Or it's just a kind of rose which you have never seen before and therefore don't know how to categorize.
I agree (and in fact this is exactly what I'm arguing). This is a different enough attack to warrant a new term (IMO). It's still the same class of attacks (so it's still a rose-like flower, if it isn't a rose).
Note that the term "denial of service" attack doesn't define the means. Cutting your phone line is a DoS, too.
If you broaden the term too much, it loses it's usefulness (unless it's meant to be a broad term, covering many more specific terms, like malware covers: worms, virii, trojans, spyware, etc).
Was the war in Iraq a DDoS against Saddam? Was MS's integration of IE into Windows a DDoS against Netscape? Is a class action suit a DDoS? Etc. They all fit the definition of the individual words in DDoS strung together, but they don't fit the term.
This screensaver is close enough to a DDoS that it might make sense to broaden the term to cover it, but I'd rather see the term stay specific. Yeah, who am I to argue, right? Well, I'm one voice in the discussion, that's all.
If the net at large chooses to lump it into DDoS, fine. I'd rather see the distinction it has grant it a new name though--even if the name is equally evil and frowned upon. Maybe a "Resource Depletion Attack" (RDA, or DRDA in this case).
This attack, though, is quite noble (in this case). Spammers cost the net far more than they pay, and this is not a welcome subsidy. This is really making the spammers pay for the inherent cost of their actions. I'd call it a Cost Equalization System, via a DRDA--or something. I really don't care so much what it is called so much as not wanting DDoS to become too broad.
In short: Lycos isn't attacking the network bandwith, but the network cost, which still is an attack on the availibility of the network, and therefore the service.
If Lycos started a class-action suit, would you call that a DDoS? It's distributed and unified (like all DDoS's), it seeks to deny service (like all DDoS's). Probably not, because it's different enough to warrant its own term. Was the war in Iraq a DDoS against Saddam? Was MS's antitrust shenanigans with IE a DDoS against Netscape?
I bring up these admittedly absurd examples because they are all DDoS's under the simple definition of the words in the term, but they are not a DDoS as a term unto itself.
This attack is different enough that either the term DDoS will have to be broadened to accept it, or a new term will have to be invented to cover it. The same thing happened with worms, virii, trojans and spyware. They were all similar enough that you could call each a "virus", but to do so would make the term "virus" less useful (less precise).
It's just marketing speak for separating themselves from the "bad word"
I'm sure you're right that their terminology pleases their PR team (and may have even originated with them). That doesn't affect whether or not it's a DDoS, and it's different enough (like I've said) for it to deserve a new term in the same class of attacks.
By your logic, a class-action suit to close an ISP is a DDoS. Or asking people to send in the pre-paid envelopes from junk mail to cost them money is a DDoS. When you broaden words like this, they lose their meaning. A DDoS is a specific term.
AT BEST you could divy up the term DDoS into classes or levels or something, where a pingflood is a Type I DDoS, a slashdot posting is a Type II DDoS, and a Lycos Screensaver is a Type II DDoS or something. But you're not applying ANY logic or reason to the issue at all. You just want to be "right".
If you were using reason, you'd admit:
1. This isn't the same as any previous DDoS in mechanics. 2. This is very much like a standard DDoS with the exception that it doesn't attempt to directly take down a service. 3. It belongs in the same category of attacks, but is different enough to warrant its own name.
It's like a trojan vs a worm vs a virus vs spyware. They are all the same category of evil software, and they all are similar enough to each other that people have argued whether they are all just virii or something (in fact, smart people *do* call them all virii), but they are all unique enough that it is more useful to use a new name.
If the net at large chooses to call it a DDoS, fine, nothing I can do about it--it won't be the first time illogic was used to "advance" the language.
This is a denial of service. You are unfairly denying them the full service of the internet connection that they pay for.
That's not what the term DDoS means. It means you make the service unavailable by inundating the server (or a critical intermediate point) with requests, not necessarily using all available bandwidth but overloading the server's ability to route packets, execute commands, or otherwise deal with service requests. Slashdot is a perfect example of a DDoS system (although a non-malevolent one). Your stretched definition is not only wrong, but is also a blatent attempt to change the meaning of a term for expediency.
Saying this is not a DoS because they can still get some data through is besides the point.
It doesn't even *TRY* to stop data from getting through. It doesn't attempt to overload the server. It doesn't attempt *ANY* of the goals of a DDoS. It attempts to raise the bandwidth usage in order to cost the spammer money. It does not attempt to directly take down a service (which is what a DDoS attempts).
That is by NO MEANS a DDoS attack. It's similar in nature, and surely a close relative, but it is definitely not a DDoS, unless you wish to redefine the term (broaden it, actually, which, in this case, would make the term less useful).
Splitting entirely separate hairs from being considered one single hair, sure.
If I crapflood you with my wimpy Comcast cablemodem, I'm still trying to deny service, the fact that I can't or don't is irrelevant.
***READ CAREFULLY***:
1. The purpose is not to deny service. 2. The program is designed to specifically *NOT* deny service.
It's not DDoS or even an attempt at DDoS.
