On a technical basis, Linux improvements have grown leaps and bound beyond Apple's, which are based on BSD. In other words, while we really are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended), the Linux ecosystem is an entirely different codebase than Apple's private fork of BSD.
One boring paragraph follows, then there's the part where I say Miguel is an ass and nobody in neither the Linux camp nor the Apple camp respects him.
The Linux Desktop is not one monolithic project. Instead it's a smorgasbord of choices. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, just plain X, IceWM, and many many many more. Each have their teams of coders who work on the X server, the Window Manager, the Display Manager, the interactions, overall themes, and lots of other factors that make each Linux desktop look unique. A simple KDE interface can resemble Win95 if you want it to. A Gnome3 desktop can resemble nothing useful if you want it to. Raw X11 can resemble SunOS 4 if you want it to. You can change these from minute to minute to figure out what works best FOR YOU. That's the power of the Linux Desktop. Its thousands of developers working on hundreds of projects allow YOU to figure out how YOU want to see the system. Apple, in contrast, has dozens of developers working on the desktop. Your choice is exactly what they decide. If you like it, then congratulations, you win. If you don't, you're one of the hundreds of thousands ex-Apple users now using Linux.
Miguel De Icaza has a record of opening his mouth and letting his personal opinion that contradicts fact and reason spew forth. This is no different. The man's record speaks for itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=miguel+de+icaza+traitor . I have no hard evidence that he's the antichrist, as some have claimed, and that's not germaine. WHAT IS is that HE IS BIASED and ADMITTEDLY SO when he says something you should remember this isn't your grandfather patting you on the back and saying "Apple killed the linux desktop because they are so good"... it's Miguel "Liar liar pants on fire whose paying for my opinion today I've sold out the Linux community before and I'm doing it again" De Icaza saying it. BTW, "De Icaza" is Spanish for "full of XXXX."
All of Apple's products support the old 3G frequencies. 1.8GHz is not in that range. That's why they traditionally have slower network access than any other devices (Android, etc.).
The devices are "capable of 4G" but since they aren't designed to DO 4G they DON'T DO 4G.
The "problem" isn't file sharing. That's legal. It's not linking. It's legal. What's against the law are violations of the law (e.g. copyright).
HOWEVER, in saying "don't come after us, go after linking sites" rapidshare has thrown the babies to the wolves in hopes that they can evade a similar fate.
Rapidshare, for that, deserves to die. Linking sites and sharing sites are legal. The US Federal government and its ICE dogs will sooner or later be brought to task. (Rojadirecta probably). We'll still remember that Rapidshare threw everyone else to the dogs.
Do we really need to be taught by lumbering dinosaurs who have reached their tenured position only through hidining below the radar, pubilshing papers instead of teaching, and who don't understand the "modern" aspects of algebra, CAI, and office-time?
Clearly not. It's time to remove the onerous obligations of students to have to put up with these dinosaurs, and eliminate "teach for the sake of having a free lifetime job" from the manual. If you love to teach, teach. If you'd like to do research, find a grant and research. If all you want to do is avoid students and kvetch about how "some other department with whom I have a feud in my mind" is valueless, go get a job. A real job. One where if you screw up or don't do anything you get fired.
Then from atop that dais come preach to us how other people are teaching useless things.
If you read nothing else, read the first and last paragraphs [following this one;)]. They address exactly what the OP brought up and why it is not accurate.
Putting aside for just one brief paragraph whether Ethernet has led to the Internet, Ethernet was developed by DIX - Digital [Equipment Corporation], Intel, and Xerox in no particular order except that's the name they used. Bob Metcalfe -- cofounder of 3Com -- has lectured about this for ages, Don't confuse the network we use today (Ethernet II, 802.3, 802.1q, 10Base-T, 100Base-TX, 1000Base-anything, etc.) with the original Ethernet [I] spec. Always build on the works of other giants.
Now back to the original claims. There were many networking standards, and IP was just one of them. Originally computers did not talk to many other computers, even in the same room. Original DECnet systems would each talk to one or more other systems, and would relay messages -- much as Usenet did to text.
Ethernet was not the first bus-based network topology. Token-Ring was a strong competitor, pushed by the great might of IBM. Debates raged as to which was better, 4Mbps guaranteed-time slots (think like TDMA) or 10Mbps collission-detect carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) that guaranteed nothing. The rule of thumb was if you had two "stations" and one was transmitting a bitstream and the other was sending nothing you could APPROACH 10Mbps. If the two talked to each other then 5Mbps, and so on. The advent of full-duplex technology (10Base-T) moved the "bus" into the center of one device (a hub) from which spokes connected nodes. (You'll note that means it really is a star configuration).
