I'm thinking someone doesn't know how to do lots of things on an iPad...
Or that the 'vast majority of software' won't run on Windows RT.
I'm thinking someone didn't read the article (wherein it states that the pro version runs everything a standard windows box does) or is making a straw man by deliberately picking the ARM version of the tablet for the sake of argument.
Out of curiosity, what other ARM-based systems run Windows software?
But hey, you seem to think I don't have a clue of what I'm talking about. I guess I'm pretty skilled for a dumb guy.
Not as skilled as you seem to think, which simply further reinforces the idea that you're none too bright. As TheLink pointed out here, you're probably just not enabling any verbosity in your logging. I'm even willing to bet you thought you were all kinds of smart, and disabled the default logging level, figuring it would save you some space on/var/log
-- It is wiser to remain silent and appear to be a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
HE DID NOT SAY HE DID NOT INVESTIGATE DEPENDENCIES YOU CLUELESS FUCKING MORON.
Really? Then I completely misinterpreted his statement:
Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries.
Other systems don't have it, because they don't share the Linux obsession with a billion different "distributions", most just different enough from the rest that you cannot freely intermix software (the same software!) which has been "packaged" for one with another. I laugh whenever I see idiots like you claim that Linux package management is a unique strength for Linux. Yeah, sure, it is a unique strength, but it's also its greatest weakness. It is the reason why GP had to go through a ton of pain to install a compiler and track down dependencies in the first place.
Actually, I think the reason why GP had to track down dependencies and compile his/her own flavor of the app in question is because of SuSE, specifically. Ubuntu has very few issues handling packages from other operating systems; look into alien. Interestingly enough, I pointed out Ubuntu as a distribution that might be better suited to installing $APPLICATION, because the process would be much easier - especially considering that one possible reason the user was not able to install easily is that there ws no binary package for the selected distribution.
There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
RTFM, the eternal cry of the stereotypically clueless basement dwelling Linux dweeb who will never understand why the whole world doesn't want to adopt Linux tomorrow.
Yes, I suggested further learning about a topic that the GP obviously does not possess enough knowledge of. Shame on me.
Shut the fuck up, stop looking for an excuse to be condescending, and listen.
I wasn't being condescending, I was attempting to help inform and educate the GP about how to resolve the issues s/he is experiencing. Again, shame on me.
I probably should not have closed with my statement that this uneducated poseur should not actually be working in the IT field, if I were trying to be polite. Regardless, I stand behind all of the statements in my previous post.
I'm an expert at getting around the Linux shell, but when it comes to installing software, I want to pull my hair out. They usually don't have binaries for the flavor we use at work (SuSE linux), so that means I have to download the source for the software I want to install. Then oh no, the server doesn't even have a compiler installed, so I have to install the compiler. Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries. So I have to go download those libraries (the source, since there aren't any pre-compiled binaries for SuSE), compile those (which will require me to download the source for even more prerequisite libraries...), and then finally get around to compiling the first thing I wanted to install.
If I understand you correctly, your root problem is that you are not, in fact, an expert at using/administering Linux, but think that you are. There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
No binaries means compiling from source. No big deal, it's essentially one extra step. Compiling requires a compiler and the requisite libraries. Not investigating dependencies is your fault, not the operating system's. If SuSE is such an issue for you, but you insist on some flavor of *nix, I would recommend either picking up Gentoo (so as to learn the inner workings of absolutely every piece of software you would like to install), or picking up Ubuntu (eliminating the need for cognition in most cases). If *nix is not a requirement, I recommend Windows, for much the same reason I would recommend Ubuntu.
You don't seem to be capable of administering any systems, and should hire someone to do that for you. If your job title contains any of the following words: "system", "network", "administrator", "technician", "operations", or "specialist", then your employer should fire you immediately.
So, I'd say you are probably a Linux administrator, and not a windows one. Windows also have logging facilities, and a pretty complete statistics monitor to help you diagnose/troubleshoot problems (and probably can gather metrics with far more detail than you would on a Linux system). That said, there are some issues an lot of badly designed software out there. But unfortunely (sic), that's not Windows-specific.
I'm a Windows administrator. Card-carrying Microsoft-Certified Geek Extraordinaire, as a matter of fact. For several years, I was the Network/Systems Admin for every other municipality from New Orleans to San Antonio. I also administer some Linux Systems.
Unfortunately, rev0lt, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Linux logging facilities give you specific, text-based error messages indicating what the problem is and when/where it occurred without needing to look up some esoteric (and numeric) error code on Microsoft's web site to even guess what the problem might be related to. To restate that concept: Linux error messages tend to be something intelligible without requiring internet access; Microsoft error "messages" tend to be strings of numbers that mean absolutely nothing without digging through support websites.