Try defending yourself against an assault charge by saying "your Honor, I did push him on the ground and kick his ribs, but I was being careful not to kick him hard enough to injure him, so it's not an assault."
Assault is assault if you kick someone, you don't have to injure him for it to be assault. Duh.
More apt would be trying to call brutally beating someone as "attempted murder" when: 1. murder was never a goal and 2. you made sure to specifically *NOT* kill the victim. It's still a physical assault, and a pretty heinous one, but it's *NOT* splitting hairs to say it isn't attempted murder.
I think we agree on this for the most part. I just think you've implied that although this *isn't* a DDoS, you think that it basically is, more or less. That confuses the issue a bit more than is helpful. You could still call it an assault or offensive of sorts, but it's not a DDoS (so it's not really a "rose by any other name", but some other thorny but nice smelling flower).
A US centric view. You can't even participate if you are in the US (or at least, not without lying about it, which puts responsibility on *you*, not Lycos, if there even *is* any legal liability, which right now is uncertain).
3) So you flood a facility with an OC3.
This isn't to flood the connection, it's to cost the spammers too much. Such as
A.) they will hit their bandwidth limit (which will *not* clog up an OC3) B.) they will have to buy a more expensive service (this is good, spam is only profitable because the price is so low) C.) their ISP sees too much traffic from their spammer client and drops them
Lycos DDoS's me. I set up machines to redirect the abusive traffic to say whitehouse.gov, ftc.gov, or lycos.com.
In which case, *you*, not Lycos, is the one who will be gone after by the police/lawyers--if any come, which is by no means a certainty.
Or, as one comment in here already said, if they do it by DNS names, just change the DNS record.
I'd guess the screensaver uses ip addresses. If it uses FQDN's, then that's a big mistake (like you point out), and certain to be fixed if/when necessary.
I think you misunderstand the concept and many of the mechanisms at play here.
This _IS_ a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack program.
Can you please explain how it's a DDoS attack if it specifically *avoids* denying service? A DDoS is a technical term which depends on specifically being aimed at denying a host from being able to receive or reply to service requests.
This is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a DDoS. It's similar, and reasonable to put it in a similar category (Distributed Network Attack Software, or something), but it lacks the primary defining feature of the term DDoS.
It specifically *doesn't* take down the net. When the responses slow down (either the server has overloaded, or the pipe between the screensaver'd PC and the server is overloaded, which is what you are worried about), the client throttles.
Regardless, you have a choice: use a little extra bandwidth to fight spam, come up with a better idea, or keep the status quo. In lieu of a better idea, and in response to the failings of the status quo, you gotta pay the price to get what you want. In this case, it's using extra bandwidth.
Got a better idea that doesn't involve keeping the status quo?
the rest of us have so far refrained from crap flooding the net to stop it.
I really doubt that, because aside from a literal DDOS, "the rest of us" have never had the chance to "crap flood" the net to fight spam (kind of hard to refrain from doing something you can't even really try to do).
And this is bandwidth used for a specific and desirable purpose, so I wouldn't call it "crap flooding" any more than downloading iTunes songs, watching movie trailers, or checking slashdot every hour.
While your argument sometimes makes sense (like the claim that Iraq had ties to al Qaida--sure, if you count al Qaida asking Iraq for help, and Iraq telling al Qaida to sod off, which is not the "spirit" of the term "ties" in this context), but in this case, it's not an accurate argument.
No matter how you cut it, this is not a DDOS, because the goal isn't to deny service (which is the spirit of the term you refer to). The idea is to make it unprofitable to spam. Similar? Absolutely. Essentially equivalent? No.
What law suits? You have to be from England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands to download the program. I imagine Lycos chose these countries for a reason, legal advice being my #1 guess.
Seems like they're just sinking down to the level of the spammers in order to try and fight them. As much as I hate spam, I cannot get behind this kind of activity. They're just adding more useless traffic, in the name of justice. Sorry, nice idea in theory, but I sincerely hope it never takes off.
There's a sort of hierarchy of ways to deal with people. At the base is physical force, and the top is reason.
If someone won't listen to reason, the only way to deal with them is to go down the list of ways to respond. How far down the list you go depends on the morality and importance of the problem (for example, if someone is wearing white after labor day, you might try to reason with them, or convince them with emotional arguments, but you probably won't pass a law or (going to the very bottom of the list) threaten to kill them for it).
Spammers won't listen to reason or laws, so you have to either go down the list (in this case, meet them at their level), or let 'em be. For example, I wouldn't advocate violence against a spammer (except prison time, but just barely, like 6 months max or something), but wasting their money (like they do to me?), count me in!
Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.
I never said profits are bad. In fact, I've already said they are good. Profits, however, are not the always best thing for people, which is what your simple Ayn Randian notion implies.
Some profits are not good to take. Ford, for example, should have either taken a complete loss on the Pinto (and not released it), or taken *less* profits (there goes your premise) and fixed the exploding gas tank problem.
Please tell me how the profits benefitted the people who burned to death in accidents that should not have been fatal?
Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?
Because when people are doing the bidding of a business, they are not generally acting as people, they are acting as components of a system. Anything which caters to a business is not human-centric, even though it involves people.