Original Ethernet ran on big fat cables. To connect to it you used a big clamp on connector with a "tooth" that pierced the outer insulation and hit the center conductor. Those were called vampire taps. Ethernet at that point was 10Base5. 10MBps, 500m. Then came "thinwire". Using BNC connectors, T-s for taps, and dual-connectors to extend, 10Base2 got us 10Mbps at 200m. That was pretty much it.
Aside: around this time someone thought to resurrect token-ring but make it use expensive glass fiber that needed expensive splicing -- to power the "desktop!" This 100Mbps network was Fiber Distributed Data Interface.
Anyway so now we come to the part where we have a. IP and TCP/IP b. A bus-based network to allow many to many communication And thus the ARPANET was born. It wasn't to fight a war, it was to do research. The US military -- reporting to the same US DoD that funded ARPA -- thought it was such a great idea they created a network called MILNET.
The original systems used specialized computers running specialized code to be Internet Message Processors (IMPs). These complex one-of-a-kind systems are what today are outscaled, outpaced, outperformed, and outfeatured by a $50 router running DD-WRT (not to mention WiFi)...
The Internet did not exist because computers in one room could talk to each other via Ethernet. It exists because that one room could talk to ANOTHER ROOM in a far away place. Internet means "Interconnected Networks". One Ethernet in place A talking to one Ethernet in place B.... now THAT's interconnection.
Rights of way are not "public infrastructure" and your use of the word "crowdsource" really means "make it someone else's problem."
Why don't you, instead of delegated to "everyone else to solve my problem" of "things I misstate or don't understand" just go away.
Slashdot editors... shame on you. This is a non-story about a guy who knows nothing trying to make a story about nothing and hoping other people find something.
How awful. You buy this hardware. Then you can control what runs on it? Seriously?
Someone should go shoot someone else. It's against everything that's right to be able to run whatever you want on your own hardware. That you paid for. That you purchased. That you own. That you should be able to do whatever you damn well please.
Groklaw provides the rulings in PDF and text form. Whether they have a bias or not, the rulings are shown as is.
In the instant case the jury was eleven to one against Microsoft. Judge Motz -- who flew in to handle this case from outside his district (!?!) -- ruled afteward that no reasonable jury would have found for Novell and against Microsoft.
He has already been overturned on appeal once. He will be overturned again. Microsoft shils notwithstanding (they pay people to say Microsoft-does-no-evil on/. and other places), they will be found guilty.
It may not be relevant to much nowadays, seeing as Windows 95, Wordperfect, etc. are all obsolete irrelevant things, but it's part of the legal process. Just like we don't excuse rape because "Well it happened to you ten years ago" the same is true of anticompetitive unlawful actions.
Sorry, Microsoft Fanbois, time to man up and quit modding everything you don't like down. The truth is out there, and it will be set free. The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it (--Gilmore). The same is true for biased modding and shil posting.
Judge Motz (who flew out of his district to run this court) ignored an 11:1 "hung jury" and voted to say no jury could find against Microsoft. He's already once been handed his case back on appeal because he's too pro-Microsoft.
There is no excuse to allow a JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) -- implying no reasonable jury would find for Microsoft -- when the jury was 11 to 1 in favor of finding Microsoft guilty. This too will be returned to trial by the appeals court.
There's no excuse for the article to be on slashdot. It's entire "summary" is biased and incorrect. The editors who approved it have no knowledge of facts. The moderators who modded down the parent are clearly part of Microsoft's encouragement of its staff to "read" slashdot (troll on articles) in the hopes they can mod down disparaging articles.
Judge Motz is biased; he has flown from outside his district to judge this case; he has been overruled on appeal ON THIS CASE before. It will happen again. All but that last comment are facts.
If the Chinese lawyers win, we get phones and tablets and PCs without features disabled, lower prices, and a higher selection.
If the Apple Lawyers win, people who make $8/hr get to be called "geniuses" and all hardware is limited in what you can do with it, and costs twice as much.
Apple's dead 1/3 founder Jobs' thermonuclear war is destroying the company. That's ok by me.
Nobody can "leave" or "enter" an agreement. They are either "bound by it" by executing it, or they are not. Something that hasn't been signed by the parties can hardly be called a "final agremenet".
Jane Q Public: You wrote "Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all. " Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content.
That's fine. Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request [with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more) as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have.
I know the EFF is wonderful, and I support them financially and use their 4th am. packing tape to seal my packages. Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge despite "liberal University[sic] professors and jounralists] is of no positive value in this discussion.
Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters; these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact.
Stick to the facts, maam*.
E * The real facts, not opinion, not ad-hominem attacks, not straw-man arguments, not anything. My goal was to prevent disinformation -- THE EXACT THING YOU ARE NOW DOING. Stop it please and go time out.
