I actually think this device has limited, but good applications. Anyone serving up static content would be a bit safer with this technology
I don't see why this wouldn't work with dynamic content as well. The box on the read only channel can do all the page assembly and creation, but has to pass write data to a second box with the write channel. That should let you secure the 2nd box more completely, because it only need to accept data, presumably of known specifications, from a single source, presumably via a non-public channel. It could do any checks you want before committing the data, then signal the read only box that the data has been revised.
One way to deal with it is to define the default VirtualHost to answer your IP addy. Give it a 0 byte 404 document, separate, minimal or non-existant log files, and all the mess goes away while reducing the outgoing bandwidth.
Re:Have you learned nothing?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1
If you ask me they are going to be doing attacks that take lives
Like resetting "ground" elevation to -100 feet ala Die Hard?
Like opening the gates on the local dam to flash flood a town of 25,000?
How about just shutting down the muni water supply just before setting the Big Fire?
I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.
The US forces all immigrant to pledge loyalty to the republic, and to disavow loyalty to any other state before being naturalized. Why is it so wrong to ask that people who just happened to be born here make the same pledge?
It's not an oath to agree with every law Congress passes. It's not an oath to love the President. It's an oath to support the country and the principles upon which it was founded-freedom and justice.
If a BigMac is 570 calories, dietary calories are 1000 thermodynamic calories, so at 100% efficiency, the burger is worth about 2400 kJ.
FreeCharge claims their battery will hold 1 Amp-hour at 3.6 volts. That's about 13 kJ, so at 100% efficiency, you could get 180 full-charges out of 1 burger.
Of course, muscles are only about 50% efficient, and require a whole lot of support energy-digestion, respiration, circulation, but let's imagine You are 30% efficient. You're down to 55 charges/BigMac.
Wind-up cranks are notoriously inefficient. Let's call it 30% too, which is probably generous. Down to 17 charges/BigMac. $0.17 per charge
Here in Atlanta, residential electricity is $0.044/kWh, and 1 kWh = 3600 kJ or 280 cell-phone charges. If we imagine the plug-in adapter is 80% efficient, you can knock that down to 220, but you're still looking at $0.0002 per charge.
Don't forget, your Big Mac generates greenhouse gasses (CO2), and actually a lot more, because of your poor efficency.
You can't put per-seat restrictions on GPL software.
Sure you can. The whole FSF business model is based on the idea that you can charge whatever you want for whatever you want, as long as you make the source code available. So, if the UnitedLinux people want to apply per-seat fees for support, download, media, whatever, they are not restricted from that practice. Of course, since the source code has to be available for the GPL'd parts, there's also no reason that a customer actually has to pay those fees (since he can duplicate the software from the source) unless he wants the support &c.
Yes, I know RMS issue is with the non-gpl code, but that doesn't change the fact that companies are perfectly free to ask for per-seat fees for GPL code.
the terms just keep being extended. That's not representative democracy -- you voted on it? I sure didn't -- that's corporate fascism
The difference between "representative democracy" and "democracy" is that you the people don't vote on every little thing in a representative democracy, but rather choose people who will vote wisely on your behalf. This saves you the trouble of voting to whom to offer the Medal of Honor and generally increases the efficiency of government. It also means that you have to work hard to find out about every little bill that gets considered.
The gist of this is: if you voted for a congress-person, they voted as your representative on copyright law. Do you know how your representative voted? Will it change for whom you vote in November?
I'd like to see every elected offical be paid the average salary of his constituents while in office. This would encourage him to legislate in favor of the personal wealth of his constituents
This goal is already the status quo. Officials get re-elected if their constituents are better off, so effective politicians stuff their districts with pork-barrel projects. Billions of tax dollars not-exactly-wasted, but certainly not used efficiently.
Re:This is in the PRO version...
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They're aiming for PROs, eh? Should be a lttile more enlightended than your base XP user, right?
Every time a new worm exploits some vulnerability in an MS product, we see (right here on/.) calls for competence in MSCEs. At least if the OS magically patches itself, there would be fewer boxes vulnerable to known holes.
If the ISP can't handle the bandwidth it makes available, it's their loss if people use it too much.
I think that's exactly what's going on. They realized they couldn't actually afford to make the entire bandwith available to all the people who would actually use it, and now they want to revise their terms of use. Sounds like your particual ISP prefers to deal directly with the few people who really fill the pipe, rather than impose some global limit. This allows their marketing people to still claim 'unlimited'.