That does not mean businesses do not serve people, or that their choices don't affect people directly. What it means is that when coming up with some business-oriented product or service, you don't think "how will this help people?", you think "how will this help a business?" (if you *do* ask, "how will this help people?" (hoping to make their lives better), then you are people-oriented, even if you are targeting your product to businesses, and are totally fine by me)
Because I suspect you are having problem treating a business (which is a concept) as something real, let's take a concrete example: a ship. When you make a product that serves the needs of a ship (like the engine, or an automatic barnacle remover), you are not thinking "how will this affect the people?" you are thinking "how will this affect the ship?" The implication is that some person wants the ship running well for some (human) purpose.
Up to this point, it's all well and good. Make a business run better, I'm all for that.
But you are somehow arguing that I should choose this business-centric system for my own personal use. Remember, I only stated why *I* use Ubuntu, not why some business should (in fact, I implied that a business might prefer Progeny).
The problem I have with the notion that "what's good for business is what's good for America/people/whatever" is that it is absolutely not necessarily true. It can be, but many times is not. It's just as stupid as claiming "what's good for a ship is good for people".
Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?
Have you never seen a Sony ad? They tend to show some guy (businessman, generally) who goes home after a hard day at the office and is immersed in a technological wonderland (escapism, really).
Looks cool, until you try it. Sony products are extremely cool, but are also extremely frustrating.
Your question, though, belies you lack of understanding in what I'm saying. I'm not saying Sony doesn't have the right to do whatever they want so much as saying that *I* will not support their actions if I don't like them. Sony wants to make things that would be amazingly cool if they weren't so hobbled? Fine for them. But why should I not call them out for not making the nobler choices?
It's as though you're saying, I, as an individual, have no place passing judgment on a corporation beyond the simple, "will I buy their product or not?"
Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.
Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.
So? My post didn't tell others what to pick, it stated what *I* pick.
Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning,
That you don't understand it, does not make it devoid of meaning. A "human-centered fashion" is one where, when a choice is presented, one would ask, "how does our choice benefit people?" instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"
You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?
I also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants. I even stated this could all be an illusion (did you even *read* my post?). If it's smoke-and-mirrors, fine. It'll show up. Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies. If Ubuntu is a corporate desktop in disguise, it'll show too. For now it hasn't. Pay attention to posts you reply to.
As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.
I have absolutely nothing against profit. You are projecting your false view of reality. I fully understand and comprehend the need for production. What I don't do is worship it as the highest virture. What's the point of profit if it doesn't better *my* life? Nothing, that's what. Just because some people require the profit-motive to do something doesn't mean that all people require it.
I realize Bill Gates won't make Windows better just for the morality of it, he'll do it primarily for the money he can get. Linus, on the other hand, will make Linux better for reasons I value. You're acting like I'm stupid for prefering Linus' way over Gates' way. You appear to promote the idea that I should honor those who would exploit me.
I reject that notion 100%. Do you? If so, then what's your problem with me making *my* choice? All I did was state why *I* choose Ubuntu.
>>...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?
Then you do not understand the word "philosophy". Everything you do follows a philosophy (or a set of philosophies), whether you intend it or not. It's by definition, and it's irrefutable. The rest follows.
I do not have perfect knowledge, but what I assess as the philosophies behind Ubuntu and Progeny, I prefer Ubuntu. I also state that Progeny is also probably pretty good. Don't you listen? I'm stating that Debian, Ubuntu and Progeny are all good (I'm only guessing with Progeny), but that I like Ubuntu better. What's your problem?
You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing.
You're building quite a scarecrow yourself. I'm just following the logic of what you've written.
What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design
No, the philosophy behind their website design, and their we
Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.
Yes, I do feel "warm and fuzzy all over". Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.
As for hiring me, don't worry about it, if you're such an asshole, I'd quickly correct any such mistake if it were ever to occur.
Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.
Don't be such a simpleton. I never said Ubuntu wasn't backed by a corporation. The distro itself is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world for all it can. I don't know about the man ultimately behind Ubuntu, but I do know about the way the distro itself is designed, and I like that very much. It's also one of the things that makes Apple such a great corporation, and the lack of this virtue is what makes Microsoft so awful.
Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)
I do realize all of that. But the point is their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
This isn't like some huge corporation who has their site design so divorced from their product design that the two are wholly unrelated. Even large corporations have to maintain some parity in the image they wish to portray and the reality of their product. Progeny and Ubuntu have both chosen to take on different focii. Progeny seems to want to be your company's Linux, and Ubuntu wants to be your home Linux.
But you even realize this (without appearing to understand the implications) when you say, "Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits".
Technically, Ubuntu is Debian, as is Progeny. For me, the best (technically) distro is Debian, so from that point of view, there's little to differentiate them. However, Progeny has chosen to go the LSB 2.0 and Anaconda route. Yawn, I really don't care about those two features (not enough to switch distros). Ubuntu differentiates itself by basing it's release schedule to GNOME's. This is a plus that actually affects my computer experience directly.
Maybe this is all an illusion, but for now, Ubuntu is technically superior and aesthetically superior (which you admit are your two criteria). When things change enough to make a difference, and it's a good time to do so, I'll switch distros. No big deal.