As an aside, I have never had a Linux system give me an error that included the text "The operation completed successfully". I'll leave that google search for you to laugh at.
'Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option,'
The EU legislation needs to learn the same lesson that the US legislators haven't learned yet... The internet is a flexible, resilient system that will route around damage, and attempts to censor it only end up hurting the censor's pockets and/or public image. See the Google vs. China debacle last year, for one high-profile (and perhaps high-profit) example. Alternatively, type "SOPA" or "PIPA" into your favorite search engine, and see the raging fire of the responses.
Not only do I think the EU's new privacy laws will be (by and large) ignored, but I think FaceBook will only pay attention if their users band together in ridiculously large numbers to complain... by making a FaceBook page about it.
The problem here boils down to "we make more money with this scheme than your piddly little fines can ever hope to 'punish' us", and "we're not even based in your country, so your laws mean precisely as much as we allow them to"... besides, it's not like these sites are providing a public service, or coercing people's "private" information. If you want to play the game, you gotta give your name. Wanna play some more? Give us your cell phone number. Don't like giving away your "private" info to just any website that asks? Be more selective about the stuff you do online, and only transact with sites you trust and/or don't actually care about the information they want. Or do what many are already doing, and simply lie.
At what point did everyone forget that old axiom "Knowledge is Power"? Or does no one make the connection between money, power, and knowledge? Does no one realize that it is just as easy to use the equation "Money = Power = Information"?
On to slightly unrelated, and yet completely relevant discussion:
We're at a strange place in a legal sense - there are thousands of unenforceable laws on the books, most of them about ridiculously convoluted methods of acquiring things/money/information in an illicit fashion, and yet there are literally billions of people who care so little about these "minor details" that they have "illegal" music on their portable audio devices. Even the copyright-enforcement people have been caught "stealing" music and video from the original artists. (Yeah, I know, the source would seem to be biased, but it was the second result for a google query "copyright agency caught stealing music", and the first actually relevant one... interestingly enough, this article about the Dutch having this issue wasn't even the one I was looking for - the first case I heard about was in Canada).
At some point, the laws aren't going to be worth the paper the warrants aren't even printed on anymore. It's fairly apparent that it's all about an outmoded system's power grab, just like the ??AA's money grab with the copyright legislation. The danger here is that the system is getting so absurd that no one will pay attention to any of the laws, because the only ones with any actual threat of punishment are ones that they can't enforce, due to the sheer number of people breaking them.
As an example, when this new American health-care reform thing goes through, and everyone is "required" to carry health insurance, I'm wondering what the response will be if someone refuses... will they arrest them for being sick and going to a hospital? If so, the American taxpayer will feed them, clothe them, house them, and pay for their healthcare - as "punishment" for not paying astronomical fees for what amounts to legalized gambling (and what else can you call insurance, really?)
The only upside to being a "good citizen" any more, obe
I did RTFA. The authors of the paper surveyed 54,000 academics, and about 1,300 responded to say, "Yes we felt pressured." That's 2.5%. Only 1/3 of those named a single journal that pressured them. Another 2.5% said, "We've heard that others have been pressured, but never us." 7.5% said, "We've never heard of it." And 87.5% didn't respond. The survey shows extreme self-selection as 7 of 8 academics did not respond. So before someone gets excited that 20% of academics are pressured, note that under 13% of academics responded.
... because the other ~87% were pressured to keep silent?
Rather than being snarky, maybe you should have replied with a link to the movie, as I requested? This entire (off-topic) thread is about imdb's failure to play nice with the rest of the internet, and your failure to implement the workaround I supplied instructions for.
Any further replies from you in this thread without the link I asked for will be met with extreme contempt, complete with expressed and implied detrimental comments about your intellectual capacity, family lineage, etc.
We're already risking downmods by even having this conversation - don't be stupid and make it worse.
I mean that inside your computer, if you wanted to do all that we do with gears and wheels and such like, you would need a lot more energy than we currently use pushing electrons around.
... and I mean that energy requirements are constantly fluctuating, and the current value is always "a little more than we have".
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that moving mechanical parts around would require more energy than our current computer technology requires, I'm simply stating that it wouldn't make any difference to the end user.
To use a car analogy, your statement implies that vehicles such as the HumVee would not exist, because they require more energy to push their wastefully large frames down the interstate.
The energy issue hasn't changed - we'll always need "just a little bit" more than we currently have. We could actually have tapped quite a few sources of reliable, renewable energy, it's just not economically viable to do so (at least, not while fossil fuels are still available at such (artificially) cheap rates).
All of which were set back about 1000 years by the dark ages and the mentality that still pervades.
