So, with these, everyone will win. The Greenies cute little dolphins don't have to kill, and the US Navy can continue to enforce the Pax Americana, and the rest of the world (except for evildoers) can go about their business, criticizing war mongering Americans, yet profiting from the most peaceful age the world has known since the Roman Empire.
Pax Americana? The most peaceful age the world has known since the Roman Empire?
Sure, If you define it as the state of perpetual war that has existed since the 1930's: our governmentt has been going around the world finding excuses to pick a fight with almost anyone, and the result is large numbers of people in a crazed and desperate enough state of mind to fly a perfectly good airplane into a building full of people, and this is, of course, an age of unprecedented peace among mankind?
Perhaps its due to a preponderance of people who think that naval surveillance drones have something to do with training trusting sea mammals to be suicide bombers...
There are tons of symmetric encryption methods ranging from patented to totally free. They all have the property of being effectively unbreakable with decent keysizes. Unlike your proposed method, they dont require ridiculously large keysizes. I really dont see the commercial potential, or even the potential for significant non-commercial use.
The method you describe would actually have significant *disadvantages*, such as being ill-suited for use with asymmetric cyphers. The advantages are proof (i.e. unbreakable) against brute force attacks and known-plaintext attacks (unlike the OTP).
I dont see how a one time pad wouldnt have these properties. Note that the name is One Time Pad, so if you reuse the pad, its not one time anymore.
If copyright is not morally sound, wouldn't plagerism at least be immoral? Plagerism is very clearly the theft of someone else's intellectual property (this is about as black and white as you can get).
Plagiarism, done for the purpose of demonstrating that you have a capacity which you do not, is fraud. Done for diverting credit from the true author is dishonesty. "Copyright Infringement" isnt one of the seven deadly sins, last I checked.
Repeating an interesting phase and not explicitly giving credit is human nature. Almost every phrase you can contruct hasn been uttered by someone else before: giving credit to each original speaker is beyond tedious.
Theft of service doesn't involve the removal of property from the victim's possession. The software I write is information, which belongs in a category of information that people don't mind paying for:
- Doctors' diagnoses and prescriptions
- Advice from a lawyer
- Blueprints from an architect
- Complete and correct 1040 forms from an accountant.
These people pay for service because the doc has to do specific work for their individual case, which is only of value to them. What they are NOT buying is the doc's textbooks, medical database, thesis, etc. (For example if a doc makes a diagnosis for your illness, that same diagnosis doesnt work for anyone else )
If this was applied to software, you would imagine that a customer would not buy your documentation, binaries, etc. Instead they would pay for: customization code specific for them, support for configuration, physical media copies, expertise, etc. (Work that is valuble to them specifically)
The problem is really that software is a service, and trying to artifically apply a scarcity model upon it (the physical goods model) is unnatural.
The truth is, most programmers cling to copy restriction legislation because they know theyll never become a billionare in a service economy.
As a programmer, I feel the same way too. As a user of software Im tired of paying monopoly rent. And I dont even use any commercial software, yet I still pay for it inevitably (when i buy a new PC, or when its integrated into scholastic fees, or when the gov't pays for it with my tax money)
Ahem. I've no love for the despicable copyright barons, but I've no love for mindless circular arguments either. If you copy my software, you've devalued what I do for 60 hours a week.
What you do is work speculatively, expecting that people will pay for copies of what you do. If nobody wanted your software at all, then you couldnt complain, obviously, that by not buying your software they are devaluing what you do for 60hrs a week.
Similarly, if only a few people bought your software, but they were very effective in sharing it without making additional copies (perhaps by loaning the CD around, or whatever) you have simply miscalculated the market in your speculation, like a farmer who tills the desert, you cannot complain that noone will pay for your nonexistant crops.
If copy restriction goes out of favor, as it should, then you will have to find a new way to earn money (just as will I). Perhaps working on a contract basis, where you get paid up front, would be a good idea.
What you cannot support, morally, is that a transaction between two third parties, which involves niether you nor any physical materials that you own, can devalue any materials that you own. (They can make speculative decisions you have made less lucrative, but you are responsible for your own choices)
Though what he did was illegal, I just dont feel it to be immoral. Sharing information or music or ideas just doesnt raise the sin-o-meter at all.