That's all. They're essentially the same, but a little different. If I'm going to choose between the two, I'm going to pick the one that's different in the ways that I care about. What's your problem with that?
Actually, I know what your problem with it is: you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible". Once you integrate "human centric" into your definition of "technically superior", you'll begin to understand. Certainly there are cases where human-centricity is not so important, or when technical differences are enough to overshadow usability/aesthetics/comfort, etc., but the choice in Linux distros for my desktop is not one of them.
Progeny seems like it's a fairly good distro, but for me, I'd rather stick with Ubuntu if I'm going to stray from a pure Debian install.
Progeny's site (btw, a link in the article would have been nice, it's Progeny) calls themselves "the linux platform company" and has a very conservative, professional (in a business sense) look. That's not for me. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is very human oriented. Looking at their site (Ubuntu), the first thing they do is explain the name as, ""Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.".
From a pure philosophically aesthetic standpoint, Ubuntu is far more appealing to me than Progeny. Ubuntu is great, it's Debian (like Progeny) and it stays in parity with the most current GNOME releases. Anaconda is one of the last things on my checklist of why I'd switch distros.
That's not to say I dislike Progeny, or that I wouldn't want to run it. In fact, I probably wouldn't have made any of these points had the article not been so aggressive towards Ubuntu.
This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win. Good job, and best wishes to the Progeny team. Maybe some day I'll try your distro.
May I humbly suggest connecting your iPod either directly to the car player (if it has mp3 support, it might have also line-in jack) or indirectly beaming music via devices such as Griffin iTrip and similar? That's what I do.
The guy doesn't say he owns an iPod.
So the choices are:
1. Go all Apple, and life is good. 2. Go all WMA, and life is good.
The WMA route provides more options, but is uglier and more evil. The Apple route is very cool, a bit expensive, and not all that varied.
or
3. Buy CD's, use whatever you want, and life is good.
Apple really really really has to license fairplay for devices. Choice of stores is no big deal, no one really cares if they only use one store, if all the stores are essentially $0.99 and have comprehensive selections.
One day, Linux might be the superior (in the ways that it isn't now) desktop OS. What am I going to do with my iTunes (or WMP 10) purchases? In the '90s it was "I'd switch to Linux, but I need Office", in the '00s (or maybe '10s) it will be, "I'd switch to Linux, but I have 500 DRM'd songs!"
After being handed a black and red U2 iPod, a confused Bono makes alien antennae with his fingers and says (in a funny voice not his own), "nanu nanu, take me to you leader."
That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Queen Latifah attempts to save the world by incapacitating Gates with a Vulcan neck pinch. But lo', Gates is not only unphased by the rebellion's last, best, hope, he laughs triumphantly as he manages to reverse the effects!
The article in fact does. Maybe the article is wrong, but you never claimed that (until just now).
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview?
The *article* is evidence. Past history is evidence (right now Monsanto is claiming ownership of natural Indian plants, and Monsanto has, in the past, sued farmers for violating Monsanto's so-called IP rights).
My world view is not "pre-existing", it's a result of observation.
He weant deaf because of his problem, not the medicine.
It wasn't medicine, it was a drug. Medicine is what you use to cure an illness. One of the dangers of oxycontin abuse is deafness. The type of deafness Limbaugh suffers from is extremely rare otherwise.
Boohoo, it hurts to have a Slashdotter tell me to go fuck myself when he just makes stuff up.
I find this amusing, since you go on to say:
Excuse the earlier sarcasm.
Looks like you are still one sarcasm-apology behind.
I was suggesting I'd take your word on the repercussions of the law.
I don't quite follow here. I don't recall directly addressing repercussions of a law.
This is also where I called you a liar.
Without apparent reason. Whatever. The "Fuck You" is supposed to carry the same weight as being called a liar. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt you, but it's a proper response to your accusation.
Or are you suggesting somehow that some of what we type here *is* supposed to inflict pain or harm?
You are actually going to try to argue that physical pain is emotional pain? It does not matter what order I list it in because the REVERSE was still true when comparing the subset (as you were calling it) IF your idea was true.
Idiot. If a dog is an animal, an animal isn't necessarily a dog.
If physical pain is emotional, that doesn't mean emotional pain is physical.
I really don't care to be honest because if you are so focused on NOT UNDERSTANDING the difference between a signal to the brain and a THOUGHT in the brain, then you are just dumb.
I understand more than you appear capable of. Pain is bad not because of the nerves connecting a finger to the brain, but because of what the brain does with the signal when it arrives.
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so.
Moron, they *are* using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years. It's just that now Monsanto "owns" the rights to the Iraqi strains.
They're doing this in India too (and I'd imagine elsewhere).
And that doesn't even touch on the complete idiocy of anyone "owning" the IP rights of a plant to begin with.
But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
Slashdot Mirror
Or it's just a kind of rose which you have never seen before and therefore don't know how to categorize.
I agree (and in fact this is exactly what I'm arguing). This is a different enough attack to warrant a new term (IMO). It's still the same class of attacks (so it's still a rose-like flower, if it isn't a rose).
Note that the term "denial of service" attack doesn't define the means. Cutting your phone line is a DoS, too.
