehashing what I already said) are essentially 'victims' (of an unjust system) here, but proper reform will not come if the *AA's are allowed to steamroll over their opposition, which is why I take exception to the "duh, of course they'll get taken down, nothing to see here" which is *exactly* the attitude which will give them what they want.
As to my sig; again, it's not social commentary. It's a (and rather witty, IMHO) quote by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, as a sarcastic response to a question about the percieved "technology gap" separating "the disadvantaged poor" and "the priveliged elite".
Ah, I didn't know it was a quote (there was no attribution). The thing about that thinking is that it keeps society from progressing (again, it says, "things are as they are, it's foolish to expect things can be different"). We can change the rules of society, if we wish, to help promote technological affluence (not equality, but just making some minimum level of technological affluence available to all), but only if we first identify that as something desirable. His quote (going on how you've described it) ridicules such an idea as social progress.
The relevant data here is that if you are going to set up an internet server, a computer that will connect directly to the internet, or a computer in an untrusted environment in general, that Linux and Mac OS X are statistically least vulnerable to remote exploits (with some caveats related to the configuations tested).
It's just another (and a very important, but not necessarily the *most* important) metric to use when choosing a server OS.
Duh. So actually, yes, this *IS* a potential reason to choose Linux over Windows (or Mac OS X over Linux and Windows, if you don't mind the single-vendor limitation).
To quote the story:
Looks right on the mark. "this is a good reason to limit Windows" that "any PHB
I think you've mistaken the story for one which says Linux is perfect for all situations, or something.
It should read something like "Bittorent Site Operators Invite Lawsuits". Seriously, who could have predicted that posting so many links to copyrighted works would draw the ire of the MPAA?
Of the two titles (the one on the actual story, and yours) the one on the story is more accurate.
Your proposed title, and your sig, indicate that you believe in might makes right as long as it maintains status quo of the power structure. This leads to abominations such as the DMCA. Reality is that when you buy a DVD (for example) you own it in its entirety (bits and plastic), but the Constitution (in the US) made a trade-off--a limited (artificial) monopoly on the artistic contents in order to promote the arts. Increasingly, over the last century, the capitalist tendencies of the corporations have utilized the available resources (the art, the artists, and the temporary monopoly granted by the Constitution) to their limit, so have done what such systems always do: sought greater resources to exploit. In this case, they have successfully lobbied Congress to increase the strength of their monopoly, and more and more the common citizen is beholden to the corporation.
This is bad. While I support a healthy system which promotes the arts, I do not, I can not, support a system of oppression. This is the first salvo of the MPAA, and to cheer them on will only encourage them to further abuses.
Go after for-profit sites, and I have no problem, go after central torrent sites, and you'll find them moving off-shore. Eventually, they'll have to go after the individual users, and the only way they can succeed is to win (as the RIAA is doing, by default) excessive awards in order to scare off the other million people they can't get around to suing.
It is possible to design and implement an equitable copyright system, but ours is abusive. Don't act to make it worse, act to make it better.
Finally, back to your sig. Just as desire to own a Mercedes does not, in and of itself, entitle one to a Mercedes, likewise the desire to make money off of the distribution of a movie does not, alone, entitle one to make money off of that distribution--at least, not in a moral society.
Unbeknownst to many, the greatest attack on free speech under Bush wasn't related to terrorism or "homeland security," or even nipplegate, but the CFR bill which outright bans many forms of political speech before an election.
While I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specifics of the CFR bill, something along those lines is desperately needed in the US. The problem is that, in the name of "free speech", we are allowing corporations to buy votes.
For CFR, I'd suggest making it illegal for corporations to donate funds or services to candidates, and that all major media services would have to allow all relevant sides of an issue equal access (define this in such a way that it applies to ABC/CBS/CNN/FOX/NYT/CC/etc and not to SciFi channel or your local non-major papers. Similarly, they have to provide equal access to Bush and Kerry, and maybe Nader if he (or someone else) is an equally serious contender or issue-holder).
Yes, this requires someone to "decide" which person or corporation falls under which rule, which is subjective and open to abuse, but with proper oversight and openness, it's possible. Without such reform, however, it puts democracy into the hands of the wealthy and out of the hands of the people where it belongs.
No, it sounds like trusting a private corporation to get me in one piece from one place to another using aircraft.
