That's not what the fiber would be for. Though I imagine that within 5 years we will start seeing motherboards with fiber hookups on them. 10 gigabit ethernet is hard to run over any reasonable length of copper. The fiber would be for hooking up to the outside world.
This is irritating, but what I think is more irritating is that fiber is not required in all new buildings, especially condos and apartment buildings. It's a huge pain to get it in there once the building is built, and data wiring is just as important electrical wiring in the future. Why isn't this being done?
I'm thinking one name per gram of matter in the solar system with each getting a new key every 30 years or so. Would the whole thing scale up to a matryoshka brain without breaking? So yeah, I'm thinking really big and being a bit silly.
Yeah, I'm thinking really big and being a bit silly. I'm thinking one name per gram of matter in the solar system. Would the whole thing scale up to a matryoshka brain without breaking?
No matter how good SSL is, you can always just remove it with a tool like sslstrip (also developed by Moxie Marlinspike). I guess you could have banks and other web sites instruct the user to look for the lock icon, but like Moxie said in his Defcon talk, he tested it on hundreds of users by running a Tor exit node, and every one of them still logged in after being sent an unencrypted login page.
I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what I said. I'm not talking about SSL. I'm talking about the CAKE protocol.
I've revised the protocol spec, and I think version 2 is fairly good. It still has a problem with liveness, but this is due to the fact the protocol is very round-trip avoidant, and there are some mitigating strategies that can be adopted. Another problem is the lack of forward secrecy due to not using Diffie-Hellman for key negotiation and instead directly encrypting the keys with RSA. That can also be fixed in a later version without altering the protocol so significantly that users will have to modify their code.
One last flaw is that I'm not positive a 256-bit namespace is quite large enough to handle all names that will ever be generated given that the birthday paradox effectively halves this to 128-bits. But I think that's pretty minor.
Also, I see this as a chance to overhaul HTTP and a couple of other protocols so they have stronger authentication and easily implemented distributed caching.
This, Diaspora, and personal interest by friends have gotten me interested in working on The CAKE Protocol again. My goal is a Python reference implementation that can speak over TCP, email, and possibly IM.
Last time I stalled out once I got a job. I also realized that the protocol design was flawed, and the API design for the internals was awkward. Also, I was all alone in a new city. I have friends who are interested now, which makes it easier. And maker spaces with people to talk to. When you have to work on something all by yourself it's hard to stay motivated.
I suspect that Sony also didn't really want to tangle with Anonymous. Mostly because it would be inconvenient and expensive, and their customers would suffer.
That link is small, and I missed it.:-/ I have donated now, and left her a note of thanks as well as concern over her comment removal policies. I really do appreciate the work she has done, and my fondest wish would be for her to get thousands in donations just like mine with a similar note of both thanks and concern.
Wow. If I had any doubt that all the stuff on the IBM vs. Hercules site is absolutely true, that doubt has been removed by this post. I don't care who the person works for or who pays him or her. I do care about the stuff on the other side of that link. And by handwavingly dismissing it as FUD (which it self-evidently isn't), then turning around and attacking the source, you've just told me there's something to hide that can't actually stand the light of day.
I still have a great deal of respect for Groklaw, but that respect has suffered a serious amount of tarnish, and I'm now glad that the site will no longer be updated. I would like someone else to take up the reporting and dissection that was done there, and I do not want PJ involved in picking that person in any way. She is clearly not capable of being unbiased and impartial enough to pick a good successor.
I don't think PJ has to continue to run it. If she wants to go, I think she's done a fantastically amazing job, and I'm sad to see her go, but happy that she's making a good choice for herself. I'd rather someone who really wanted to do it than someone who felt burnt out.
And maybe you don't find a tip jar enticing, but I've put a few bucks in more than one tip jar on the Internet.
I think she should pass on the mantle to someone she trusts. That person would not be PJ, and the sites flavor would change, but if the person were any good the coverage would still be there and valuable.
Yeah, I read the article, and it makes more sense. I still think PJ should hand it to someone else she trusts to carry on. I can understand being personally exhausted by the effort, and I applaud the job she's done and think she is greatly deserving of the rest and obscurity she desires (because she wants them, not because I personally want her to go away or be obscure:-).