If you broaden the term too much, it loses it's usefulness (unless it's meant to be a broad term, covering many more specific terms, like malware covers: worms, virii, trojans, spyware, etc).
Was the war in Iraq a DDoS against Saddam? Was MS's integration of IE into Windows a DDoS against Netscape? Is a class action suit a DDoS? Etc. They all fit the definition of the individual words in DDoS strung together, but they don't fit the term.
This screensaver is close enough to a DDoS that it might make sense to broaden the term to cover it, but I'd rather see the term stay specific. Yeah, who am I to argue, right? Well, I'm one voice in the discussion, that's all.
If the net at large chooses to lump it into DDoS, fine. I'd rather see the distinction it has grant it a new name though--even if the name is equally evil and frowned upon. Maybe a "Resource Depletion Attack" (RDA, or DRDA in this case).
This attack, though, is quite noble (in this case). Spammers cost the net far more than they pay, and this is not a welcome subsidy. This is really making the spammers pay for the inherent cost of their actions. I'd call it a Cost Equalization System, via a DRDA--or something. I really don't care so much what it is called so much as not wanting DDoS to become too broad.
In short: Lycos isn't attacking the network bandwith, but the network cost, which still is an attack on the availibility of the network, and therefore the service.
If Lycos started a class-action suit, would you call that a DDoS? It's distributed and unified (like all DDoS's), it seeks to deny service (like all DDoS's). Probably not, because it's different enough to warrant its own term. Was the war in Iraq a DDoS against Saddam? Was MS's antitrust shenanigans with IE a DDoS against Netscape?
I bring up these admittedly absurd examples because they are all DDoS's under the simple definition of the words in the term, but they are not a DDoS as a term unto itself.
This attack is different enough that either the term DDoS will have to be broadened to accept it, or a new term will have to be invented to cover it. The same thing happened with worms, virii, trojans and spyware. They were all similar enough that you could call each a "virus", but to do so would make the term "virus" less useful (less precise).
It's just marketing speak for separating themselves from the "bad word"
I'm sure you're right that their terminology pleases their PR team (and may have even originated with them). That doesn't affect whether or not it's a DDoS, and it's different enough (like I've said) for it to deserve a new term in the same class of attacks.
By your logic, a class-action suit to close an ISP is a DDoS. Or asking people to send in the pre-paid envelopes from junk mail to cost them money is a DDoS. When you broaden words like this, they lose their meaning. A DDoS is a specific term.
AT BEST you could divy up the term DDoS into classes or levels or something, where a pingflood is a Type I DDoS, a slashdot posting is a Type II DDoS, and a Lycos Screensaver is a Type II DDoS or something. But you're not applying ANY logic or reason to the issue at all. You just want to be "right".
If you were using reason, you'd admit:
1. This isn't the same as any previous DDoS in mechanics.
2. This is very much like a standard DDoS with the exception that it doesn't attempt to directly take down a service.
3. It belongs in the same category of attacks, but is different enough to warrant its own name.
It's like a trojan vs a worm vs a virus vs spyware. They are all the same category of evil software, and they all are similar enough to each other that people have argued whether they are all just virii or something (in fact, smart people *do* call them all virii), but they are all unique enough that it is more useful to use a new name.
If the net at large chooses to call it a DDoS, fine, nothing I can do about it--it won't be the first time illogic was used to "advance" the language.
This is a denial of service. You are unfairly denying them the full service of the internet connection that they pay for.
That's not what the term DDoS means. It means you make the service unavailable by inundating the server (or a critical intermediate point) with requests, not necessarily using all available bandwidth but overloading the server's ability to route packets, execute commands, or otherwise deal with service requests. Slashdot is a perfect example of a DDoS system (although a non-malevolent one). Your stretched definition is not only wrong, but is also a blatent attempt to change the meaning of a term for expediency.
Saying this is not a DoS because they can still get some data through is besides the point.
It doesn't even *TRY* to stop data from getting through. It doesn't attempt to overload the server. It doesn't attempt *ANY* of the goals of a DDoS. It attempts to raise the bandwidth usage in order to cost the spammer money. It does not attempt to directly take down a service (which is what a DDoS attempts).
That is by NO MEANS a DDoS attack. It's similar in nature, and surely a close relative, but it is definitely not a DDoS, unless you wish to redefine the term (broaden it, actually, which, in this case, would make the term less useful).
What the fuck ever. You're splitting hairs.
Splitting entirely separate hairs from being considered one single hair, sure.
If I crapflood you with my wimpy Comcast cablemodem, I'm still trying to deny service, the fact that I can't or don't is irrelevant.
***READ CAREFULLY***:
1. The purpose is not to deny service.
2. The program is designed to specifically *NOT* deny service.
It's not DDoS or even an attempt at DDoS.
Try defending yourself against an assault charge by saying "your Honor, I did push him on the ground and kick his ribs, but I was being careful not to kick him hard enough to injure him, so it's not an assault."
Assault is assault if you kick someone, you don't have to injure him for it to be assault. Duh.