To further your point: The US has shot itself in the foot by impeding the progress of medical science. All the vehement arguments about stem cell research that caused the US to outlaw accessing the best source of stem cells has resulted in Belgium coming up with a cure for AIDS, instead of the US.
Here's a link to the NYTimes story. Please keep in mind while reading it that the story seems to have a massive "sour grapes" slant, deeming the procedure "impractical" due in part to the fact that the patient's immune system must be destroyed prior to the procedure... which seems laughable to jeer about, since AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) destroys the patient's immune system, causing death from such agents as "the common cold". Doing the same thing in a controlled fashion, allowing the patient to be in a controlled environment for the duration of the procedure, seems a lot less "impractical".
The gist of the matter is that the American populace has been told "it's expensive, and might kill the patient" in lieu of telling them "it's expensive, and might kill the patient, but this will actually rid the body of HIV, instead of making the patient take dangerous drugs every day for the rest of their life".
Think of the lives that could have been saved if the American research facilities had come up with this idea first. If that doesn't motivate you enough, think of all the money that the US has just lost because they shortsightedly allowed the "moral implications" of acquiring research material from non-viable fetal tissue to justify outlawing an entire field of research that just panned out... for someone else.
Unfortunately, the link you supplied is broken, due to the referrer being outside imdb.com's domain. Perhaps if you linked to the movie the image belongs to, instead, you would have at least gotten a "funny" mod, instead of being largely ignored because you didn't check your links in the preview pane.
... as spoken by someone who obviously didn't read the article.
Your entire premise is flawed, in that had Babbage been able to fund the production of his machine, then he would have created "an actual machine to do it quickly, reliably, and cheaply." His Analytical Engine was a precursor to modern digital machines, and the article expresses how we might have been exactly where we are now, except 100 years earlier... and with a different power source.
It even postulates that something approximating the internet might have emerged, using the telegraph instead of the telephone - and we wouldn't have had to convert from digital to analog and back again, because the dots and dashes are digital to start with.
Babbage's Analytical Engine worked, he just never actually built it.
But the Germans *did* have long range targeting, and weapons capable of using that data (indeed, the "Paris Gun" was the reason for discovering how the Coriolis Effect affected their targeting - at ranges of roughly 75 miles (120km), the rotation of the earth was enough to affect the projected 3-minute trajectory of the weapon's explosive projectiles).
In other words, your conclusion is based on a false premise. More information is always a good thing, when asking questions about possibilities.
In addition to propagation delays the normal DNS infrastructure can't work as the ISP themselves can block lookups to a given domain name by putting entries in their own servers...
No, they can't. Or rather, that only works if you're using their servers. If you send a dns query packet to a specific IP address, you should only receive a response from the IP address you requested one from. Any firewall worth calling a firewall will block most spoofing attacks by default.
...which is why I was thinking alternate DNS with only a relatively short list of 'sensitive' name resolution entries allowing very few servers to serve the entire net, eliminating the propagation delay.
If you are sending DNS queries to a specific server, then your propagation delay is only as long as it takes for that server to update. In other words, if you're using a "darknet" DNS server, then as soon as the admin (or whatever automated process exists) updates the DNS records, that server begins sharing the new DNS records; without propagation, there can be no propagation delay.
I agree with you about the potential blocking of the alternate servers so perhaps a new mechanism is needed where the alternative DNS is tunneled in http(s) and thus can use any proxy to avoid being blocked. Should work anywhere a local proxy isn't forced I would think, and even then it would be easy enough to set up many mirrors to avoid local proxy blocking.
For a secure(ish) proxy, look into TOR (The Onion Router) - it can be configured to send DNS queries through the secure tunnel, although it does not do it by default (if I recall correctly - always double-check information you receive from random strangers on the internet). Of course, you may want to be aware that by running TOR, you are also volunteering to be an endpoint for lots of other people's traffic, so the cost may outweight the benefit in the final analysis.
Alternatively, there are literally thousands of websites out there that will perform a DNS lookup for you in your web browser - try "DNS lookup" as your search terms in your search engine of choice. That query on google gave me back "About 5,030,000 results (0.14 seconds)" - all of the ones on the first page of results looked relevant, at a glance.
To be completely honest, I think you're making this process out to be much more complicated than it actually is.
Well they have stated on the record that they don't really hope to block all file sharing - they just want to make it as hard, impractical, frustrating, and inefficient as possible. So poisoning downloads, breaking dns, domains, uploading fakes, scaring, suing, intimidating, etc, is their chosen strategy. War of attrition?