If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission. I found the dissection of the legal ramifications of the moves by the various parties in the suit to be education and valuable information. There are many high profile suits for which this sort of information would be quite helpful. The suit by Sony, for instance, is one of these. Some sort of knowledgeable coverage of the various patent lawsuits going on in the smart phone arena would be interesting too.
Good coverage of legal stuff and quality analysis is very hard to find. If a tip jar was put up, some of my money would likely find my way into it.
*looks at you funny* Are you sure you scored well enough on reading comprehension to be able to qualify as literate?
It's a non-free market because basically Apple is able to throw their weight around and prevent another company from offering a perfectly valid and legal product. I have no desire for that product, but the world is a less interesting place overall because it's gone. There may be people who did want it.
Yet another example of how the idea of a 'free' market is an illusion with the way things currently work. I wonder how far a suit for tortious interference by all the users of jail-broken iPhones would get? Probably not very far, or perhaps they would get coupons to the Apple App store.
Yes, they are comparable. In both cases, someone has offered to provide a service to you. One is providing food, the other providing software. In both cases the party offering the service has spend money in order to provide that service.
Really, the software maker, has offered me a service? Which service would that be then? I mean, I didn't download it from the maker directly, and they didn't have a contract or pay the entity I did download it from. So the service surely can't be providing the software for download. I'm keen to learn what service it is though. I make software myself, and I might want to offer this service to people.
"Do it with terms that make me look like I'm not sidestepping the payment of someone, while still using the services that they [theoretically] worked hard to provide me."
"It's no different than eating someone's food and then skipping on the bill, but I really don't want to feel bad about it, so please come up with some term that hides the reality of the situation from me."
Analogy fail. When I eat food and skip on the bill the person who served me now has less food.
What does anybody at all have less of if I download a piece of software and don't pay for it? The software producer doesn't have less money than before. They may also not have more money than before, but they don't have less. When I pick my nose, they also have no more money than they had before.
You could argue that the software developer is now missing the time and effort she or he put into making the software. But that's not true either. That's already a sunk cost.
You could argue that I'm reneging on a contract I had with the software producer to give them money in exchange for the time and energy she or he put in. But that's also not true. I had no such contract.
I can't think of a single analogy that is actually applicable that would result in it being justified to call downloading software without paying 'stealing'. You might be 'stealing' from the person who is directly providing the software for download if you don't pay them for the use of their bandwidth, but most of the time they've asked for no such compensation.
I'm not saying that downloading software without paying for it is the moral and proper thing to be doing. But it's not stealing.
I'm also happy with the term 'freeloader' and 'freerider'. Neither of those categories of people are guilty of stealing, but they also aren't doing something we would generally recognize as making a positive contribution of any kind.
I think 'freeloader' is a perfectly appropriate term. Essentially people who do this are taking advantage of a system designed to incentivize creation without paying the cost for that system. While I debate the merits of this system in our current society, I think freeloader is a perfectly valid term, somewhat analogous to 'free rider', which they also are.
I think 'pirate' is a horrible, overblown term, and I do not agree with terms like 'steal' or 'theft'. What's going on is none of those things. But they are riding on the back of a system without paying its cost.
The authors of this software are not 'entitled' to get any money for having done so. But it would be in the best interests of everybody who enjoys their software to find a way to give them some money so they have more time to create more useful software. We have a system for making sure this happens that tries to impose the limitations of physical property on ideas in the hopes that the system we have for valuing and exchanging physical property can be leveraged. I think those limitations are currently extremely burdensome, whereas they once were relatively painless. But that's what we have right now.
I think most people who fall into the 'freeloader' category are headless of the implications of the choice they are making. I would have more respect for them if they had a better idea of how we should handle the problem and were making a conscious choice to do what they were doing with an eye towards replacing the system we have with one that worked better.
My contempt is still reserved though for those who think the current system works and just needs better enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what the fiber would be for. Though I imagine that within 5 years we will start seeing motherboards with fiber hookups on them. 10 gigabit ethernet is hard to run over any reasonable length of copper. The fiber would be for hooking up to the outside world.