Ah, but the larger goal of copyright is to place works in the public domain.
No. The public domain is anathema to copyright. Works which are in the public domain are specifically devoid of copyright. Copyright is intended to allow a work to be available to the public, while simultaneously allowing the author to profit.
You cannot redistribute the software to others who have not bought it.
This is already the law with respect to all copyrighted works, including computer programs.
It also turns out to be nearly unenforcable with respect to computer programs or other works stored on electronic media. In 1800, it was very hard to copy a map: either you painted it by hand or you you carved it into a printing plate. In 2000, its very easy to copy software: you click-and-drag. This is especially true for 'open source' software, which has traditionally been no cost software.
This may be the root of the matter. On the one hand, it's important that creators profit. This requires that people who benefit from the work pay for it (if the author so desires). On the other hand, all the schemes we know about to effect that payment are based on it being relatively difficult to reproduce a work. I hope the solution we find is not software rental: I hate the prospect of paying someone $0.02 every time I write a letter.
To preserve incentives for private dissemination and development, NSF normally will not restrict or take any part of income earned from copyrightable material except as necessary to comply with the requirements of any applicable government-wide policy or international agreement.
The disposition of rights to inventions made by small business firms and non-profit organizations, including universities and other institutions of higher education, during NSF-assisted research is
governed by Chapter 18 of title 35 of the USC, commonly called the Bayh-Dole Act.
Essentially, since 1980, NSF (et al.) has stopped asking that federal research be released to the public, instead giving the grantee "first refusal."
There is also the possibility that schools could be found (by a court, for instance, or tax authorities) to be functioning as for-profit entities
The only way that could happen is if they started paying a dividend, and no-one who knows anything about Universities believes there will ever be a penny left unspent at the end of a fiscal year.
When you sign up with an ISP, they are providing general purpose internet
connectivity.
You may think this, but you'd be wrong. When you sign up with an ISP you are entering into a contract with them. You agree to do certain things, like pay them, and including anything else they care to put in the contract. They also agree to certain things, like provide bandwidth. If the contract says they'll provide bandwith, but not for http servers, then they're not obligated to let you run an http server over their network. If they exclude VPNs, then they can prevent you from running a VPN.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Everyone reads and understands the subscriber agreement before committing to the contract, right?
I am a firm believer that laws should apply to everyone equally.
Perhaps you haven't thought this zero-tolerance like policy through. My six year old nephew should definitely not be allowed to drive a car, regardless of whether he can pass the test. Members of our armed services should likewise not be subject to jail time for killing enemy soliders.
These concepts apply to businesses, too: (in the US) very small businesses don't have to maintain exact racial diversity, or even ADA accessibility. The lawmakers recognize that these requirements would be too stifling to small businesses. Likewise, there are special rules for very big businesses, such as your electricity provider not being allowed to bundle phone service, and the post office not being allowed to refuse letters to MailBoxes-R-Us.
Ethical use of humans and human tissues in scientific experiments is generally considered to require anonymity for the subject. Otherwise, an awful lot of supposedly confidential medical information about specific individuals would be published. Maybe, 40 years later, it's not entirely relevant that Mrs Lacks had cervical cancer, but I'm sure I wouldn't want the world to know if I were taking an experimental AIDS treatment, for example.
It's already illegal to monitor certain radio frequencies
Not only does this prevent honest people from listening to my unencrypted cell phone conversations, it also prevents the FBI from using an IR camera to look through the walls of my house. Or using TEMPEST to snoop my computer monitor and keyboard (without a warrant, anyway).
The average home washing machine consumes about 520 watts of power. So in four hours it uses 2.1 kWH of
energy. But if a washing machine goes crazy for four hours, I really doubt that it could reduce a building to rubble
That's the thing about kinetics: a 150# washing machine spinning at 2-5 rps is a whole hell of a lot less dangerous than an 850# disk spinning at 1000+rps.
Kind of the same way you can stand under a 60 watt lightbulb for 4 hours and not notice, while a 50 watt laser will cut your arm off in 5 minutes.
The only problem I see with this is that you admit to having hacked their web site/network. While White Hats make sense to many people, there are an awful lot of people who prefer the website-is-private-property viewpoint. I suppose the risk of being turned in for electronic trespass is pretty low, but I also imagine there are a lot of contracts to be had with zero risk of fines or jail time.