To be honest, I absolutely love what the media industry has done in their "war of attrition". The mass media's exposure of all the underhanded tactics they have employed has turned what might have been a quiet war of attrition into a public spectacle. The rootkits on audio CDs; the suing of dead grandmothers, children with single-digit-ages, and single moms for millions of dollars in "damages"; the "MAFIAA" tactics of knocking on people's doors and threatening them; all of this has contributed to the more rapid demise of the outdated, outmoded, and frankly outclassed business practices employed by the media control industry for decades. "DRM" has come to mean "Digital Restrictions Management", rather than "Digital Rights Management" in the public eye, and has mostly been destroyed as an effective means of restricting the distribution of licensed content.
The Streisand effect has made the ability to "steal" media ubiquitous, and there is practically no way to pull the plug on it, without destroying or crippling the greatest communications tool ever invented (the internet).
The general public is becoming more aware that the "pirates" are able to access the restricted content freely, in ways that are not possible for mere "paying consumers", and the backlash has been a sight to behold. The new "downloadable digital copy" is a good example of the media industry's lackluster response, as it only works if you have a Windows-based PC to download and view it on. Sorry, Linux and Mac, you guys need to pay the Microsoft tax or you don't get to (legally) transfer your (legally-purchased) digital media to your digital playback device.
My response to the previous paragraph's tactic is to simply rip the movie anyway - Fair Use laws guarantee me the right to make a backup copy, and I see no issue with having my original disc be my backup, with the digital version being the "in-use" copy on my media server. Theoretically, a pressed disc will last for decades, if not centuries, assuming you keep it in a vibration-less, cool, and dark place - the shelves and cabinets in my half-finished (and furnished) "shed" mostly qualify as exactly that. The peace of mind I enjoy because I don't have to worry about one of my friends' kids smashing, scratching, or otherwise injuring a plastic disc is well worth the effort of spending an hour with my newly purchased (from the $5 bin at the bigbox store, or even cheaper from the local pawn shop) media in a linux machine's optical drive.
Intellectual Property law is on the verge of being reformed in one way or another, and as far as practical implications, those laws may as well not even be on the books. I don't personally "steal" music and movies (unless you consider my "format shifted backup" of my legally-purchased media to be "theft"), but I know many people who do, and they do it with practical impunity. There is such a huge non-profit black market for movies now that (I am told) there is typically a BluRay rip available the same day the movie releases in the theaters (I'm assuming it's generated from a screener, or somehow lifted from the production-room floor, so to speak).
I understand the frustration and panic displayed by the media industry - they didn't pay enough attention to the rapid rise of technology, and their business model is now obsolete. They're still arranging the deck chairs and bailing with cocktail glasses, but the ship is most assuredly sinking. Unlike many proponents of "piracy", I don't think this is a completely good thing... Once "Big Money" loses interest in the media industry because it's not profitable enough to deal with anymore, I am concerned about what level of entertainment qualit
Not fast enough. My point is to have something that could be updated in, say, five minutes if the previous result IP had been blocked by the ISP or government.
The DNS spec isn't fast enough, then. When I used to update my DNS entries via a third-party DNS server, instead of running my own, I would be told that global propagation could take up to 72 hours. Admittedly, this was years ago, but I wouldn't imagine it to have changed all that much in the intervening time - updates only happen so fast, and that's just the way it is. If you want a more speedy DNS propagation, then I guess you'll need to either run a DNS server yourself, or find some darknet DNS server somewhere that already has this functionality.
The downside of this would be that if the "evil authority" in your story discovers the IP of the "rogue" DNS server, then you're hosed - and tracking the destinations of a specific IP's packets directed at a specific port isn't rocket surgery - this is one of the reasons why TOR is less bullet-proof than it could be (by default).
When will these copyright groups learn that DNS Poisoning as this pretty much is don't stop anything. They may claim it will stop most people, But are most people really that dumb to not know how to use google or bing to search out easy way around the blocks.
I have known 11-year-olds who knew how to get at the anime they wanted to watch, in sequential order, with or without subtitles and/or overdubbed language (as desired). I have known 30-somethings who got confused if the text they searched for didn't bring up "that thing I saw yesterday" as the first result.
So, I guess the answer to your query is "...Maybe?"
This may already exist but if not, how possible would it be to add an additional DNS that has rapidly updated IPs for politically (or otherwise) blocked servers? So long as the user could add this DNS to the ISP provided DNS server list it would be able to more rapidly react to such blocking based on DNS names.
The ISPs would of course block the alternate DNS unless it provided primarily non-pirate related alternative DNS services.
Slashdot Mirror
UEFI and a locked-down BIOS (yes, in violation of their own terms) will make this a Windows-only device. Just watch.
I'm thinking someone doesn't know how to do lots of things on an iPad...
Or that the 'vast majority of software' won't run on Windows RT.
I'm thinking someone didn't read the article (wherein it states that the pro version runs everything a standard windows box does) or is making a straw man by deliberately picking the ARM version of the tablet for the sake of argument.