The fact is that something which is not naturally immoral (sharing) can be made to give people pangs of guilt through conditioning. The "IP" establishment thinks that if they continue to pound into peoples heads that "Copying is stealing" and "Sharing is evil", then people will actually start to believe it. (In fact it does work to a limited extent) What will actually happen is that the harder they push the party line, the more people will see through it, and the harder they enforce the rules, the more people will protest them (or realize they exist at all).
At some point in the future, the whole copyright cartel is going to falter. Its not human nature to hoarde information, opinions, or ideas. It is in our nature to share ideas that we have discovered, and hopefully our economies will have enough time to get out of the way and figure out new business models before its too late.
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law rant?
Its makes sense, that if some piece of software is going to make legally binding judgements against you, that you should at least get to see the source code. If not, then how the hell do you really know what the law is...
It more of a commercial service than a residential one, but we do exactly what you describe: the custom TCP acceleration is in the embedded box itself. (Although the real heavy lifting is done by a linux box on the ISP side)
We test with mostly Linux and Win2k, but apples should work fine over regular ethernet. Ne special software is needed to run a client site. Just plug and play (It also does DHCP and DNS-caching)
Right now I'm running Windows 2k, working through some bugs in a custom DCOM object. So I guess I'm a corporate sheep. In an hour or so I'll be working through some fortran code in unix. Then I'm a greasy peace loving hippy.
Although I agree about not subscribing to archtypes, you need to pick some better examples:
someone will code it up because that's what they're paid to do. As opposed to the open-source problem of finding someone who wants to do it.
But that in fact is one of free softwares greatest advantage! Self Selection
Consider this: people who like to do something are generally better at it than those who dont like to do it. (they like it because they are good at it, and they are good at it because they like it)
In a salaried developers time he may find himself working on pieces that hes not thrilled about. In a free software environment, the developer is always working on whatever grips his interest.
When someone comes around to wanting to do a spellchecker for free software, its damn likely theyll do it as well as they can, with no mind to deadlines, manager politics, or the other things theyd much rather be working on.
I went ahead and downloaded the two full tracks that "Tallman" has to offer on their site. After listening to the bland formulaic dated head-banger crap, I think I realize why this eager to sell out band hasnt been picked up by any major studio: they suck. (IMO,YMMV)
Artists who wish to make their music/code/prose/whatever are supposed to do it because they like to. Becoming a consumerist success is NOT nirvana.
In addition IE is required for the pages that have speech, since that uses MS Agent, and there is no comparable technology for Netscape.
You used MS-Agent and technology in the same sentence! I can think of a portable systems which provide text-to-speech (festival), and its certainly possibly to provide the page without "speech", or with a few sound clips in ogg or mp3.
Also, some languages are trivial to text to speech, such as japanese. (trivial as in a perl script and a directory with sound clips could probably doit in real time)
Well, mostly my problem is that I have no way of getting any version of IE going, and I really wanted to try the language sections, so I am bummed:( If they ould at least allow me to attempt to use it with Moz/linux, maybe I could get a reduced functionality version, rather than being redirected by the cgi.
Netmar does run SMTP service, for incoming mail only, they do not relay,[snip] , the customers simply use their ISPs mail server as relay.
So there is an SMTP daemon running at your hosting provider that will recieve messages destined for you, bit wont accept messages coming from you? Unlikely, since receiving is the resource intensive part. Regardless, you cant reach port 25 on that machine from your ISP because they require you to use their relay? That pretty much isolates the problem, right at the ISP. Maybe youll look for a new ISP when they start appending pr0n spam attachments to all outgoing mail...
Something unforseen in DNS: the possibility that someones recieve SMTP might be different than their transmit SMTP, or that anyone would care what their transmit SMTP was at all. If there was such a concept, youd be in business.
On the other hand, If your ISP will relay, could you not also get them to recieve incoming email for you? (they are an ISP)
Tele-workers without a VPN connection Doing evening work from home without a VPN connection Doing weekend work from home without a VPN connection Working while "on the road" without a VPN connection
The same mechanism allows pretty much anyone to send mail supposedly from you.