Pen/Trace - asking for email headers and IP headers but not content. Full detail - asking for actual dump of bidirectional communication from a specific IP address or address-range.
Fact: First, there is no law requiring any action on the part of any ISP. Disclosure: I participate in running an ISP, but not one of the ones involved in this.
Fact: Some large national carriers have agreed to do some things. "Agreed" and "partnership" have no legal meaning. "An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement. For now, should it happen, it's voluntary.
Fact: No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA.
Opinion: It would be counter to the AOL decision (Zeran v AOL) that an ISP is responsible for either monitoring content, taking action based on content, or being liable for content or failing to take action based on content. That's a fourth-circuit decision that makes it likely that any ISP that doesn't want to join the "partnership" with the MPAA/RIAA can easily not opt-in to their program. Note that I didn't say "opt-out" because that would beg the question of whether there's a requirement to join.
Looking forward, I can guess that our "friends" in the MPAA/RIAA will continue their program to CHANGE THE LAW through spending lots of money, lobbying, using the influence of former senator Dodd, etc. If they can get the law to require ISPs to do so, and thereby trump the 4th circuit's AOL decision, then there will be a concern.
However, as Sonic.net's CEO Dane Jasper said ISPs should keep as little logs as possible, preferably under two weeks. That would make it difficult unless they are doing real-time DPI, analysis, investigation, and sending out C&D letters for any of this to have meaning.
While the resources necessary for ISPs to provide access under CALEA are minimal ("Here's your Ethernet port, have a nice day, Feds") the requirement to do DPI for hundreds of gigabits-per-second of data is beyond onerous -- if even achievable. Consider -- it's not just that an ISP has to monitor their "upstream" pipes, but also customer-to-customer. The amount of bandwidth inside each ISP's core is immense.
Sorry to be long-winded, but having read the other responses, I see a lot of D&G and nay-saying. I agree that the landscape is pretty harsh, and the earth is getting scorched. I see hope because I see that we have defeated SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, (and yes I know the TPP is still alive) and we can likely continue to teach our congressional non-representatives that when the majority of the country doesn't want something... it's likely not something they should support in our name.
Yes! Hi Pete! It sure is too bad Thawte's Trusted Third Party system was taken down by Verisign. I'm also unexcited that there are no email S/MIME signatures good for more than 365 days... it's a step backward.
We are happy to provide you free VPN termination for your needs. You're welcome to have us checked out. US owned, operated, our CEO is the son of a service person, and we support our armed forces. Contact sales@login.com and we'll set up whatever GRE/IPSEC/other VPN you want.
This isn't news. It's more astroturfing by the "IP is Awesome" side of the world." There's a reason that Microsoft and Big Pharma pays these guys. This paper is one such.
This didn't start out long. I apologize that it is. If you're easily bored by history I would recommend reading the first and last paragraphs:)
History: IP addresses being converted to names has existed for almost 40 years. It started as a file (hosts.txt) that users all over the ARPANet could download nightly. Usually they all did so at the same time (midnight, local time) and invariably DDN-NIC (the host with the FTP server and the file) was overloaded.
In time, it became reasonable to decentralize it. DNS was formed. Paul Mockapetris and many other intelligent people put great thought into it. DDN-NIC became NIC.DDN.MIL. BRL-AOS becaome AOS.BRL.MIL and so on. DNS servers became ubiquitous, the DNS root servers were great, and Rodney Mcdaniel (hostmaster@nic.ddn.mil) and SRI International did a great job running things.
In time, it became reasonable to decentralize _that_. Many root servers run by many independent companies (like Paul Vixie's ISC) exist all over the world. The DNS hierarchy was detached from the ARPAnet (except for pointer records... still all in.ARPA...) and country-codes were adopted.
Now I say 'adopted' because the process of creating a new TLD or gTLD or ccTLD isn't complex. It's a line in a file. However, the process of getting said line APPROVED by the powers that be is more complicated.
The ICANN Age: ICANN was created to [whatever the reason, Karl Auerbach has shown they have clearly gone outside their mandate and powers] and now they want money. How do you make money when you're clearly chartered to do ONE THING? You figure out how to create more Blue Sky.
So here we are. The final part of the decentralization. Why final? Because in the beginning we started with a one-level name: DDN-NIC. Then we went to the hierarchy "tree" model: nic.ddn.mil. And now, we are finally changing the hierarchy so the root of the tree is the father to THOUSANDS of TLDs.
You can argue if it's good or bad. I just look at the history... and know the original problem... and the reason for the solution... and the solution.
My Opinion: A rooted tree with thousands of children each having thousands of children is an abomination. I shudder to think that the DNS server (named or djdns or whatever you use) already use a relatively "large" cache. The size of this cache at a minimum is a function of the structure of the DNS tree. A 1000x1000 (TLD+SLD) tree already starts at a million entries. Each one gets at least an SOA record, which is over half a kilobyte. Add in some NS records and maybe some MXs and now you have 500MBytes+... just to initialize the cache. Icky poo.