Out of curiosity, what other ARM-based systems run Windows software?
Mean Time To Libertarian on /. has fallen through the floor lately.
Depending on your definition of "libertarian", it's not just slashdot.
But hey, you seem to think I don't have a clue of what I'm talking about. I guess I'm pretty skilled for a dumb guy.
Not as skilled as you seem to think, which simply further reinforces the idea that you're none too bright. As TheLink pointed out here, you're probably just not enabling any verbosity in your logging. I'm even willing to bet you thought you were all kinds of smart, and disabled the default logging level, figuring it would save you some space on /var/log
--
It is wiser to remain silent and appear to be a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Funny you should mention a brain-level interface... check this out.
Hopefully, they'll allow consumer-grade datajack implants before I'm too old to be able to function with one.
HE DID NOT SAY HE DID NOT INVESTIGATE DEPENDENCIES YOU CLUELESS FUCKING MORON.
Really? Then I completely misinterpreted his statement:
Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries.
Other systems don't have it, because they don't share the Linux obsession with a billion different "distributions", most just different enough from the rest that you cannot freely intermix software (the same software!) which has been "packaged" for one with another. I laugh whenever I see idiots like you claim that Linux package management is a unique strength for Linux. Yeah, sure, it is a unique strength, but it's also its greatest weakness. It is the reason why GP had to go through a ton of pain to install a compiler and track down dependencies in the first place.
Actually, I think the reason why GP had to track down dependencies and compile his/her own flavor of the app in question is because of SuSE, specifically. Ubuntu has very few issues handling packages from other operating systems; look into alien. Interestingly enough, I pointed out Ubuntu as a distribution that might be better suited to installing $APPLICATION, because the process would be much easier - especially considering that one possible reason the user was not able to install easily is that there ws no binary package for the selected distribution.
There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
RTFM, the eternal cry of the stereotypically clueless basement dwelling Linux dweeb who will never understand why the whole world doesn't want to adopt Linux tomorrow.
Yes, I suggested further learning about a topic that the GP obviously does not possess enough knowledge of. Shame on me.
Shut the fuck up, stop looking for an excuse to be condescending, and listen.
I wasn't being condescending, I was attempting to help inform and educate the GP about how to resolve the issues s/he is experiencing. Again, shame on me.
I probably should not have closed with my statement that this uneducated poseur should not actually be working in the IT field, if I were trying to be polite.
Regardless, I stand behind all of the statements in my previous post.
I'm an expert at getting around the Linux shell, but when it comes to installing software, I want to pull my hair out. They usually don't have binaries for the flavor we use at work (SuSE linux), so that means I have to download the source for the software I want to install. Then oh no, the server doesn't even have a compiler installed, so I have to install the compiler. Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries. So I have to go download those libraries (the source, since there aren't any pre-compiled binaries for SuSE), compile those (which will require me to download the source for even more prerequisite libraries...), and then finally get around to compiling the first thing I wanted to install.
If I understand you correctly, your root problem is that you are not, in fact, an expert at using/administering Linux, but think that you are. There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
No binaries means compiling from source. No big deal, it's essentially one extra step.
Compiling requires a compiler and the requisite libraries. Not investigating dependencies is your fault, not the operating system's.
If SuSE is such an issue for you, but you insist on some flavor of *nix, I would recommend either picking up Gentoo (so as to learn the inner workings of absolutely every piece of software you would like to install), or picking up Ubuntu (eliminating the need for cognition in most cases).
If *nix is not a requirement, I recommend Windows, for much the same reason I would recommend Ubuntu.
You don't seem to be capable of administering any systems, and should hire someone to do that for you. If your job title contains any of the following words: "system", "network", "administrator", "technician", "operations", or "specialist", then your employer should fire you immediately.
So, I'd say you are probably a Linux administrator, and not a windows one. Windows also have logging facilities, and a pretty complete statistics monitor to help you diagnose/troubleshoot problems (and probably can gather metrics with far more detail than you would on a Linux system). That said, there are some issues an lot of badly designed software out there. But unfortunely (sic), that's not Windows-specific.
I'm a Windows administrator. Card-carrying Microsoft-Certified Geek Extraordinaire, as a matter of fact. For several years, I was the Network/Systems Admin for every other municipality from New Orleans to San Antonio. I also administer some Linux Systems.
Unfortunately, rev0lt, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Linux logging facilities give you specific, text-based error messages indicating what the problem is and when/where it occurred without needing to look up some esoteric (and numeric) error code on Microsoft's web site to even guess what the problem might be related to. To restate that concept: Linux error messages tend to be something intelligible without requiring internet access; Microsoft error "messages" tend to be strings of numbers that mean absolutely nothing without digging through support websites.