And VPN connections right new are relatively primitive, I agree, hard to setup and not very well standardized.(Unless you know openssh, with which you can setup a secure tunnel trivially)
The solution being currently to accept email as a wild free-for-all, to put up with spam or try to block it with crude hueristics, and to count on people not to forge source addresses to much. This just doesnt sit well with me. Why do we all accept this sorry state so readily?
I don't think you get it. I have a web site, it is on www.netmar.com for hosting. Their MX record points to mail.netmar.com. My domains have mail.netmar.com as their MX. I check my mail by POPing mail.netmar.com. Netmar does not have SMTP available.
This is what mx records were supposed to be for: if you want the mail service to be run on a different machine for a domain than the web service, you set the mx records appropriately. mx records are supposed to be for SMTP servers.
Why should everyone make themselves vulnerable to source address spoofing just so you can contiune having a misconfigured DNS?
And if you have an ISP that blocks outgoing packets based on port number, well they just suck. Avoid them like the plague. You have no business running a mail server behind a "ISP" that has a noservers policy anyway.
For outgoing mail, its trivial to send it yourself, directly to the recipients incoming email server.
For incoming mail proxies, you could obviously configure your smtp agent to "trust" one upstream mail server. Thats hugely different than trusting the whole internet.
As for virtual domains, so long as they resolve to the correct machine its not a problem. If the mx records resolve to your ISP's mail server, THATS FINE, it doesnt care about the other record types.
Its not poorly thought out, its the way things should have been done from the beginning.
Unlike most I dont think there should be laws against spam: instead why not fix spam in a technical manner.
One simple solution would be only to accept mail from joe@XYZ.com only from XYZ.com's mailserver.
Second would be to make it cost-innefective for the spammer: if your mail program required a handshake (such as a herbivore public-key exchange) and then an encrypted message content, The spammer would have to individually encrypt and send each email to each recipient. This would make spamming vastly unprofitable.
There are many other solution such as these, and there should never be need for stupid laws. I see an smtp server as no different than an http one.
Global warming, chemical, noise, and petroleum poisoning of the worlds oceans are a larger long-term concerns than whaling. Habitat destruction is also a major factor.
Japanese whaling is on a decline, moreso to economic issues than political. The current level of external pressure, combined with the abating of japanese propensity for whale-meat consumption (it is mostly older japanese who eat whale) is likely sufficient to put and end to commercial whaling.
I am also a subscriber to the hunting-extinction theory.
Most of the arguments against the human-driven extinction of the mammoths are based upon population sizes and the difficulty of taking down a mammoth for primitive humans.
What most academics arent considering is that when humans gain access to an easy supply of food, such as mammoth meat, population sizes will spike nicely to take advantage of the resource. Since the mammoths would become increasingly scarce as they were overhunted, the human population of mammoth hunters would also decline. After the last mammoth was eaten, the survivors would switch to other large game. Such a brief spike in human population size would not leave an overwhelming fossil record, because the time involved is so short.
As for how hard mammoths were to take down: its best not to underestimate humans ability to kill things, for fairly obvious reasons. Some academics are quick to belittle the capabilities of earlier humans, probably stemming from their isolation and distance from field survival situations.
Its sad that we as a species continue this trend even to this day. Whales are continuing to decline. Its morose when environmentalist try to push beached whales back into the water: they generally beach themselves due to poisoning or internal injuries casued by human actions and byproducts.
the drive is responsible for enforcing this - it happens below the OS level
Well, thats just about as effective as CSS, a few bits that say "Please dont play this!".
They amount to be effectively identical, which is why they get lumped together. Also, the Key distribution of CSS *is* region specific, so its not possible to be region free and CSS'd, because not all dvd players have all decrytion keys, they only have the ones for their region. (This is more based upon the implementation rather than the algorithm of css)
Slashdot Mirror
If the linked to site doesnt work for you (it doesnt for me under mozilla 1.0), get the image directly from here
Compare it to MS's image
Do you have a link to more information on that?
Google came up empty for me...
So, with these, everyone will win. The Greenies cute little dolphins don't have to kill, and the US Navy can continue to enforce the Pax Americana, and the rest of the world (except for evildoers) can go about their business, criticizing war mongering Americans, yet profiting from the most peaceful age the world has known since the Roman Empire.