This is irritating, but what I think is more irritating is that fiber is not required in all new buildings, especially condos and apartment buildings. It's a huge pain to get it in there once the building is built, and data wiring is just as important electrical wiring in the future. Why isn't this being done?
I'm thinking one name per gram of matter in the solar system with each getting a new key every 30 years or so. Would the whole thing scale up to a matryoshka brain without breaking? So yeah, I'm thinking really big and being a bit silly.
Yeah, I'm thinking really big and being a bit silly. I'm thinking one name per gram of matter in the solar system. Would the whole thing scale up to a matryoshka brain without breaking?
No matter how good SSL is, you can always just remove it with a tool like sslstrip (also developed by Moxie Marlinspike). I guess you could have banks and other web sites instruct the user to look for the lock icon, but like Moxie said in his Defcon talk, he tested it on hundreds of users by running a Tor exit node, and every one of them still logged in after being sent an unencrypted login page.
I don't understand how your comment is relevant to what I said. I'm not talking about SSL. I'm talking about the CAKE protocol.
Again, the front page is here: http://www.cakem.net/.
There's a PayPal donate link on the front page. I just updated it to be better than it was before, though it was working before.
What term? Maker spaces? What's wrong with it? What term would you use?
I might be. Thanks for pointing me at it.
I've revised the protocol spec, and I think version 2 is fairly good. It still has a problem with liveness, but this is due to the fact the protocol is very round-trip avoidant, and there are some mitigating strategies that can be adopted. Another problem is the lack of forward secrecy due to not using Diffie-Hellman for key negotiation and instead directly encrypting the keys with RSA. That can also be fixed in a later version without altering the protocol so significantly that users will have to modify their code.
One last flaw is that I'm not positive a 256-bit namespace is quite large enough to handle all names that will ever be generated given that the birthday paradox effectively halves this to 128-bits. But I think that's pretty minor.
Also, I see this as a chance to overhaul HTTP and a couple of other protocols so they have stronger authentication and easily implemented distributed caching.
This, Diaspora, and personal interest by friends have gotten me interested in working on The CAKE Protocol again. My goal is a Python reference implementation that can speak over TCP, email, and possibly IM.
Last time I stalled out once I got a job. I also realized that the protocol design was flawed, and the API design for the internals was awkward. Also, I was all alone in a new city. I have friends who are interested now, which makes it easier. And maker spaces with people to talk to. When you have to work on something all by yourself it's hard to stay motivated.
I suspect that Sony also didn't really want to tangle with Anonymous. Mostly because it would be inconvenient and expensive, and their customers would suffer.
That link is small, and I missed it. :-/ I have donated now, and left her a note of thanks as well as concern over her comment removal policies. I really do appreciate the work she has done, and my fondest wish would be for her to get thousands in donations just like mine with a similar note of both thanks and concern.
Wow. If I had any doubt that all the stuff on the IBM vs. Hercules site is absolutely true, that doubt has been removed by this post. I don't care who the person works for or who pays him or her. I do care about the stuff on the other side of that link. And by handwavingly dismissing it as FUD (which it self-evidently isn't), then turning around and attacking the source, you've just told me there's something to hide that can't actually stand the light of day.
I still have a great deal of respect for Groklaw, but that respect has suffered a serious amount of tarnish, and I'm now glad that the site will no longer be updated. I would like someone else to take up the reporting and dissection that was done there, and I do not want PJ involved in picking that person in any way. She is clearly not capable of being unbiased and impartial enough to pick a good successor.
I don't think PJ has to continue to run it. If she wants to go, I think she's done a fantastically amazing job, and I'm sad to see her go, but happy that she's making a good choice for herself. I'd rather someone who really wanted to do it than someone who felt burnt out.
And maybe you don't find a tip jar enticing, but I've put a few bucks in more than one tip jar on the Internet.
I think she should pass on the mantle to someone she trusts. That person would not be PJ, and the sites flavor would change, but if the person were any good the coverage would still be there and valuable.