As an aside, I have never had a Linux system give me an error that included the text "The operation completed successfully". I'll leave that google search for you to laugh at.
We were in a conflict with Iraq from the day they invaded Kuwait.
Funny you should bring that up, since they asked us for permission first. (see this wiki article)
'Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option,'
The EU legislation needs to learn the same lesson that the US legislators haven't learned yet... The internet is a flexible, resilient system that will route around damage, and attempts to censor it only end up hurting the censor's pockets and/or public image. See the Google vs. China debacle last year, for one high-profile (and perhaps high-profit) example. Alternatively, type "SOPA" or "PIPA" into your favorite search engine, and see the raging fire of the responses.
Not only do I think the EU's new privacy laws will be (by and large) ignored, but I think FaceBook will only pay attention if their users band together in ridiculously large numbers to complain... by making a FaceBook page about it.
The problem here boils down to "we make more money with this scheme than your piddly little fines can ever hope to 'punish' us", and "we're not even based in your country, so your laws mean precisely as much as we allow them to" ... besides, it's not like these sites are providing a public service, or coercing people's "private" information. If you want to play the game, you gotta give your name. Wanna play some more? Give us your cell phone number. Don't like giving away your "private" info to just any website that asks? Be more selective about the stuff you do online, and only transact with sites you trust and/or don't actually care about the information they want. Or do what many are already doing, and simply lie.
At what point did everyone forget that old axiom "Knowledge is Power"? Or does no one make the connection between money, power, and knowledge? Does no one realize that it is just as easy to use the equation "Money = Power = Information"?
On to slightly unrelated, and yet completely relevant discussion:
We're at a strange place in a legal sense - there are thousands of unenforceable laws on the books, most of them about ridiculously convoluted methods of acquiring things/money/information in an illicit fashion, and yet there are literally billions of people who care so little about these "minor details" that they have "illegal" music on their portable audio devices. Even the copyright-enforcement people have been caught "stealing" music and video from the original artists. (Yeah, I know, the source would seem to be biased, but it was the second result for a google query "copyright agency caught stealing music", and the first actually relevant one... interestingly enough, this article about the Dutch having this issue wasn't even the one I was looking for - the first case I heard about was in Canada).
At some point, the laws aren't going to be worth the paper the warrants aren't even printed on anymore. It's fairly apparent that it's all about an outmoded system's power grab, just like the ??AA's money grab with the copyright legislation. The danger here is that the system is getting so absurd that no one will pay attention to any of the laws, because the only ones with any actual threat of punishment are ones that they can't enforce, due to the sheer number of people breaking them.
As an example, when this new American health-care reform thing goes through, and everyone is "required" to carry health insurance, I'm wondering what the response will be if someone refuses... will they arrest them for being sick and going to a hospital? If so, the American taxpayer will feed them, clothe them, house them, and pay for their healthcare - as "punishment" for not paying astronomical fees for what amounts to legalized gambling (and what else can you call insurance, really?)
The only upside to being a "good citizen" any more, obe
I did RTFA. The authors of the paper surveyed 54,000 academics, and about 1,300 responded to say, "Yes we felt pressured." That's 2.5%. Only 1/3 of those named a single journal that pressured them. Another 2.5% said, "We've heard that others have been pressured, but never us." 7.5% said, "We've never heard of it." And 87.5% didn't respond. The survey shows extreme self-selection as 7 of 8 academics did not respond. So before someone gets excited that 20% of academics are pressured, note that under 13% of academics responded.
... because the other ~87% were pressured to keep silent?
Rather than being snarky, maybe you should have replied with a link to the movie, as I requested? This entire (off-topic) thread is about imdb's failure to play nice with the rest of the internet, and your failure to implement the workaround I supplied instructions for.
Any further replies from you in this thread without the link I asked for will be met with extreme contempt, complete with expressed and implied detrimental comments about your intellectual capacity, family lineage, etc.
We're already risking downmods by even having this conversation - don't be stupid and make it worse.
I mean that inside your computer, if you wanted to do all that we do with gears and wheels and such like, you would need a lot more energy than we currently use pushing electrons around.
... and I mean that energy requirements are constantly fluctuating, and the current value is always "a little more than we have".
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that moving mechanical parts around would require more energy than our current computer technology requires, I'm simply stating that it wouldn't make any difference to the end user.
To use a car analogy, your statement implies that vehicles such as the HumVee would not exist, because they require more energy to push their wastefully large frames down the interstate.
The energy issue hasn't changed - we'll always need "just a little bit" more than we currently have. We could actually have tapped quite a few sources of reliable, renewable energy, it's just not economically viable to do so (at least, not while fossil fuels are still available at such (artificially) cheap rates).
All of which were set back about 1000 years by the dark ages and the mentality that still pervades.