I suppose the evil we know (ICANN) is better than the ITU running the Internet and adding termination charges for packets. Settlement-free-peering, euro-jerks.
FYI I have sold domain names for profit. One previous poster suggests we "prevent" [prohibit? criminalize?] domain name transfers. Please note that ARIN [another made up body but one that adds a lot of value unlike ICANN] prohibits IP address transfers, loans, or sales, except in specific cases of business mergers where the new entity can show it is worthy of the IP address space. This has not IN ANY WAY diminished the sale, loan, or transfer of IP address ranges. I regularly get offers for the space I'm responsible for. When there's a buyer and a seller... there's a market. My point being -- to get back to domain names -- so long as there's a buyer and a seller, domain names WILL transfer. The simplest example I can think of is to register each domain name under a new LLC. Sure, it's $7 for the domain name and $20 for the LLC... but you can then sell the LLC to anyone without it being a domain name transfer. There are other methods.
Conclusion: ICANN is an abomination and they've done nothing to help the Internet. In every "decision" they've mana
When Bruce Schneier and Eugene Kaspersky sign on, it will be apparent that there are true experts in the field.
Until then, the US Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than a joke. They disrupt airline travel, train travel, and now have roving "viper" patrols to harass motorists. They've done nothing useful in 10 years. That's right, an entire decade of harassing travelers... with nothing to show for it.
"Well you haven't seen terrorists take over airplanes, so clearly we're effective!" I haven't seen Santa Claus or Jesus either, so I'm guessing DHS took them out at the same time as all the terrorists. Either that or the terrorists really used airplanes as an attack vector 11 years ago and have now MOVED ON.
Do they know anything about "Cyber" security? If so, have they stopped using Microsoft Windows -- the number one attack vector of computer security problems -- and moved to a secure operating system? No. Are they still using Internet Explorer -- the most malware open browser -- to view the Internet? Yes. Are they still sending meeting requests to each other using Outlook -- the most malware- friendly scheduling tool -- yes.
Until DHS can demonstrate a purpose, reason for existence, an understanding of technology in general [milimeter wave spectroscopy, let alone Windows], they are not only the WRONG leader to follow. They are a loud obnoxious neighbor throwing up in everyone else's back yard.
It makes sense for "Homeland Security" to secure power grids, and critical infrastructure. They know nothing of computer security, botnets, or doing much more than confiscation. The BSA knows even less.
I would be excited to see a team of REAL security experts (Schneier and Kasperksky) working together with the folks at http://garwarner.blogspot.com/ to eliminate the real threats. Grandmothers, breastfeeding mothers, little girls with insulin pumps, and people who copy Windows 98 are _NOT_ the real threat.
Microsoft did not poo-poo the Internet. They just didn't "get it". That's par for their course.
BSD did not create the TCP/IP software stack. They just had more runs at it and by the tie Reno and Tahoe came along got it almost right.
Van Jacobson is a fairly smart guy. Pretty much if he says X then you can bet X is true.
IMPs were around long before the Internet, the NSFnet, and only applied to ARPAnet.
With all due respect to all of us who were working on networking during the 1980s... this "quote" leaves much to be desired to be truthful. Still... Van is an honest guy (great speaker too btw if you ever get a chance to hear him... you should).
Now as to those who would criticize grammar... this isn't your threat. Move along now.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have enough republican voters.
Let extinct species stay the way evolution intended them. Dead.
(also, "don't mess with mother nature" and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" ... really
these are big warnings to leave dead species alone.)
E
On a technical basis, Linux improvements have grown leaps and bound beyond Apple's, which are based on BSD. In other words, while we really are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended), the Linux ecosystem is an entirely different codebase than Apple's private fork of BSD.
One boring paragraph follows, then there's the part where I say Miguel is an ass and nobody in neither the Linux camp nor the Apple camp respects him.
The Linux Desktop is not one monolithic project. Instead it's a smorgasbord of choices. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, just plain X, IceWM, and many many many more. Each have their teams of coders who work on the X server, the Window Manager, the Display Manager, the interactions, overall themes, and lots of other factors that make each Linux desktop look unique. A simple KDE interface can resemble Win95 if you want it to. A Gnome3 desktop can resemble nothing useful if you want it to. Raw X11 can resemble SunOS 4 if you want it to. You can change these from minute to minute to figure out what works best FOR YOU. That's the power of the Linux Desktop. Its thousands of developers working on hundreds of projects allow YOU to figure out how YOU want to see the system. Apple, in contrast, has dozens of developers working on the desktop. Your choice is exactly what they decide. If you like it, then congratulations, you win. If you don't, you're one of the hundreds of thousands ex-Apple users now using Linux.