This is true, but then you have to pay for bandwidth, the $15 is just the line charge. I don't know of
any ISP that will give bandwidth away, especially a t1's worth of it.
No ISP is involved in the scheme AC suggests, so there would be no bandwidth costs. The theory is that you pay the phone co. for a dedicated line between, say your house and your next-door-neighbor. They don't care what you do with it. Presumably, you and your neighbor can then make your 2 DSL 'modems' talk to each other since they're the only things on the wire. (btw, it's not necessarily a physical wire running directly from you to your neighbor, but routed through the phone co. system
I don't know that DSL modems work that way...it's not like hooking up your 56k. I'm just trying to clarify the proposal.
Well (1) I'm not a troll, I am someone you happen to disagree with
My appologies, I found the phrase They add no value. Period. intentionally inflammatory.
Most paper reviewers do *not* get paid for their efforts. It's part of the "professional networking"
process (people pass papers on to one another for review, based on what they know about each
other's interests). And most of the "coordination" you speak of is done over email/ftp. Most academic
writers work in TeX,.ps and.pdf files. So I fail to see the substantial added value here.
Things are apparently very different in engineering. I've never been sent a TeX file to review. I'm generally send physical copies of papers physically submitted. I've only been comp'd for one review. My point is not that there are cash money costs associated with the review process, my point is that someone has to coordinate it. That person should not be affiliated with the author...it's not peer review if you just send your MS to a couple buddies and attach their comments to an email. Having someone without a vested interest in the result coordinate the review process legitimizes the process and certainly adds value to the manuscript and journal. Otherwise, we'd all just post things on our departmental web servers.
Most of the medical journals are also still affiliated with professional societies
Unfortunately many of those societies, particularly the clinical soc's have farmed those publications out to commercial, for-profit publishers. Look at the title list for a co like Elsevier
These abstract "businessmen" you speak of have absolutely no god-given right to parasitic profit from
the free expression of others. They add no value. Period.
Either you're a troll or completely unaware of the publication process.
The biggest service journals offer is the coordination of peer review. So, in any decent journal, you can be sure that every article has been read, understood, and criticized by a few independent scientists in the particular discipline. It takes a lot of time to send copies of every submission to 2-3 reviewers (often identifying the reviewer in the first place), pester the reviewers to respond, meta-review the reviews and decide whether to publish or not. That process provides credibility and is why I pay more attention to, say the AJP than the AJC. They have these costs independent of whether they put out a paper product or not and it is an enormous added value.
Nor are most journals the official organs of academic societies. 50 years ago, maybe, but not now. Take a look at Academic Press, Kluwer, Wilkins... Some of their titles are society journals, but the explosion of academic journals has been mostly the for-profit variety
Slashdot Mirror
Check MD5 sums
make -n
Unplug from the net and log all traffic while you compile, install and test. Check the log.
Don't unpack a tarball within 48 hours of its creation...let someone else find the problems.
Be one of the "many eyes" and actually learn some of the source code.
I don't see why this wouldn't work with dynamic content as well. The box on the read only channel can do all the page assembly and creation, but has to pass write data to a second box with the write channel. That should let you secure the 2nd box more completely, because it only need to accept data, presumably of known specifications, from a single source, presumably via a non-public channel. It could do any checks you want before committing the data, then signal the read only box that the data has been revised.
One way to deal with it is to define the default VirtualHost to answer your IP addy. Give it a 0 byte 404 document, separate, minimal or non-existant log files, and all the mess goes away while reducing the outgoing bandwidth.
If you ask me they are going to be doing attacks that take lives Like resetting "ground" elevation to -100 feet ala Die Hard? Like opening the gates on the local dam to flash flood a town of 25,000? How about just shutting down the muni water supply just before setting the Big Fire?
The US forces all immigrant to pledge loyalty to the republic, and to disavow loyalty to any other state before being naturalized. Why is it so wrong to ask that people who just happened to be born here make the same pledge?
It's not an oath to agree with every law Congress passes. It's not an oath to love the President. It's an oath to support the country and the principles upon which it was founded-freedom and justice.
FreeCharge claims their battery will hold 1 Amp-hour at 3.6 volts. That's about 13 kJ, so at 100% efficiency, you could get 180 full-charges out of 1 burger.