Pax Americana?
The most peaceful age the world has known since the Roman Empire?
Sure, If you define it as the state of perpetual war that has existed since the 1930's: our governmentt has been going around the world finding excuses to pick a fight with almost anyone, and the result is large numbers of people in a crazed and desperate enough state of mind to fly a perfectly good airplane into a building full of people, and this is, of course, an age of unprecedented peace among mankind?
Perhaps its due to a preponderance of people who think that naval surveillance drones have something to do with training trusting sea mammals to be suicide bombers...
There are tons of symmetric encryption methods ranging from patented to totally free. They all have the property of being effectively unbreakable with decent keysizes. Unlike your proposed method, they dont require ridiculously large keysizes. I really dont see the commercial potential, or even the potential for significant non-commercial use.
The method you describe would actually have significant *disadvantages*, such as being ill-suited for use with asymmetric cyphers.
The advantages are proof (i.e. unbreakable) against brute force attacks and known-plaintext attacks (unlike the OTP).
I dont see how a one time pad wouldnt have these properties. Note that the name is One Time Pad, so if you reuse the pad, its not one time anymore.
If copyright is not morally sound, wouldn't plagerism at least be immoral? Plagerism is very clearly the theft of someone else's intellectual property (this is about as black and white as you can get).
Plagiarism, done for the purpose of demonstrating that you have a capacity which you do not, is fraud. Done for diverting credit from the true author is dishonesty. "Copyright Infringement" isnt one of the seven deadly sins, last I checked.
Repeating an interesting phase and not explicitly giving credit is human nature. Almost every phrase you can contruct hasn been uttered by someone else before: giving credit to each original speaker is beyond tedious.
The law (good or bad) is being broken. Who should the copywrite holders go after? The tools or the abusers.
You almost got it right; it should be: The law (good or bad) is broken. Who should go after the copyright holders? The tools (artists) or the users.
Theft of service doesn't involve the removal of property from the victim's possession. The software I write is information, which belongs in a category of information that people don't mind paying for:
- Doctors' diagnoses and prescriptions
- Advice from a lawyer
- Blueprints from an architect
- Complete and correct 1040 forms from an accountant.
These people pay for service because the doc has to do specific work for their individual case, which is only of value to them. What they are NOT buying is the doc's textbooks, medical database, thesis, etc. (For example if a doc makes a diagnosis for your illness, that same diagnosis doesnt work for anyone else )
If this was applied to software, you would imagine that a customer would not buy your documentation, binaries, etc. Instead they would pay for: customization code specific for them, support for configuration, physical media copies, expertise, etc. (Work that is valuble to them specifically)
The problem is really that software is a service, and trying to artifically apply a scarcity model upon it (the physical goods model) is unnatural.
The truth is, most programmers cling to copy restriction legislation because they know theyll never become a billionare in a service economy.
As a programmer, I feel the same way too. As a user of software Im tired of paying monopoly rent. And I dont even use any commercial software, yet I still pay for it inevitably (when i buy a new PC, or when its integrated into scholastic fees, or when the gov't pays for it with my tax money)
Ahem. I've no love for the despicable copyright barons, but I've no love for mindless circular arguments either. If you copy my software, you've devalued what I do for 60 hours a week.
What you do is work speculatively, expecting that people will pay for copies of what you do. If nobody wanted your software at all, then you couldnt complain, obviously, that by not buying your software they are devaluing what you do for 60hrs a week.
Similarly, if only a few people bought your software, but they were very effective in sharing it without making additional copies (perhaps by loaning the CD around, or whatever) you have simply miscalculated the market in your speculation, like a farmer who tills the desert, you cannot complain that noone will pay for your nonexistant crops.
If copy restriction goes out of favor, as it should, then you will have to find a new way to earn money (just as will I). Perhaps working on a contract basis, where you get paid up front, would be a good idea.
What you cannot support, morally, is that a transaction between two third parties, which involves niether you nor any physical materials that you own, can devalue any materials that you own. (They can make speculative decisions you have made less lucrative, but you are responsible for your own choices)
Also, 60 hrs work/week sux
Though what he did was illegal, I just dont feel it to be immoral. Sharing information or music or ideas just doesnt raise the sin-o-meter at all.