To further your point: The US has shot itself in the foot by impeding the progress of medical science. All the vehement arguments about stem cell research that caused the US to outlaw accessing the best source of stem cells has resulted in Belgium coming up with a cure for AIDS, instead of the US.
Here's a link to the NYTimes story. Please keep in mind while reading it that the story seems to have a massive "sour grapes" slant, deeming the procedure "impractical" due in part to the fact that the patient's immune system must be destroyed prior to the procedure... which seems laughable to jeer about, since AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) destroys the patient's immune system, causing death from such agents as "the common cold". Doing the same thing in a controlled fashion, allowing the patient to be in a controlled environment for the duration of the procedure, seems a lot less "impractical".
The gist of the matter is that the American populace has been told "it's expensive, and might kill the patient" in lieu of telling them "it's expensive, and might kill the patient, but this will actually rid the body of HIV, instead of making the patient take dangerous drugs every day for the rest of their life".
Think of the lives that could have been saved if the American research facilities had come up with this idea first. If that doesn't motivate you enough, think of all the money that the US has just lost because they shortsightedly allowed the "moral implications" of acquiring research material from non-viable fetal tissue to justify outlawing an entire field of research that just panned out... for someone else.
Unfortunately, the link you supplied is broken, due to the referrer being outside imdb.com's domain. Perhaps if you linked to the movie the image belongs to, instead, you would have at least gotten a "funny" mod, instead of being largely ignored because you didn't check your links in the preview pane.
Just saying.
... as spoken by someone who obviously didn't read the article.
Your entire premise is flawed, in that had Babbage been able to fund the production of his machine, then he would have created "an actual machine to do it quickly, reliably, and cheaply." His Analytical Engine was a precursor to modern digital machines, and the article expresses how we might have been exactly where we are now, except 100 years earlier... and with a different power source.
It even postulates that something approximating the internet might have emerged, using the telegraph instead of the telephone - and we wouldn't have had to convert from digital to analog and back again, because the dots and dashes are digital to start with.
Babbage's Analytical Engine worked, he just never actually built it.
See my comment, above, for more information concerning WW1 long range artillery. As in, "75 miles (120km) to target" long-range projectile weapons.
But the Germans *did* have long range targeting, and weapons capable of using that data (indeed, the "Paris Gun" was the reason for discovering how the Coriolis Effect affected their targeting - at ranges of roughly 75 miles (120km), the rotation of the earth was enough to affect the projected 3-minute trajectory of the weapon's explosive projectiles).
In other words, your conclusion is based on a false premise. More information is always a good thing, when asking questions about possibilities.
In addition to propagation delays the normal DNS infrastructure can't work as the ISP themselves can block lookups to a given domain name by putting entries in their own servers...
No, they can't. Or rather, that only works if you're using their servers. If you send a dns query packet to a specific IP address, you should only receive a response from the IP address you requested one from. Any firewall worth calling a firewall will block most spoofing attacks by default.
...which is why I was thinking alternate DNS with only a relatively short list of 'sensitive' name resolution entries allowing very few servers to serve the entire net, eliminating the propagation delay.
If you are sending DNS queries to a specific server, then your propagation delay is only as long as it takes for that server to update. In other words, if you're using a "darknet" DNS server, then as soon as the admin (or whatever automated process exists) updates the DNS records, that server begins sharing the new DNS records; without propagation, there can be no propagation delay.
I agree with you about the potential blocking of the alternate servers so perhaps a new mechanism is needed where the alternative DNS is tunneled in http(s) and thus can use any proxy to avoid being blocked. Should work anywhere a local proxy isn't forced I would think, and even then it would be easy enough to set up many mirrors to avoid local proxy blocking.
For a secure(ish) proxy, look into TOR (The Onion Router) - it can be configured to send DNS queries through the secure tunnel, although it does not do it by default (if I recall correctly - always double-check information you receive from random strangers on the internet). Of course, you may want to be aware that by running TOR, you are also volunteering to be an endpoint for lots of other people's traffic, so the cost may outweight the benefit in the final analysis.
Alternatively, there are literally thousands of websites out there that will perform a DNS lookup for you in your web browser - try "DNS lookup" as your search terms in your search engine of choice. That query on google gave me back "About 5,030,000 results (0.14 seconds)" - all of the ones on the first page of results looked relevant, at a glance.
To be completely honest, I think you're making this process out to be much more complicated than it actually is.
Well they have stated on the record that they don't really hope to block all file sharing - they just want to make it as hard, impractical, frustrating, and inefficient as possible.
So poisoning downloads, breaking dns, domains, uploading fakes, scaring, suing, intimidating, etc, is their chosen strategy. War of attrition?