Miguel De Icaza has a record of opening his mouth and letting his personal opinion that contradicts fact and reason spew forth. This is no different. The man's record speaks for itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=miguel+de+icaza+traitor . I have no hard evidence that he's the antichrist, as some have claimed, and that's not germaine. WHAT IS is that HE IS BIASED and ADMITTEDLY SO when he says something you should remember this isn't your grandfather patting you on the back and saying "Apple killed the linux desktop because they are so good"... it's Miguel "Liar liar pants on fire whose paying for my opinion today I've sold out the Linux community before and I'm doing it again" De Icaza saying it. BTW, "De Icaza" is Spanish for "full of XXXX."
E
...is still a troll.
If Hitler contributed $5 to the Boy Scouts, is he still not a monster
E
* Yes I invoke Godwin's law.
All of Apple's products support the old 3G frequencies. 1.8GHz is not in that range.
That's why they traditionally have slower network access than any other devices
(Android, etc.).
The devices are "capable of 4G" but since they aren't designed to DO 4G they
DON'T DO 4G.
Typical apple.
E
The "problem" isn't file sharing. That's legal. It's not linking. It's legal. What's against the law
are violations of the law (e.g. copyright).
HOWEVER, in saying "don't come after us, go after linking sites" rapidshare has thrown the
babies to the wolves in hopes that they can evade a similar fate.
Rapidshare, for that, deserves to die. Linking sites and sharing sites are legal. The US Federal
government and its ICE dogs will sooner or later be brought to task. (Rojadirecta probably).
We'll still remember that Rapidshare threw everyone else to the dogs.
E
Do we really need to be taught by lumbering dinosaurs who have reached their tenured position
only through hidining below the radar, pubilshing papers instead of teaching, and who don't
understand the "modern" aspects of algebra, CAI, and office-time?
Clearly not. It's time to remove the onerous obligations of students to have to put up with these
dinosaurs, and eliminate "teach for the sake of having a free lifetime job" from the manual. If
you love to teach, teach. If you'd like to do research, find a grant and research. If all you want
to do is avoid students and kvetch about how "some other department with whom I have a feud
in my mind" is valueless, go get a job. A real job. One where if you screw up or don't do anything
you get fired.
Then from atop that dais come preach to us how other people are teaching useless things.
E
If you read nothing else, read the first and last paragraphs [following this one ;)].
They address exactly what the OP brought up and why it is not accurate.
Putting aside for just one brief paragraph whether Ethernet has led to the Internet,
Ethernet was developed by DIX - Digital [Equipment Corporation], Intel, and Xerox
in no particular order except that's the name they used. Bob Metcalfe -- cofounder
of 3Com -- has lectured about this for ages, Don't confuse the network we use
today (Ethernet II, 802.3, 802.1q, 10Base-T, 100Base-TX, 1000Base-anything, etc.)
with the original Ethernet [I] spec. Always build on the works of other giants.
Now back to the original claims. There were many networking standards, and IP was
just one of them. Originally computers did not talk to many other computers, even
in the same room. Original DECnet systems would each talk to one or more other
systems, and would relay messages -- much as Usenet did to text.
Ethernet was not the first bus-based network topology. Token-Ring was a strong
competitor, pushed by the great might of IBM. Debates raged as to which was
better, 4Mbps guaranteed-time slots (think like TDMA) or 10Mbps collission-detect
carrier sense multiple access (CSMA) that guaranteed nothing. The rule of thumb
was if you had two "stations" and one was transmitting a bitstream and the other
was sending nothing you could APPROACH 10Mbps. If the two talked to each
other then 5Mbps, and so on. The advent of full-duplex technology (10Base-T)
moved the "bus" into the center of one device (a hub) from which spokes connected
nodes. (You'll note that means it really is a star configuration).
Original Ethernet ran on big fat cables. To connect to it you used a big clamp on
connector with a "tooth" that pierced the outer insulation and hit the center conductor.
Those were called vampire taps. Ethernet at that point was 10Base5. 10MBps, 500m.
Then came "thinwire". Using BNC connectors, T-s for taps, and dual-connectors to
extend, 10Base2 got us 10Mbps at 200m. That was pretty much it.
Aside: around this time someone thought to resurrect token-ring but make it use
expensive glass fiber that needed expensive splicing -- to power the "desktop!"
This 100Mbps network was Fiber Distributed Data Interface.
Anyway so now we come to the part where we have
a. IP and TCP/IP
b. A bus-based network to allow many to many communication
And thus the ARPANET was born. It wasn't to fight a war, it was to do research.
The US military -- reporting to the same US DoD that funded ARPA -- thought it
was such a great idea they created a network called MILNET.