Yeah, I read the article, and it makes more sense. I still think PJ should hand it to someone else she trusts to carry on. I can understand being personally exhausted by the effort, and I applaud the job she's done and think she is greatly deserving of the rest and obscurity she desires (because she wants them, not because I personally want her to go away or be obscure :-).
If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission. I found the dissection of the legal ramifications of the moves by the various parties in the suit to be education and valuable information. There are many high profile suits for which this sort of information would be quite helpful. The suit by Sony, for instance, is one of these. Some sort of knowledgeable coverage of the various patent lawsuits going on in the smart phone arena would be interesting too.
Good coverage of legal stuff and quality analysis is very hard to find. If a tip jar was put up, some of my money would likely find my way into it.
*looks at you funny* Are you sure you scored well enough on reading comprehension to be able to qualify as literate?
It's a non-free market because basically Apple is able to throw their weight around and prevent another company from offering a perfectly valid and legal product. I have no desire for that product, but the world is a less interesting place overall because it's gone. There may be people who did want it.
Yet another example of how the idea of a 'free' market is an illusion with the way things currently work. I wonder how far a suit for tortious interference by all the users of jail-broken iPhones would get? Probably not very far, or perhaps they would get coupons to the Apple App store.
Yes, they are comparable. In both cases, someone has offered to provide a service to you. One is providing food, the other providing software. In both cases the party offering the service has spend money in order to provide that service.
Really, the software maker, has offered me a service? Which service would that be then? I mean, I didn't download it from the maker directly, and they didn't have a contract or pay the entity I did download it from. So the service surely can't be providing the software for download. I'm keen to learn what service it is though. I make software myself, and I might want to offer this service to people.
"Do it with terms that make me look like I'm not sidestepping the payment of someone, while still using the services that they [theoretically] worked hard to provide me."
"It's no different than eating someone's food and then skipping on the bill, but I really don't want to feel bad about it, so please come up with some term that hides the reality of the situation from me."
Analogy fail. When I eat food and skip on the bill the person who served me now has less food.
What does anybody at all have less of if I download a piece of software and don't pay for it? The software producer doesn't have less money than before. They may also not have more money than before, but they don't have less. When I pick my nose, they also have no more money than they had before.
You could argue that the software developer is now missing the time and effort she or he put into making the software. But that's not true either. That's already a sunk cost.
You could argue that I'm reneging on a contract I had with the software producer to give them money in exchange for the time and energy she or he put in. But that's also not true. I had no such contract.
I can't think of a single analogy that is actually applicable that would result in it being justified to call downloading software without paying 'stealing'. You might be 'stealing' from the person who is directly providing the software for download if you don't pay them for the use of their bandwidth, but most of the time they've asked for no such compensation.
I'm not saying that downloading software without paying for it is the moral and proper thing to be doing. But it's not stealing.
I'm also happy with the term 'freeloader' and 'freerider'. Neither of those categories of people are guilty of stealing, but they also aren't doing something we would generally recognize as making a positive contribution of any kind.
I think 'freeloader' is a perfectly appropriate term. Essentially people who do this are taking advantage of a system designed to incentivize creation without paying the cost for that system. While I debate the merits of this system in our current society, I think freeloader is a perfectly valid term, somewhat analogous to 'free rider', which they also are.
I think 'pirate' is a horrible, overblown term, and I do not agree with terms like 'steal' or 'theft'. What's going on is none of those things. But they are riding on the back of a system without paying its cost.
The authors of this software are not 'entitled' to get any money for having done so. But it would be in the best interests of everybody who enjoys their software to find a way to give them some money so they have more time to create more useful software. We have a system for making sure this happens that tries to impose the limitations of physical property on ideas in the hopes that the system we have for valuing and exchanging physical property can be leveraged. I think those limitations are currently extremely burdensome, whereas they once were relatively painless. But that's what we have right now.
I think most people who fall into the 'freeloader' category are headless of the implications of the choice they are making. I would have more respect for them if they had a better idea of how we should handle the problem and were making a conscious choice to do what they were doing with an eye towards replacing the system we have with one that worked better.
My contempt is still reserved though for those who think the current system works and just needs better enforcement.
That is because you are a faggot.
Most of them have more friends than you do.