To be honest, I absolutely love what the media industry has done in their "war of attrition". The mass media's exposure of all the underhanded tactics they have employed has turned what might have been a quiet war of attrition into a public spectacle. The rootkits on audio CDs; the suing of dead grandmothers, children with single-digit-ages, and single moms for millions of dollars in "damages"; the "MAFIAA" tactics of knocking on people's doors and threatening them; all of this has contributed to the more rapid demise of the outdated, outmoded, and frankly outclassed business practices employed by the media control industry for decades. "DRM" has come to mean "Digital Restrictions Management", rather than "Digital Rights Management" in the public eye, and has mostly been destroyed as an effective means of restricting the distribution of licensed content.
The Streisand effect has made the ability to "steal" media ubiquitous, and there is practically no way to pull the plug on it, without destroying or crippling the greatest communications tool ever invented (the internet).
The general public is becoming more aware that the "pirates" are able to access the restricted content freely, in ways that are not possible for mere "paying consumers", and the backlash has been a sight to behold. The new "downloadable digital copy" is a good example of the media industry's lackluster response, as it only works if you have a Windows-based PC to download and view it on. Sorry, Linux and Mac, you guys need to pay the Microsoft tax or you don't get to (legally) transfer your (legally-purchased) digital media to your digital playback device.
My response to the previous paragraph's tactic is to simply rip the movie anyway - Fair Use laws guarantee me the right to make a backup copy, and I see no issue with having my original disc be my backup, with the digital version being the "in-use" copy on my media server. Theoretically, a pressed disc will last for decades, if not centuries, assuming you keep it in a vibration-less, cool, and dark place - the shelves and cabinets in my half-finished (and furnished) "shed" mostly qualify as exactly that. The peace of mind I enjoy because I don't have to worry about one of my friends' kids smashing, scratching, or otherwise injuring a plastic disc is well worth the effort of spending an hour with my newly purchased (from the $5 bin at the bigbox store, or even cheaper from the local pawn shop) media in a linux machine's optical drive.
Intellectual Property law is on the verge of being reformed in one way or another, and as far as practical implications, those laws may as well not even be on the books. I don't personally "steal" music and movies (unless you consider my "format shifted backup" of my legally-purchased media to be "theft"), but I know many people who do, and they do it with practical impunity. There is such a huge non-profit black market for movies now that (I am told) there is typically a BluRay rip available the same day the movie releases in the theaters (I'm assuming it's generated from a screener, or somehow lifted from the production-room floor, so to speak).
I understand the frustration and panic displayed by the media industry - they didn't pay enough attention to the rapid rise of technology, and their business model is now obsolete. They're still arranging the deck chairs and bailing with cocktail glasses, but the ship is most assuredly sinking. Unlike many proponents of "piracy", I don't think this is a completely good thing... Once "Big Money" loses interest in the media industry because it's not profitable enough to deal with anymore, I am concerned about what level of entertainment qualit
When I said "Google told China to back down", I wasn't actually referring to DNS stuff, I was referring to this event.
Not fast enough. My point is to have something that could be updated in, say, five minutes if the previous result IP had been blocked by the ISP or government.
The DNS spec isn't fast enough, then. When I used to update my DNS entries via a third-party DNS server, instead of running my own, I would be told that global propagation could take up to 72 hours. Admittedly, this was years ago, but I wouldn't imagine it to have changed all that much in the intervening time - updates only happen so fast, and that's just the way it is. If you want a more speedy DNS propagation, then I guess you'll need to either run a DNS server yourself, or find some darknet DNS server somewhere that already has this functionality.
The downside of this would be that if the "evil authority" in your story discovers the IP of the "rogue" DNS server, then you're hosed - and tracking the destinations of a specific IP's packets directed at a specific port isn't rocket surgery - this is one of the reasons why TOR is less bullet-proof than it could be (by default).
When will these copyright groups learn that DNS Poisoning as this pretty much is don't stop anything. They may claim it will stop most people, But are most people really that dumb to not know how to use google or bing to search out easy way around the blocks.
I have known 11-year-olds who knew how to get at the anime they wanted to watch, in sequential order, with or without subtitles and/or overdubbed language (as desired). I have known 30-somethings who got confused if the text they searched for didn't bring up "that thing I saw yesterday" as the first result.
So, I guess the answer to your query is "...Maybe?"
This may already exist but if not, how possible would it be to add an additional DNS that has rapidly updated IPs for politically (or otherwise) blocked servers? So long as the user could add this DNS to the ISP provided DNS server list it would be able to more rapidly react to such blocking based on DNS names.
The ISPs would of course block the alternate DNS unless it provided primarily non-pirate related alternative DNS services.
For instance, google's dns servers, at 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4?
Google told China to back down, and got away with it. I doubt they're afraid of Belgium.