The original systems used specialized computers running specialized code to be
Internet Message Processors (IMPs). These complex one-of-a-kind systems are
what today are outscaled, outpaced, outperformed, and outfeatured by a $50
router running DD-WRT (not to mention WiFi)...
The Internet did not exist because computers in one room could talk to each other
via Ethernet. It exists because that one room could talk to ANOTHER ROOM in
a far away place. Internet means "Interconnected Networks". One Ethernet in
place A talking to one Ethernet in place B.... now THAT's interconnection.
Ehud
I appreciate that you used big words.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Rights of way are not "public infrastructure" and your use of the word "crowdsource" really means
"make it someone else's problem."
Why don't you, instead of delegated to "everyone else to solve my problem" of "things I misstate or
don't understand" just go away.
Slashdot editors... shame on you. This is a non-story about a guy who knows nothing trying to make
a story about nothing and hoping other people find something.
It's a non-starter.
E
How awful. You buy this hardware. Then you can control what runs on it?
Seriously?
Someone should go shoot someone else. It's against everything that's right
to be able to run whatever you want on your own hardware. That you paid for.
That you purchased. That you own. That you should be able to do whatever
you damn well please.
RMS said it best.
E
Groklaw provides the rulings in PDF and text form. Whether they have a bias or not,
the rulings are shown as is.
In the instant case the jury was eleven to one against Microsoft. Judge Motz -- who
flew in to handle this case from outside his district (!?!) -- ruled afteward that no reasonable
jury would have found for Novell and against Microsoft.
He has already been overturned on appeal once. He will be overturned again. /.
Microsoft shils notwithstanding (they pay people to say Microsoft-does-no-evil on
and other places), they will be found guilty.
It may not be relevant to much nowadays, seeing as Windows 95, Wordperfect, etc.
are all obsolete irrelevant things, but it's part of the legal process. Just like we don't
excuse rape because "Well it happened to you ten years ago" the same is true of
anticompetitive unlawful actions.
Sorry, Microsoft Fanbois, time to man up and quit modding everything you don't like
down. The truth is out there, and it will be set free. The Internet views censorship
as damage and routes around it (--Gilmore). The same is true for biased modding
and shil posting.
Ehud
Tucson AZ US
OP is right.
Judge Motz (who flew out of his district to run this court) ignored an 11:1 "hung jury"
and voted to say no jury could find against Microsoft. He's already once been handed
his case back on appeal because he's too pro-Microsoft.
There is no excuse to allow a JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) -- implying no
reasonable jury would find for Microsoft -- when the jury was 11 to 1 in favor of
finding Microsoft guilty. This too will be returned to trial by the appeals court.
There's no excuse for the article to be on slashdot. It's entire "summary" is biased
and incorrect. The editors who approved it have no knowledge of facts. The
moderators who modded down the parent are clearly part of Microsoft's encouragement
of its staff to "read" slashdot (troll on articles) in the hopes they can mod down
disparaging articles.
Judge Motz is biased; he has flown from outside his district to judge this case; he
has been overruled on appeal ON THIS CASE before. It will happen again. All but
that last comment are facts.
See http://www.groklaw.net./
Ehud
If the Chinese lawyers win, we get phones and tablets and PCs without features disabled,
lower prices, and a higher selection.
If the Apple Lawyers win, people who make $8/hr get to be called "geniuses" and all
hardware is limited in what you can do with it, and costs twice as much.
Apple's dead 1/3 founder Jobs' thermonuclear war is destroying the company. That's ok
by me.
E
MoUs are nonbinding and have no force of law.
Nobody can "leave" or "enter" an agreement. They are either "bound by it" by executing it, or they are not.
Something that hasn't been signed by the parties can hardly be called a "final agremenet".
Cheers,
Ehud
"Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer)"
When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks.
Please take your spewage elsewhere. This thread doesn't need more of your misinformation,
and your attacks on my name are at best below the belt.
Best regards,
Ehud (sound of someone who has no tolerance for idiots)
This so off-topic as to be absurd.
Jane Q Public: You wrote "Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all. "
Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content.
That's fine. Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request
[with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more)
as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have.
I know the EFF is wonderful, and I support them financially and use their 4th am. packing tape to seal my packages.
Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge despite "liberal
University[sic] professors and jounralists] is of no positive value in this discussion.
Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters;
these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact.
Stick to the facts, maam*.
E
* The real facts, not opinion, not ad-hominem attacks, not straw-man arguments, not anything.
My goal was to prevent disinformation -- THE EXACT THING YOU ARE NOW DOING. Stop it please and go time out.
CALEA applies to Internet communication.
Pen/Trace - asking for email headers and IP headers but not content.
Full detail - asking for actual dump of bidirectional communication from a specific IP address or address-range.