More apt would be trying to call brutally beating someone as "attempted murder" when: 1. murder was never a goal and 2. you made sure to specifically *NOT* kill the victim. It's still a physical assault, and a pretty heinous one, but it's *NOT* splitting hairs to say it isn't attempted murder.
I think we agree on this for the most part. I just think you've implied that although this *isn't* a DDoS, you think that it basically is, more or less. That confuses the issue a bit more than is helpful. You could still call it an assault or offensive of sorts, but it's not a DDoS (so it's not really a "rose by any other name", but some other thorny but nice smelling flower).
1) They're going to get sued.
...
a) federal charges.
A US centric view. You can't even participate if you are in the US (or at least, not without lying about it, which puts responsibility on *you*, not Lycos, if there even *is* any legal liability, which right now is uncertain).
3) So you flood a facility with an OC3.
This isn't to flood the connection, it's to cost the spammers too much. Such as
A.) they will hit their bandwidth limit (which will *not* clog up an OC3)
B.) they will have to buy a more expensive service (this is good, spam is only profitable because the price is so low)
C.) their ISP sees too much traffic from their spammer client and drops them
Lycos DDoS's me. I set up machines to redirect the abusive traffic to say whitehouse.gov, ftc.gov, or lycos.com.
In which case, *you*, not Lycos, is the one who will be gone after by the police/lawyers--if any come, which is by no means a certainty.
Or, as one comment in here already said, if they do it by DNS names, just change the DNS record.
I'd guess the screensaver uses ip addresses. If it uses FQDN's, then that's a big mistake (like you point out), and certain to be fixed if/when necessary.
I think you misunderstand the concept and many of the mechanisms at play here.
This _IS_ a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack program.
Can you please explain how it's a DDoS attack if it specifically *avoids* denying service? A DDoS is a technical term which depends on specifically being aimed at denying a host from being able to receive or reply to service requests.
This is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a DDoS. It's similar, and reasonable to put it in a similar category (Distributed Network Attack Software, or something), but it lacks the primary defining feature of the term DDoS.
It specifically *doesn't* take down the net. When the responses slow down (either the server has overloaded, or the pipe between the screensaver'd PC and the server is overloaded, which is what you are worried about), the client throttles.
Regardless, you have a choice: use a little extra bandwidth to fight spam, come up with a better idea, or keep the status quo. In lieu of a better idea, and in response to the failings of the status quo, you gotta pay the price to get what you want. In this case, it's using extra bandwidth.
Got a better idea that doesn't involve keeping the status quo?
the rest of us have so far refrained from crap flooding the net to stop it.
I really doubt that, because aside from a literal DDOS, "the rest of us" have never had the chance to "crap flood" the net to fight spam (kind of hard to refrain from doing something you can't even really try to do).
And this is bandwidth used for a specific and desirable purpose, so I wouldn't call it "crap flooding" any more than downloading iTunes songs, watching movie trailers, or checking slashdot every hour.
While your argument sometimes makes sense (like the claim that Iraq had ties to al Qaida--sure, if you count al Qaida asking Iraq for help, and Iraq telling al Qaida to sod off, which is not the "spirit" of the term "ties" in this context), but in this case, it's not an accurate argument.
No matter how you cut it, this is not a DDOS, because the goal isn't to deny service (which is the spirit of the term you refer to). The idea is to make it unprofitable to spam. Similar? Absolutely. Essentially equivalent? No.
What law suits? You have to be from England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands to download the program. I imagine Lycos chose these countries for a reason, legal advice being my #1 guess.
Seems like they're just sinking down to the level of the spammers in order to try and fight them. As much as I hate spam, I cannot get behind this kind of activity. They're just adding more useless traffic, in the name of justice. Sorry, nice idea in theory, but I sincerely hope it never takes off.
There's a sort of hierarchy of ways to deal with people. At the base is physical force, and the top is reason.
If someone won't listen to reason, the only way to deal with them is to go down the list of ways to respond. How far down the list you go depends on the morality and importance of the problem (for example, if someone is wearing white after labor day, you might try to reason with them, or convince them with emotional arguments, but you probably won't pass a law or (going to the very bottom of the list) threaten to kill them for it).
Spammers won't listen to reason or laws, so you have to either go down the list (in this case, meet them at their level), or let 'em be. For example, I wouldn't advocate violence against a spammer (except prison time, but just barely, like 6 months max or something), but wasting their money (like they do to me?), count me in!
Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.
I never said profits are bad. In fact, I've already said they are good. Profits, however, are not the always best thing for people, which is what your simple Ayn Randian notion implies.
Some profits are not good to take. Ford, for example, should have either taken a complete loss on the Pinto (and not released it), or taken *less* profits (there goes your premise) and fixed the exploding gas tank problem.
Please tell me how the profits benefitted the people who burned to death in accidents that should not have been fatal?
Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?
Because when people are doing the bidding of a business, they are not generally acting as people, they are acting as components of a system. Anything which caters to a business is not human-centric, even though it involves people.