Of course, muscles are only about 50% efficient, and require a whole lot of support energy-digestion, respiration, circulation, but let's imagine You are 30% efficient. You're down to 55 charges/BigMac.
Wind-up cranks are notoriously inefficient. Let's call it 30% too, which is probably generous. Down to 17 charges/BigMac. $0.17 per charge
Here in Atlanta, residential electricity is $0.044/kWh, and 1 kWh = 3600 kJ or 280 cell-phone charges. If we imagine the plug-in adapter is 80% efficient, you can knock that down to 220, but you're still looking at $0.0002 per charge.
Don't forget, your Big Mac generates greenhouse gasses (CO2), and actually a lot more, because of your poor efficency.
I've been using Ghostscript with RedMon to print direct to pdf from WinNT/Win2K apps for 3 years. Works great.
Sure you can. The whole FSF business model is based on the idea that you can charge whatever you want for whatever you want, as long as you make the source code available. So, if the UnitedLinux people want to apply per-seat fees for support, download, media, whatever, they are not restricted from that practice. Of course, since the source code has to be available for the GPL'd parts, there's also no reason that a customer actually has to pay those fees (since he can duplicate the software from the source) unless he wants the support &c.
Yes, I know RMS issue is with the non-gpl code, but that doesn't change the fact that companies are perfectly free to ask for per-seat fees for GPL code.
Well, it's not clearn that it's Ford's problem. Sounds like some group managed essentially to get hold of Ford's password to the Experian database.
The difference between "representative democracy" and "democracy" is that you the people don't vote on every little thing in a representative democracy, but rather choose people who will vote wisely on your behalf. This saves you the trouble of voting to whom to offer the Medal of Honor and generally increases the efficiency of government. It also means that you have to work hard to find out about every little bill that gets considered.
The gist of this is: if you voted for a congress-person, they voted as your representative on copyright law. Do you know how your representative voted? Will it change for whom you vote in November?
This goal is already the status quo. Officials get re-elected if their constituents are better off, so effective politicians stuff their districts with pork-barrel projects. Billions of tax dollars not-exactly-wasted, but certainly not used efficiently.
Every time a new worm exploits some vulnerability in an MS product, we see (right here on /.) calls for competence in MSCEs. At least if the OS magically patches itself, there would be fewer boxes vulnerable to known holes.
I think that's exactly what's going on. They realized they couldn't actually afford to make the entire bandwith available to all the people who would actually use it, and now they want to revise their terms of use. Sounds like your particual ISP prefers to deal directly with the few people who really fill the pipe, rather than impose some global limit. This allows their marketing people to still claim 'unlimited'.
No. The public domain is anathema to copyright. Works which are in the public domain are specifically devoid of copyright. Copyright is intended to allow a work to be available to the public, while simultaneously allowing the author to profit.
This is already the law with respect to all copyrighted works, including computer programs.
It also turns out to be nearly unenforcable with respect to computer programs or other works stored on electronic media. In 1800, it was very hard to copy a map: either you painted it by hand or you you carved it into a printing plate. In 2000, its very easy to copy software: you click-and-drag. This is especially true for 'open source' software, which has traditionally been no cost software.
This may be the root of the matter. On the one hand, it's important that creators profit. This requires that people who benefit from the work pay for it (if the author so desires). On the other hand, all the schemes we know about to effect that payment are based on it being relatively difficult to reproduce a work. I hope the solution we find is not software rental: I hate the prospect of paying someone $0.02 every time I write a letter.
To preserve incentives for private dissemination and development, NSF normally will not restrict or take any part of income earned from copyrightable material except as necessary to comply with the requirements of any applicable government-wide policy or international agreement.
The disposition of rights to inventions made by small business firms and non-profit organizations, including universities and other institutions of higher education, during NSF-assisted research is
governed by Chapter 18 of title 35 of the USC, commonly called the Bayh-Dole Act.
Essentially, since 1980, NSF (et al.) has stopped asking that federal research be released to the public, instead giving the grantee "first refusal."
The only way that could happen is if they started paying a dividend, and no-one who knows anything about Universities believes there will ever be a penny left unspent at the end of a fiscal year.
connectivity.