See ISPs can be requested to forward all traffic...
or a company that helps ISPs comply...
or this has been a law since 2007...
To find these things check out this link.
Fact: I appreciate your copying my style. However, when doing so, please ensure that after the word "Fact:" comes a fact.
Ehud
Fact:
First, there is no law requiring any action on the part of any ISP.
Disclosure: I participate in running an ISP, but not one of the ones involved in this.
Fact:
Some large national carriers have agreed to do some things. "Agreed" and "partnership" have no legal meaning. "An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement. For now, should it happen, it's voluntary.
Fact:
No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA.
Opinion:
It would be counter to the AOL decision (Zeran v AOL) that an ISP is responsible for either monitoring content, taking action based on content, or being liable for content or failing to take action based on content. That's a fourth-circuit decision that makes it likely that any ISP that doesn't want to join the "partnership" with the MPAA/RIAA can easily not opt-in to their program. Note that I didn't say "opt-out" because that would beg the question of whether there's a requirement to join.
Looking forward, I can guess that our "friends" in the MPAA/RIAA will continue their program to CHANGE THE LAW through spending lots of money, lobbying, using the influence of former senator Dodd, etc. If they can get the law to require ISPs to do so, and thereby trump the 4th circuit's AOL decision, then there will be a concern.
However, as Sonic.net's CEO Dane Jasper said ISPs should keep as little logs as possible, preferably under two weeks. That would make it difficult unless they are doing real-time DPI, analysis, investigation, and sending out C&D letters for any of this to have meaning.
While the resources necessary for ISPs to provide access under CALEA are minimal ("Here's your Ethernet port, have a nice day, Feds") the requirement to do DPI for hundreds of gigabits-per-second of data is beyond onerous -- if even achievable. Consider -- it's not just that an ISP has to monitor their "upstream" pipes, but also customer-to-customer. The amount of bandwidth inside each ISP's core is immense.
Sorry to be long-winded, but having read the other responses, I see a lot of D&G and nay-saying. I agree that the landscape is pretty harsh, and the earth is getting scorched. I see hope because I see that we have defeated SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, (and yes I know the TPP is still alive) and we can likely continue to teach our congressional non-representatives that when the majority of the country doesn't want something ... it's likely not something they should support in our name.
Ehud
Yes! Hi Pete! It sure is too bad Thawte's Trusted Third Party system was taken down
by Verisign. I'm also unexcited that there are no email S/MIME signatures good for more
than 365 days... it's a step backward.
Ehud
We are happy to provide you free VPN termination for your needs. You're welcome to have us
checked out. US owned, operated, our CEO is the son of a service person, and we support our
armed forces. Contact sales@login.com and we'll set up whatever GRE/IPSEC/other VPN you
want.
Thank you for your service.
Ehud Gavron
Login, Inc.
Tucson AZ US
This pro-ACTA pro-IP organization writes lots of so-called white-papers.
This is one more of the same.
Think of them as a lobbyist organization for the pro-IP side of the world
including Big Pharma and Microsoft: http://www.pugatch-consilium.com/?page_id=580
Here's their list of publications which includes pro-ACTA stuff:
http://www.pugatch-consilium.com/?page_id=590
This isn't news. It's more astroturfing by the "IP is Awesome" side of the world."
There's a reason that Microsoft and Big Pharma pays these guys. This paper is one such.
E
This didn't start out long. I apologize that it is. If you're easily bored by history I would recommend :)
reading the first and last paragraphs
History:
IP addresses being converted to names has existed for almost 40 years. It started as a file
(hosts.txt) that users all over the ARPANet could download nightly. Usually they all did so at
the same time (midnight, local time) and invariably DDN-NIC (the host with the FTP server
and the file) was overloaded.
In time, it became reasonable to decentralize it. DNS was formed. Paul Mockapetris and many
other intelligent people put great thought into it. DDN-NIC became NIC.DDN.MIL. BRL-AOS
becaome AOS.BRL.MIL and so on. DNS servers became ubiquitous, the DNS root servers
were great, and Rodney Mcdaniel (hostmaster@nic.ddn.mil) and SRI International did a great
job running things.
In time, it became reasonable to decentralize _that_. Many root servers run by many independent .ARPA...) and country-codes were adopted.
companies (like Paul Vixie's ISC) exist all over the world. The DNS hierarchy was detached from
the ARPAnet (except for pointer records... still all in
Now I say 'adopted' because the process of creating a new TLD or gTLD or ccTLD isn't complex.
It's a line in a file. However, the process of getting said line APPROVED by the powers that be
is more complicated.
The ICANN Age:
ICANN was created to [whatever the reason, Karl Auerbach has shown they have clearly gone
outside their mandate and powers] and now they want money. How do you make money when
you're clearly chartered to do ONE THING? You figure out how to create more Blue Sky.