That does not mean businesses do not serve people, or that their choices don't affect people directly. What it means is that when coming up with some business-oriented product or service, you don't think "how will this help people?", you think "how will this help a business?" (if you *do* ask, "how will this help people?" (hoping to make their lives better), then you are people-oriented, even if you are targeting your product to businesses, and are totally fine by me)
Because I suspect you are having problem treating a business (which is a concept) as something real, let's take a concrete example: a ship. When you make a product that serves the needs of a ship (like the engine, or an automatic barnacle remover), you are not thinking "how will this affect the people?" you are thinking "how will this affect the ship?" The implication is that some person wants the ship running well for some (human) purpose.
Up to this point, it's all well and good. Make a business run better, I'm all for that.
But you are somehow arguing that I should choose this business-centric system for my own personal use. Remember, I only stated why *I* use Ubuntu, not why some business should (in fact, I implied that a business might prefer Progeny).
The problem I have with the notion that "what's good for business is what's good for America/people/whatever" is that it is absolutely not necessarily true. It can be, but many times is not. It's just as stupid as claiming "what's good for a ship is good for people".
Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?
Have you never seen a Sony ad? They tend to show some guy (businessman, generally) who goes home after a hard day at the office and is immersed in a technological wonderland (escapism, really).
Looks cool, until you try it. Sony products are extremely cool, but are also extremely frustrating.
Your question, though, belies you lack of understanding in what I'm saying. I'm not saying Sony doesn't have the right to do whatever they want so much as saying that *I* will not support their actions if I don't like them. Sony wants to make things that would be amazingly cool if they weren't so hobbled? Fine for them. But why should I not call them out for not making the nobler choices?
It's as though you're saying, I, as an individual, have no place passing judgment on a corporation beyond the simple, "will I buy their product or not?"
Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.
Listen,
Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.
...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
So? My post didn't tell others what to pick, it stated what *I* pick.
Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning,
That you don't understand it, does not make it devoid of meaning. A "human-centered fashion" is one where, when a choice is presented, one would ask, "how does our choice benefit people?" instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"
You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?
I also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants. I even stated this could all be an illusion (did you even *read* my post?). If it's smoke-and-mirrors, fine. It'll show up. Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies. If Ubuntu is a corporate desktop in disguise, it'll show too. For now it hasn't. Pay attention to posts you reply to.
As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.
I have absolutely nothing against profit. You are projecting your false view of reality. I fully understand and comprehend the need for production. What I don't do is worship it as the highest virture. What's the point of profit if it doesn't better *my* life? Nothing, that's what. Just because some people require the profit-motive to do something doesn't mean that all people require it.
I realize Bill Gates won't make Windows better just for the morality of it, he'll do it primarily for the money he can get. Linus, on the other hand, will make Linux better for reasons I value. You're acting like I'm stupid for prefering Linus' way over Gates' way. You appear to promote the idea that I should honor those who would exploit me.
I reject that notion 100%. Do you? If so, then what's your problem with me making *my* choice? All I did was state why *I* choose Ubuntu.
>>
I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?
Then you do not understand the word "philosophy". Everything you do follows a philosophy (or a set of philosophies), whether you intend it or not. It's by definition, and it's irrefutable. The rest follows.
I do not have perfect knowledge, but what I assess as the philosophies behind Ubuntu and Progeny, I prefer Ubuntu. I also state that Progeny is also probably pretty good. Don't you listen? I'm stating that Debian, Ubuntu and Progeny are all good (I'm only guessing with Progeny), but that I like Ubuntu better. What's your problem?
You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing.
You're building quite a scarecrow yourself. I'm just following the logic of what you've written.
What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design
No, the philosophy behind their website design, and their we
Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.
Yes, I do feel "warm and fuzzy all over". Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.
As for hiring me, don't worry about it, if you're such an asshole, I'd quickly correct any such mistake if it were ever to occur.
Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.
Don't be such a simpleton. I never said Ubuntu wasn't backed by a corporation. The distro itself is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world for all it can. I don't know about the man ultimately behind Ubuntu, but I do know about the way the distro itself is designed, and I like that very much. It's also one of the things that makes Apple such a great corporation, and the lack of this virtue is what makes Microsoft so awful.
Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)
I do realize all of that. But the point is their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.
This isn't like some huge corporation who has their site design so divorced from their product design that the two are wholly unrelated. Even large corporations have to maintain some parity in the image they wish to portray and the reality of their product. Progeny and Ubuntu have both chosen to take on different focii. Progeny seems to want to be your company's Linux, and Ubuntu wants to be your home Linux.
But you even realize this (without appearing to understand the implications) when you say, "Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits".
Technically, Ubuntu is Debian, as is Progeny. For me, the best (technically) distro is Debian, so from that point of view, there's little to differentiate them. However, Progeny has chosen to go the LSB 2.0 and Anaconda route. Yawn, I really don't care about those two features (not enough to switch distros). Ubuntu differentiates itself by basing it's release schedule to GNOME's. This is a plus that actually affects my computer experience directly.
Maybe this is all an illusion, but for now, Ubuntu is technically superior and aesthetically superior (which you admit are your two criteria). When things change enough to make a difference, and it's a good time to do so, I'll switch distros. No big deal.
That's all. They're essentially the same, but a little different. If I'm going to choose between the two, I'm going to pick the one that's different in the ways that I care about. What's your problem with that?