You may think this, but you'd be wrong. When you sign up with an ISP you are entering into a contract with them. You agree to do certain things, like pay them, and including anything else they care to put in the contract. They also agree to certain things, like provide bandwidth. If the contract says they'll provide bandwith, but not for http servers, then they're not obligated to let you run an http server over their network. If they exclude VPNs, then they can prevent you from running a VPN.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Everyone reads and understands the subscriber agreement before committing to the contract, right?
Perhaps you haven't thought this zero-tolerance like policy through. My six year old nephew should definitely not be allowed to drive a car, regardless of whether he can pass the test. Members of our armed services should likewise not be subject to jail time for killing enemy soliders.
These concepts apply to businesses, too: (in the US) very small businesses don't have to maintain exact racial diversity, or even ADA accessibility. The lawmakers recognize that these requirements would be too stifling to small businesses. Likewise, there are special rules for very big businesses, such as your electricity provider not being allowed to bundle phone service, and the post office not being allowed to refuse letters to MailBoxes-R-Us.
Ethical use of humans and human tissues in scientific experiments is generally considered to require anonymity for the subject. Otherwise, an awful lot of supposedly confidential medical information about specific individuals would be published. Maybe, 40 years later, it's not entirely relevant that Mrs Lacks had cervical cancer, but I'm sure I wouldn't want the world to know if I were taking an experimental AIDS treatment, for example.
Not only does this prevent honest people from listening to my unencrypted cell phone conversations, it also prevents the FBI from using an IR camera to look through the walls of my house. Or using TEMPEST to snoop my computer monitor and keyboard (without a warrant, anyway).
That's the thing about kinetics: a 150# washing machine spinning at 2-5 rps is a whole hell of a lot less dangerous than an 850# disk spinning at 1000+rps.
Kind of the same way you can stand under a 60 watt lightbulb for 4 hours and not notice, while a 50 watt laser will cut your arm off in 5 minutes.
The only problem I see with this is that you admit to having hacked their web site/network. While White Hats make sense to many people, there are an awful lot of people who prefer the website-is-private-property viewpoint. I suppose the risk of being turned in for electronic trespass is pretty low, but I also imagine there are a lot of contracts to be had with zero risk of fines or jail time.
No ISP is involved in the scheme AC suggests, so there would be no bandwidth costs. The theory is that you pay the phone co. for a dedicated line between, say your house and your next-door-neighbor. They don't care what you do with it. Presumably, you and your neighbor can then make your 2 DSL 'modems' talk to each other since they're the only things on the wire. (btw, it's not necessarily a physical wire running directly from you to your neighbor, but routed through the phone co. system
I don't know that DSL modems work that way...it's not like hooking up your 56k. I'm just trying to clarify the proposal.
My appologies, I found the phrase They add no value. Period. intentionally inflammatory.
Most paper reviewers do *not* get paid for their efforts. It's part of the "professional networking" process (people pass papers on to one another for review, based on what they know about each other's interests). And most of the "coordination" you speak of is done over email/ftp. Most academic writers work in TeX, .ps and .pdf files. So I fail to see the substantial added value here.
Things are apparently very different in engineering. I've never been sent a TeX file to review. I'm generally send physical copies of papers physically submitted. I've only been comp'd for one review. My point is not that there are cash money costs associated with the review process, my point is that someone has to coordinate it. That person should not be affiliated with the author...it's not peer review if you just send your MS to a couple buddies and attach their comments to an email. Having someone without a vested interest in the result coordinate the review process legitimizes the process and certainly adds value to the manuscript and journal. Otherwise, we'd all just post things on our departmental web servers.
Most of the medical journals are also still affiliated with professional societies
Unfortunately many of those societies, particularly the clinical soc's have farmed those publications out to commercial, for-profit publishers. Look at the title list for a co like Elsevier
Either you're a troll or completely unaware of the publication process.
The biggest service journals offer is the coordination of peer review. So, in any decent journal, you can be sure that every article has been read, understood, and criticized by a few independent scientists in the particular discipline. It takes a lot of time to send copies of every submission to 2-3 reviewers (often identifying the reviewer in the first place), pester the reviewers to respond, meta-review the reviews and decide whether to publish or not. That process provides credibility and is why I pay more attention to, say the AJP than the AJC. They have these costs independent of whether they put out a paper product or not and it is an enormous added value.
Nor are most journals the official organs of academic societies. 50 years ago, maybe, but not now. Take a look at Academic Press, Kluwer, Wilkins... Some of their titles are society journals, but the explosion of academic journals has been mostly the for-profit variety