A lot of people say the movies sucked, or weren't good except for BwaBB. BwaBB was the weakest of the 4. Anyone who says the movies sucked as a whole, or says BwaBB was the best out of the 4 doesn't know shit.
The only correct order of the movies from best to worst:
Bender's Big Score Bender's Game Into the Wild Green Yonder Beast with a Billion Backs
I usually end up finding out that most of these people are closet Family Guy fantards who have come out only to shit on Futurama. Their total lack of taste makes them out themselves when they admit they think BwaBB was the best of the 4.
Forgot - ISPs DO get in trouble when they let customers serve child porn. They shut that shit down immediately when they find out because they fear the legal and pr ramifications.
Can you imagine an ISP in the US saying "Yes, we were aware the person was serving child porn. Yes we let it continue."?
It's not simply an issue of the MAFIAA directly connecting to you, it's an issue of the actual data going to or from you and them. They can easily poison the network and turn the whack-a-mole tables upside down - forcing users to mark nodes as untrusted as they pop up. This completely undermines the "trust" in the network.
They can also watermark data they send out (hash checks won't save you), thus removing anonymity and allowing them to map the network and target the larger nodes. Encryption won't save you once the trust is broken, since it's reversible encryption and that ALWAYS boils down to a key sharing problem.
Somewhere a record of what goes where is kept. It may be central, it may be dispersed across nodes, it may be dispersed across all users. Managing these transactions implicates you in the crime. ISPs and networks on the internet are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers.
All legal defenses about plausible deniability are USELESS once the MAFIAA sends you one C&D letter. All they have to do is hop on your network and try to grab a copy of something they "own". Encryption won't save since it's reversible and someone has to be generating those keys.
The legal "defenses" of freenet are about as effective as a brown paper bag around your bottle of hooch as you bum your drunk ass around town.
Rambus essentially stole trade secrets / patented info and jury rigged them into various standards, thus making them no longer a secret and the patents unenforceable.
The people behind those secrets and patents got pissed and sued Rambus.
The lawyers have been slapping their cocks together for about 17 years, several of which have been in relation to this case.
There were decisions, there were appeals, and now the end of it is the Supreme Court ruling that lets Rambus get away free and clear.
Legally, you can't say "bububut... I got it from Jimmy216 and he got it from xXAlexSandersXx, and he said TommyRic0 started it!
Legally, anyone inside a trust ring can be compelled to fess up, provide logs, etc. Is going down for destruction of evidence or contempt of court (instead of for stealing the latest MPAA/RIAA drivel) considered a win?
Trust is effectively transitory if you get data that originated from outside your directly trusted set of peers. Routing untrusted data over trusted links doesn't solve anything. You pay a huge bandwidth penalty (your speed is limited by the slowest peer in the chain) and all you get is anonymity against the peer with the data.
"Plausible deniability" is up there with "common carrier status" in the IANAL internet legal advice world. I hear you can get your cat to agree to EULAs for you too!
Anyone who touches illegal data becomes an accomplice at best and a conspirator at worst. What do you think investigators and judges and lawyers would do to a darknet peddling child porn?
In fact, this is my new litmus test. If any nerd proposes a solution for privacy, anonymity, encryption, key sharing, p2p, etc., I will pose the the question "how well would that hold up if you used it to set up a kiddie porn ring?".
If you connect to someone's IP to get or send, you sure as hell know.
If you connect to some server and the server connects to some IP, the maintainers of the server will come under heavy legal attack, AND your service will be centralized and S L O W.
If you keep meta data about connections centralized (or even dispersed among users) and route traffic through multiple users, your service will be essentially like trackerless bittorrent where each peer can act as a mini tracker, with the caveat that traffic is routed through other users (S L O W !), and all users are vulnerable to more legal threats since anyone your traffic goes through is an accomplice.
The core problem, as I stated before, is that you can NOT extent trust past 1 level (you directly trusting all peers), yet you NEED a large amount of users to make the thing successful.
Talk of encryption or anonymization only highlights the fact that there really is no trust (or you believe the MAFIAA is illegally sniffing your packets as they travel through the tubes - not a bad thing to be wary of).
So a "darknet" is a private (trust-based) network.
You know, like a regular network or VPN.
Oh, and you want to use your darknet for P2P, so you want it to be popular? Then just chain your trust so friends of friends of friends can join in. They're trustworthy, right?