Without government meddling, I wouldn't trust air flight to corporations either. All they know is profit. If it's cheaper to kill a few people now and then, they'll do it.
Air travel is too difficult and expensive for private enterprise to offer it to the masses safely without government services (like ATC) and oversight (like the FAA).
But, NASA isn't developing space flight in the public interest, so private enterprise has had to step up to either fill the gap, or motivate NASA towards progress in that area.
There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans, and in spite of media (the media is *not* liberal, it's a conservative (corporate) system which employs liberals *and* conservatives who have to support that system to stay in the game) prognostication to the contrary, more Americans are Liberal/Progressive than are Conservative/Reactionary.
The last three elections show concerted effort on the part of the Republicans to suppress as much of the vote as possible. It's sickening. I can understand trying to win, but let democracy work. Educate the people, let them vote, and make certain their vote is counted!
They wouldn't be fighting it, if a certain group wasn't abusing it.
Bittorrent users are not "abusing it". They are *using* it exactly in the manner it was intended--to distribute large files to many people efficiently. That's not abuse.
What makes P2P work isn't the technology, but broadband.
That's foolish. First, broadband *is* technology (and part of what makes up "P2P" in practice), but even taking broadband out of the picture, if a file is 300MB, it will still download faster over dial-up if you use something like bittorrent than it would using a standard ftp/http site under higher loads.
"But I'm afraid they are not going to get it in time."
What's the rush?
The reality that P2P and broadband are here now, waiting to be used to enhance our life, but for a few old greedy dinosaurs wish to proscribe *our* use of it. It's like as if we were coming out of an ice age and the people want to go out and bask in the sun, but are being sued by the coat-makers for cutting into their profits. All they have to do is go from making coats to making shorts and t-shirts. Maybe they won't make as much, or maybe they'll make more, that's not my concern. They aren't entitled to profit, only to *try* to profit. The fact that they wish to do so by making *reality* illegal is revolting to the extreme.
Virtually everyone burns, directly or indirectly, fossil fuels. What's your point?
Just ask them to step outside.
I hate to break it to you people, but nuclear- either nuclear-thermal or nuclear/RTG powered ion- is the best solution for in-space propulsion.
And nuclear material is the worst "in-space propulsion" payload to launch from the Earth.
Hopefully, the next NASA Administrator is able to properly reconcile the two, as a rational space program must never ignore *either* fact.
From the article:
"can we really expect NASA to effect serious changes"
From your dictionary quote:
"or effect a change in"
The article poster and the dictionary both chose "effect" instead of "affect".
Silly Con, you've just been oxidized.
Open Source and even Free as in Beer software is NOT socialism
Actually, it is. Socialism is (according to your Econ 101 textbook) where the people own the means of production. What is Free Software if not that?
More accurately (but less in line with first year econ), socialism is gearing society (government, economics, etc) towards enabling everyone (not to make them equal, as many detractors would argue, just to help provide equal opportunity and prevent the few from ruining things for the rest of us, more or less). Again, this is exactly what the Free Software movement is about.
This is just a guess, and if it doesn't apply to you, maybe it'll apply to someone reading this. You sound like you might think "Socialism" a bad word due to indoctrination (in the US, specifically) or seeing what happens when you apply Socialism under a dictatorship (USSR, China). I suggest that a proper society (the kind the USA was a wonderful attempt at) requires a balance of Capitalism, Democracy, and Socialism. Right now we're putting all our resources into Capitalism, and starving the Democratic and Socialist needs of the nation. This has given us a strong GDP and immense military power, but lead to many backwards metrics like the largest prison population of any nation, poor healthcare coverage, sub-par education, etc. I truly doubt the key is to become a Socialist nation, but I *am* certain it requires not being afraid of doing things that need to be done just because these things are Socialist.
What kind of research do they do with actual corpses as opposed to crash test dummies?
Jotted down in a notebook somewhere:
Crash Test Log, Stardate 22107.4
First Test-Officer reporting.
Initial test with human subjects.
Volvo, 5mph parking lot simulation, all subjects killed in crash. Recommend further testing.
Send condolences and heartfelt gratitude to the families of the deceased.
You're going to charge us to use your system, right?
There's a reason you're finding it hard to find open source solutions. They do exist, though. I suggest offering free lifetime WiFi access to all helpful slashdot posters or hiring a consultant to set this up.