Actually, I know what your problem with it is: you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible". Once you integrate "human centric" into your definition of "technically superior", you'll begin to understand. Certainly there are cases where human-centricity is not so important, or when technical differences are enough to overshadow usability/aesthetics/comfort, etc., but the choice in Linux distros for my desktop is not one of them.
Progeny seems like it's a fairly good distro, but for me, I'd rather stick with Ubuntu if I'm going to stray from a pure Debian install.
Progeny's site (btw, a link in the article would have been nice, it's Progeny) calls themselves "the linux platform company" and has a very conservative, professional (in a business sense) look. That's not for me. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is very human oriented. Looking at their site (Ubuntu), the first thing they do is explain the name as, ""Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.".
From a pure philosophically aesthetic standpoint, Ubuntu is far more appealing to me than Progeny. Ubuntu is great, it's Debian (like Progeny) and it stays in parity with the most current GNOME releases. Anaconda is one of the last things on my checklist of why I'd switch distros.
That's not to say I dislike Progeny, or that I wouldn't want to run it. In fact, I probably wouldn't have made any of these points had the article not been so aggressive towards Ubuntu.
This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win. Good job, and best wishes to the Progeny team. Maybe some day I'll try your distro.
For now, though, it's Ubuntu for me.
Looking at those screenshots, it's interesting how the installer, for instance, is essentially copied from RedHat.
Did you even read the article headline?
May I humbly suggest connecting your iPod either directly to the car player (if it has mp3 support, it might have also line-in jack) or indirectly beaming music via devices such as Griffin iTrip and similar? That's what I do.
The guy doesn't say he owns an iPod.
So the choices are:
1. Go all Apple, and life is good.
2. Go all WMA, and life is good.
The WMA route provides more options, but is uglier and more evil. The Apple route is very cool, a bit expensive, and not all that varied.
or
3. Buy CD's, use whatever you want, and life is good.
Apple really really really has to license fairplay for devices. Choice of stores is no big deal, no one really cares if they only use one store, if all the stores are essentially $0.99 and have comprehensive selections.
One day, Linux might be the superior (in the ways that it isn't now) desktop OS. What am I going to do with my iTunes (or WMP 10) purchases? In the '90s it was "I'd switch to Linux, but I need Office", in the '00s (or maybe '10s) it will be, "I'd switch to Linux, but I have 500 DRM'd songs!"
And don't leave out the Bono/Jobs picture!
Caption:
After being handed a black and red U2 iPod, a confused Bono makes alien antennae with his fingers and says (in a funny voice not his own), "nanu nanu, take me to you leader."
That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Queen Latifah attempts to save the world by incapacitating Gates with a Vulcan neck pinch. But lo', Gates is not only unphased by the rebellion's last, best, hope, he laughs triumphantly as he manages to reverse the effects!
Shall I quote you?
"None of them say any such thing. Moron."
The article in fact does. Maybe the article is wrong, but you never claimed that (until just now).
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview?
The *article* is evidence. Past history is evidence (right now Monsanto is claiming ownership of natural Indian plants, and Monsanto has, in the past, sued farmers for violating Monsanto's so-called IP rights).
My world view is not "pre-existing", it's a result of observation.
The moron ball is still in your court.
He weant deaf because of his problem, not the medicine.
It wasn't medicine, it was a drug. Medicine is what you use to cure an illness. One of the dangers of oxycontin abuse is deafness. The type of deafness Limbaugh suffers from is extremely rare otherwise.
Boohoo, it hurts to have a Slashdotter tell me to go fuck myself when he just makes stuff up.
I find this amusing, since you go on to say:
Excuse the earlier sarcasm.
Looks like you are still one sarcasm-apology behind.
I was suggesting I'd take your word on the repercussions of the law.
I don't quite follow here. I don't recall directly addressing repercussions of a law.
This is also where I called you a liar.
Without apparent reason. Whatever. The "Fuck You" is supposed to carry the same weight as being called a liar. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt you, but it's a proper response to your accusation.
Or are you suggesting somehow that some of what we type here *is* supposed to inflict pain or harm?
From one of TFAs:
Moron, read the fucking law.
The law does say you have to license seeds from corporations which "own" them.
None of them say any such thing. Moron.
They most certainly do.
Who does that make the moron?
You are actually going to try to argue that physical pain is emotional pain? It does not matter what order I list it in because the REVERSE was still true when comparing the subset (as you were calling it) IF your idea was true.
Idiot. If a dog is an animal, an animal isn't necessarily a dog.
If physical pain is emotional, that doesn't mean emotional pain is physical.
I really don't care to be honest because if you are so focused on NOT UNDERSTANDING the difference between a signal to the brain and a THOUGHT in the brain, then you are just dumb.
I understand more than you appear capable of. Pain is bad not because of the nerves connecting a finger to the brain, but because of what the brain does with the signal when it arrives.
You're just pathetic.
You make me laugh.
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so.
Moron, they *are* using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years. It's just that now Monsanto "owns" the rights to the Iraqi strains.
They're doing this in India too (and I'd imagine elsewhere).
And that doesn't even touch on the complete idiocy of anyone "owning" the IP rights of a plant to begin with.
But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
Actually, that appears to be *your* mistake.