This is completely stupid. You can't establish a successful P2P network without a large number of users to supply bandwidth and content. You can't get a large number of users without making it easy to join. You can't make it easy to join while keeping up a level of trust. If Joe Schmo from the internet can get on, then Joe Schmo from the RIAA can too. You can't anonymize or encrypt traffic while staying decentralized. To anonymize traffic you need a central server where all traffic is routed through, or you need to route through other users and maintain some meta data centrally. If you encrypt traffic, you'll need to decrypt it, and then it becomes a key sharing problem.
It all boils down to keeping the MAFIAA out. No one can ever explain how their various "trust" mechanisms ensure that the MAFIAA stays out (because they can't). No one ever explains what happens when the trust is broken (the whole net instantly becomes untrustworthy). No one ever explains how encryption helps untrusted connections (it doesn't), or why it is even necessary for trusted connections (well, I'll accept this since nowadays everyone is illegally snooping in on every bit of data it seems.)
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details anything about the length?
The limitation in IE is based on stuff that isn't plucked out of thin air anymore than the limitations of other browsers.
The limit of 2083 isn't some random number, either. It's 2048 + some room for other crap. The max path length is 2048, I believe.
Just because other browsers use something larger doesn't change the fact that the spec doesn't dictate the length, and thus this will always be a potential problem, or, at the very least, something where someone at some point will have to decide a limit "randomly".
The shitty part is that they don't raise the limit. Seems like an easy thing to fix. I believe IE8 uses the same restriction.
Can't wait. Scout is my favorite class. I'll be lobbing baseballs at people, chugging energy drinks, and scatter gunning the fuck out of shit. (Scatter gun replacement will probably be a lame nail gun, I need my boomstick.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as if Google ever actually intended to buy Yahoo, either.
Wrong.
We're owwwwwwwwwwl exterminators!
So true.
A lot of people say the movies sucked, or weren't good except for BwaBB. BwaBB was the weakest of the 4. Anyone who says the movies sucked as a whole, or says BwaBB was the best out of the 4 doesn't know shit.
The only correct order of the movies from best to worst:
Bender's Big Score
Bender's Game
Into the Wild Green Yonder
Beast with a Billion Backs
I usually end up finding out that most of these people are closet Family Guy fantards who have come out only to shit on Futurama. Their total lack of taste makes them out themselves when they admit they think BwaBB was the best of the 4.
You have 10 fingers?
Odd, I have 8, and two thumbs.
Multi-touch is the web 2.0 of touch screens.
It's stupid shit that makes the plebes go ooooh and aaaah.
whoosh
Really? Wow. You must be the guy that gets the advice from all the "IANAL" people.
The easiest example: In the US, there's a little thing called sarbox.
Tor? Yeah, sure, until the heat is on. Remember Sarah Palin's email fiasco? How did they catch the guy?
Forgot - ISPs DO get in trouble when they let customers serve child porn. They shut that shit down immediately when they find out because they fear the legal and pr ramifications.
Can you imagine an ISP in the US saying "Yes, we were aware the person was serving child porn. Yes we let it continue."?
It's not simply an issue of the MAFIAA directly connecting to you, it's an issue of the actual data going to or from you and them. They can easily poison the network and turn the whack-a-mole tables upside down - forcing users to mark nodes as untrusted as they pop up. This completely undermines the "trust" in the network.
They can also watermark data they send out (hash checks won't save you), thus removing anonymity and allowing them to map the network and target the larger nodes. Encryption won't save you once the trust is broken, since it's reversible encryption and that ALWAYS boils down to a key sharing problem.
Somewhere a record of what goes where is kept. It may be central, it may be dispersed across nodes, it may be dispersed across all users. Managing these transactions implicates you in the crime. ISPs and networks on the internet are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers. They are NOT common carriers.
All legal defenses about plausible deniability are USELESS once the MAFIAA sends you one C&D letter. All they have to do is hop on your network and try to grab a copy of something they "own". Encryption won't save since it's reversible and someone has to be generating those keys.
The legal "defenses" of freenet are about as effective as a brown paper bag around your bottle of hooch as you bum your drunk ass around town.
How can you LAND on the OCEAN?
Psssssst
Guess who basically invented DDR, DDR2, DDR3, etc.
Rambus makes RAM.
Rambus essentially stole trade secrets / patented info and jury rigged them into various standards, thus making them no longer a secret and the patents unenforceable.
The people behind those secrets and patents got pissed and sued Rambus.
The lawyers have been slapping their cocks together for about 17 years, several of which have been in relation to this case.
There were decisions, there were appeals, and now the end of it is the Supreme Court ruling that lets Rambus get away free and clear.
Who cares who started a torrent?