Normally, I'd gladly be more helpful, but in this case I won't. It's not that I'm trying to be a jerk, but rather that I don't feel like helping a jerk (not you necessarily, but your boss/management). Tell your boss you'd like to offer WiFi for free. What will he say? Probably something like, "why the hell would we do that?" So you want free help from me? I guess I must ask myself, "why the hell would I do that?"
Splendid! Now Slashdot is posting dupes before they happen.
I didn't broaden the term. I agree that it is a specific term, and I cited two references from the security field where my understanding of the term comes from. What is your excuse?
By specific I'm referring to scope, as in "general" vs "specific". If it is to be a general term, then it applies generally (universally) as anything that more or less "distributes an attempt to deny a service", instead of the specific scope (ie: that it's a an electronic service being cut, and the attack itself directly causes it (or triggers events which will directly cause) the service to be unavailable.
IMO, that belongs to "opinion" not "reasoning".
I like how you state that the above is "IMO".
Irony aside, I agree fully. If the definition was one that left no ambiguity (at least, with regard to the case at hand), there would be no argument from me. The fact is that without an objective answer, subjectivity (opinion) comes into play. I believe my opinion is more reasonable, but, as I've already stated, if the definition is changed (or refined, or made explicit, whatever you prefer) to cover the screensaver, then I won't argue it anymore.
Sorry, but above looks to me as if you are the one who just wants to be right.
I believe I *AM* right WRT the uncertainty of classification. You are correct in that I *want* to be right with regards to how the term will evolve regarding this case.
Interesting example, but not really fitting: there is a "genus" name, and it's "malware", not "virii"*.
And what's the genus of the DDoS? Is *it* the genus, with various species? I don't believe the terms involved are as mature as you imply.
The screensaver and your standard DDoS are both classifiable as a *something*. Right now, we have the choice to call them both DDoS, and make the difference in terms between the screensaver type, a class action lawsuit type, and a ping-flood type, etc, or leave DDoS to refer to directly taking out a technological link on the chain (whether it's a phone, or an apache daemon, or whatever), and have a new term to cover a similar attack that attempts to force someone to take their service down (or face having it taken down by the law or their ISP), such as a class action suit, or this screensaver.
Do you fully believe that this is, with no uncertainty, a DDoS? If so, then I won't argue any further. I've made my case, and if you're not convinced, I'm content to disagree and call it a day.
I believe, fully, that the term DDoS does not directly cover the screensaver. It sort of does enough that one could go either way, but the definition is, itself, ambiguous enough to raise the question. Which way do we go? That's where my virus/trojan/worm example comes in. These terms came out before the term "malware" was their genus. At some point, the issue came up, "do we just call them all viruses (another question was "do we call them viruses or virii?", which has been answered by the English professors as "viruses" and the computer people as "virii", same as SPAM vs spam or e-mail vs email, Internet vs internet, etc), or does it make sense to make clear distinctions?"
Same basic choice with this screensaver. I can live with it being a DDoS, but don't believe the choice has yet been made. My response has been to people who've stated that this *IS* a DDoS, and any statement otherwise *IS* wrong. I don't believe that to be true. If they had just stated, "this sure is like a DDoS," I wouldn't have taken issue.
Initially I was focusing on the screensaver directly (the screensaver itself is *not* a DDoS as it can not directly take down a service except by accident), but when as a component of a broader system (which you brought up), it *is* an attempt to deny service.
A lot of words have general and specific definitions, for example, is your calculator a computer? If someone calls it a computer, one might reply, "that's not a computer--well, it *is* a computer, but it's not what we call it". Is a cl
So you admit that dragging a Spammer to court would seek to deny service, but the Screen Saver does not? Your Honor, I close my case. ;)
The difference is what you are *directly* attempting. If you take someone to court demanding their site is shut down, you are *directly* attempting to shut them down. If you try to make their actions more costly, you are trying to *indirectly* shut them down. (if not shut them down, at least discourage others, slow them down, etc).
Again, you denied (no pun intended) that the purpose of Lycos' move was to deny service, yet you say even those absurd examples fit the term. I don't mean to ignore the rest of your post, but you contradict yourself so much here, that I don't think it makes to continue with this.
Any problematic contradiction lies with your assumptions and inferences. You are correct that it makes no sense to continue in that state.