So here we are. The final part of the decentralization. Why final? Because in the beginning
we started with a one-level name: DDN-NIC. Then we went to the hierarchy "tree" model:
nic.ddn.mil. And now, we are finally changing the hierarchy so the root of the tree is the
father to THOUSANDS of TLDs.
You can argue if it's good or bad. I just look at the history... and know the original problem...
and the reason for the solution... and the solution.
My Opinion:
A rooted tree with thousands of children each having thousands of children is an abomination.
I shudder to think that the DNS server (named or djdns or whatever you use) already use
a relatively "large" cache. The size of this cache at a minimum is a function of the structure
of the DNS tree. A 1000x1000 (TLD+SLD) tree already starts at a million entries. Each one
gets at least an SOA record, which is over half a kilobyte. Add in some NS records and maybe
some MXs and now you have 500MBytes+... just to initialize the cache. Icky poo.
I suppose the evil we know (ICANN) is better than the ITU running the Internet and adding
termination charges for packets. Settlement-free-peering, euro-jerks.
FYI I have sold domain names for profit. One previous poster suggests we "prevent" [prohibit?
criminalize?] domain name transfers. Please note that ARIN [another made up body but one
that adds a lot of value unlike ICANN] prohibits IP address transfers, loans, or sales, except
in specific cases of business mergers where the new entity can show it is worthy of the IP
address space. This has not IN ANY WAY diminished the sale, loan, or transfer of IP address
ranges. I regularly get offers for the space I'm responsible for. When there's a buyer and a
seller... there's a market. My point being -- to get back to domain names -- so long as there's
a buyer and a seller, domain names WILL transfer. The simplest example I can think of is to
register each domain name under a new LLC. Sure, it's $7 for the domain name and $20
for the LLC... but you can then sell the LLC to anyone without it being a domain name transfer.
There are other methods.
Conclusion:
ICANN is an abomination and they've done nothing to help the Internet. In every "decision"
they've mana
When Bruce Schneier and Eugene Kaspersky sign on, it will be apparent that there
are true experts in the field.
Until then, the US Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than a joke.
They disrupt airline travel, train travel, and now have roving "viper" patrols to
harass motorists. They've done nothing useful in 10 years. That's right, an
entire decade of harassing travelers... with nothing to show for it.
"Well you haven't seen terrorists take over airplanes, so clearly we're effective!"
I haven't seen Santa Claus or Jesus either, so I'm guessing DHS took them out
at the same time as all the terrorists. Either that or the terrorists really used
airplanes as an attack vector 11 years ago and have now MOVED ON.
Do they know anything about "Cyber" security? If so, have they stopped using
Microsoft Windows -- the number one attack vector of computer security problems --
and moved to a secure operating system? No. Are they still using Internet
Explorer -- the most malware open browser -- to view the Internet? Yes. Are they
still sending meeting requests to each other using Outlook -- the most malware-
friendly scheduling tool -- yes.
Until DHS can demonstrate a purpose, reason for existence, an understanding of
technology in general [milimeter wave spectroscopy, let alone Windows], they are
not only the WRONG leader to follow. They are a loud obnoxious neighbor throwing
up in everyone else's back yard.
E
We can't expect Canadians to have the same freedoms we in the US have.
Freedom to arrest Kim DotCom in New Zealand with no evidence.
Freedom to fine Jamie Thomas millions of dollars.
Freedom to let the MAFIAA do whatever they like.
Welcome to the family, brother Canada,
E
It makes sense for "Homeland Security" to secure power grids, and critical infrastructure.
They know nothing of computer security, botnets, or doing much more than confiscation.
The BSA knows even less.
I would be excited to see a team of REAL security experts (Schneier and Kasperksky)
working together with the folks at http://garwarner.blogspot.com/ to eliminate the real threats.
Grandmothers, breastfeeding mothers, little girls with insulin pumps, and people who copy
Windows 98 are _NOT_ the real threat.
Ehud
Sorry to all those who tried to be clever.
Microsoft did not poo-poo the Internet. They just didn't "get it". That's par for their course.
BSD did not create the TCP/IP software stack. They just had more runs at it and by the tie Reno and Tahoe came along got it almost right.
Van Jacobson is a fairly smart guy. Pretty much if he says X then you can bet X is true.
IMPs were around long before the Internet, the NSFnet, and only applied to ARPAnet.
With all due respect to all of us who were working on networking during the 1980s... this "quote" leaves much to be desired to be truthful.
Still... Van is an honest guy (great speaker too btw if you ever get a chance to hear him... you should).
Now as to those who would criticize grammar... this isn't your threat. Move along now.
Slashdot mods: step off.
E