Legally, you can't say "bububut... I got it from Jimmy216 and he got it from xXAlexSandersXx, and he said TommyRic0 started it!
Legally, anyone inside a trust ring can be compelled to fess up, provide logs, etc. Is going down for destruction of evidence or contempt of court (instead of for stealing the latest MPAA/RIAA drivel) considered a win?
That's not an answer to the trust problem at all.
Trust is effectively transitory if you get data that originated from outside your directly trusted set of peers. Routing untrusted data over trusted links doesn't solve anything. You pay a huge bandwidth penalty (your speed is limited by the slowest peer in the chain) and all you get is anonymity against the peer with the data.
"Plausible deniability" is up there with "common carrier status" in the IANAL internet legal advice world. I hear you can get your cat to agree to EULAs for you too!
Anyone who touches illegal data becomes an accomplice at best and a conspirator at worst. What do you think investigators and judges and lawyers would do to a darknet peddling child porn?
In fact, this is my new litmus test. If any nerd proposes a solution for privacy, anonymity, encryption, key sharing, p2p, etc., I will pose the the question "how well would that hold up if you used it to set up a kiddie porn ring?".
If you connect to someone's IP to get or send, you sure as hell know.
If you connect to some server and the server connects to some IP, the maintainers of the server will come under heavy legal attack, AND your service will be centralized and S L O W.
If you keep meta data about connections centralized (or even dispersed among users) and route traffic through multiple users, your service will be essentially like trackerless bittorrent where each peer can act as a mini tracker, with the caveat that traffic is routed through other users (S L O W !), and all users are vulnerable to more legal threats since anyone your traffic goes through is an accomplice.
The core problem, as I stated before, is that you can NOT extent trust past 1 level (you directly trusting all peers), yet you NEED a large amount of users to make the thing successful.
Talk of encryption or anonymization only highlights the fact that there really is no trust (or you believe the MAFIAA is illegally sniffing your packets as they travel through the tubes - not a bad thing to be wary of).
So a "darknet" is a private (trust-based) network.
You know, like a regular network or VPN.
Oh, and you want to use your darknet for P2P, so you want it to be popular? Then just chain your trust so friends of friends of friends can join in. They're trustworthy, right?
This is completely stupid.
You can't establish a successful P2P network without a large number of users to supply bandwidth and content.
You can't get a large number of users without making it easy to join.
You can't make it easy to join while keeping up a level of trust. If Joe Schmo from the internet can get on, then Joe Schmo from the RIAA can too.
You can't anonymize or encrypt traffic while staying decentralized. To anonymize traffic you need a central server where all traffic is routed through, or you need to route through other users and maintain some meta data centrally. If you encrypt traffic, you'll need to decrypt it, and then it becomes a key sharing problem.
It all boils down to keeping the MAFIAA out. No one can ever explain how their various "trust" mechanisms ensure that the MAFIAA stays out (because they can't).
No one ever explains what happens when the trust is broken (the whole net instantly becomes untrustworthy).
No one ever explains how encryption helps untrusted connections (it doesn't), or why it is even necessary for trusted connections (well, I'll accept this since nowadays everyone is illegally snooping in on every bit of data it seems.)
Says right there there is a confirmed limit on the display, and it's just as arbitrary as 2048.
Firefox has an arbitrary limit as well, moron.
All browsers do.
Slashdot posters rarely read the fucking articles.
Slashdot readers often take down sites.
Slashdot readers are a (vastly) super set of Slashdot posters.
Also, submitted by CWmike?
Conficker Writer Mike!
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details anything about the length?
The limitation in IE is based on stuff that isn't plucked out of thin air anymore than the limitations of other browsers.
The limit of 2083 isn't some random number, either. It's 2048 + some room for other crap. The max path length is 2048, I believe.
Just because other browsers use something larger doesn't change the fact that the spec doesn't dictate the length, and thus this will always be a potential problem, or, at the very least, something where someone at some point will have to decide a limit "randomly".
The shitty part is that they don't raise the limit. Seems like an easy thing to fix. I believe IE8 uses the same restriction.
It's 2048 + some such for this and some such for that and etc.
It's lousy, but it's not just made up.
It's sooooooooooo worth it though.
What's wrong with cascading menus?
Beats scrolling.
I see you're trying to locate a stolen prototype.
Would you like help tossing that chair?
</clippy>
http://www.teamfortress.com/scoutupdate/
Can't wait.
Scout is my favorite class.
I'll be lobbing baseballs at people, chugging energy drinks, and scatter gunning the fuck out of shit. (Scatter gun replacement will probably be a lame nail gun, I need my boomstick.)