Lycos' overall goal (this is an assumption, but I think a valid one) is to deny spam service. The screensaver is one cog in that mechanism (the other cogs lie with the ISP, the spammer, the spammer's customers, and the costs involved).
The screensaver, on its own, is not a DDoS attack, because the screensaver, alone, does not take down the service (in fact, it's specifically designed not to, as I've already pointed out).
So is the overall plan a DDoS (the term, not the string of words)? Well, would a lawsuit be called a DDoS? If yes, then this could be too. If no, then where, exactly, is the difference that makes one a DDoS and the other not?
I am not sure how you spinned that into implying I was agreeing with you, when it's obvious that I do not.
Then I misinterpreted your words. I took them to mean that this is a new "rose-like" thing, and it's not yet determined whether it's a rose or not.
I think this is main point of our disagreement: I didn't broaden the term. This is how the term is understood by security people to begin with. Cutting the phone lines is an explicit example in the SecurityFocus article I I cited to you earlier.
You *are* broadening the term.
1. SecurityFocus is *not* the definer of words (nor am I or you)
2. Cutting the phone lines is not a DDoS (can you "distributively" cut the phone lines?)
That's what I pre-empted by "The main reason you could argue that it isn't a DoS is the level of indirection",
First you take the strict objective usage of the words with your "cutting of the phone lines" example, then go into subjective values with "level of indirection". The definition says *NOTHING* about indirection.
And besides, this is not a reason I "could argue", it's the one I *AM* arguing. As of right now, we (whatever abstraction of "we" it is that decides the meanings of words) are at the point where we have to make a choice of where that bar is set. You are pretending that it's been set by the l0pht in the '90s. It hasn't.
Read again: it has not.
My argument is this:
Is the screen saver describable by the string of words, "a distributed attempt to deny service?" yes. That alone does not make it fit the term "DDoS". The absurd examples I cited were intended not to prove that the screensaver is in the same category, but that not everything that fits those words fits the term.
Your demarcation point is indirection, which I disagree is the only one (I also disagree, it seems, with where that point lies). For example, if I call your ISP and ask (not as you, but as a concerned citizen) them to disable your account, is that a DoS? If I get three people to help me, is it a DDoS? These are very direct. (more direct, in fact, than the screensaver)
which you decided not to quote (my signature seems to come into this discussion).
Don't be so dim. I'm not going to quote every line and address every sentence. *YOU* don't do the same either. It would be unworkable, after a few replies it would be pointless. We *both* have to cull what we think unimportant.
If you think I'm dodging a point, that's one thing, and I've shown I'm not.
That seems to go with I wondered above: Apparently you are not looking at the technical term, but how the majority understands it.
NO, NO, NO. There are (at least) three options here, and you've guessed wrong. There's the technical term, the string of words, and the common (mis)understanding of the term. I'm stating that the string of words is what fits this case, the common understanding does not, and what I'm contending is that the term *should* not, and as it's currently held, does not yet match or not match because this case is different enough to be ambiguous for the technical term.
I'm *not* focusing on any but the technical term. If the technical term is as complete and objective are you are positing, then all of my absurd examples *ARE* 100% accurately describe, by the technical term, as a DDoS.
So where are you going to put the bar? Do you have a rational argument that the bar has already be set? Please state it. Otherwise this is a waste of time because we are arguing why each thinks the term should or should not apply, not whether it exactly does or exactly does not. The fact that we can have such a long discussion about this implies that it's not a clear case. Is it a DDoS if you convince the guy who's phone line is cut, to cut it himself (and not via social engineering, where he thinks he's doing something else)? Did we DDoS TechTV by not watching it enough to make it profitable? Did we DDoS New Coke by complaining so much?
Hong Kong, under the UK, was a showcase of unregulated capitalism.
The company town is a showcase of "unregulated capitalism" as well.
"Unregulated capitalism" has no minimum wage, no safety codes, no labeling requirements.
You think a 40 hour work week is bad? That's the best the socialists could get from the capitalists at the time, and now we're *undoing* that progress!
Your post is overly simplistic. There's no such thing as "unregulated capitalism" in practice. That doesn't mean certain capitalistic ideals aren't important, just that to pretend it's a real thing, and an all-good thing, leads one to ignore better options, or even just non-imaginary options, simply because they are socialist or democratic in nature.