The fact is that something which is not naturally immoral (sharing) can be made to give people pangs of guilt through conditioning. The "IP" establishment thinks that if they continue to pound into peoples heads that "Copying is stealing" and "Sharing is evil", then people will actually start to believe it. (In fact it does work to a limited extent) What will actually happen is that the harder they push the party line, the more people will see through it, and the harder they enforce the rules, the more people will protest them (or realize they exist at all).
At some point in the future, the whole copyright cartel is going to falter. Its not human nature to hoarde information, opinions, or ideas. It is in our nature to share ideas that we have discovered, and hopefully our economies will have enough time to get out of the way and figure out new business models before its too late.
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law rant?
Its makes sense, that if some piece of software is going to make legally binding judgements against you, that you should at least get to see the source code.
If not, then how the hell do you really know what the law is...
It more of a commercial service than a residential one, but we do exactly what you describe: the custom TCP acceleration is in the embedded box itself. (Although the real heavy lifting is done by a linux box on the ISP side)
We test with mostly Linux and Win2k, but apples should work fine over regular ethernet. Ne special software is needed to run a client site. Just plug and play (It also does DHCP and DNS-caching)
Look at http://idirect.net/
Its a pretty good programming gig, I get to work with gcc/cvs/all my favorites.
jmaiorana at idirect.net
Right now I'm running Windows 2k, working through some bugs in a custom DCOM object. So I guess I'm a corporate sheep. In an hour or so I'll be working through some fortran code in unix. Then I'm a greasy peace loving hippy.
Although I agree about not subscribing to archtypes, you need to pick some better examples:
someone will code it up because that's what they're paid to do. As opposed to the open-source problem of finding someone who wants to do it.
But that in fact is one of free softwares greatest advantage! Self Selection
Consider this: people who like to do something are generally better at it than those who dont like to do it. (they like it because they are good at it, and they are good at it because they like it)
In a salaried developers time he may find himself working on pieces that hes not thrilled about. In a free software environment, the developer is always working on whatever grips his interest.
When someone comes around to wanting to do a spellchecker for free software, its damn likely theyll do it as well as they can, with no mind to deadlines, manager politics, or the other things theyd much rather be working on.
I went ahead and downloaded the two full tracks that "Tallman" has to offer on their site. After listening to the bland formulaic dated head-banger crap, I think I realize why this eager to sell out band hasnt been picked up by any major studio: they suck. (IMO,YMMV)
Artists who wish to make their music/code/prose/whatever are supposed to do it because they like to. Becoming a consumerist success is NOT nirvana.
What a waste of bandwidth.
In addition IE is required for the pages that have speech, since that uses MS Agent, and there is no comparable technology for Netscape.
You used MS-Agent and technology in the same sentence! I can think of a portable systems which provide text-to-speech (festival), and its certainly possibly to provide the page without "speech", or with a few sound clips in ogg or mp3.
Also, some languages are trivial to text to speech, such as japanese. (trivial as in a perl script and a directory with sound clips could probably doit in real time)
Well, mostly my problem is that I have no way of getting any version of IE going, and I really wanted to try the language sections, so I am bummed
$wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/pub/archiving/zip/src/unzip542.t
$cd unzip
$make
$su -c "make install"
Point is that if you had to be nickled and dimed for every POS program on your computer, we'd still be reimplementing bubble sort.
Apparently literate programming was not enough to allow the developers of evisa.com to avoid making yet another site that only works with IE 5.5+.
Unimpressive.
Netmar does run SMTP service, for incoming mail only, they do not relay,[snip] , the customers simply use their ISPs mail server as relay.
So there is an SMTP daemon running at your hosting provider that will recieve messages destined for you, bit wont accept messages coming from you? Unlikely, since receiving is the resource intensive part. Regardless, you cant reach port 25 on that machine from your ISP because they require you to use their relay? That pretty much isolates the problem, right at the ISP. Maybe youll look for a new ISP when they start appending pr0n spam attachments to all outgoing mail...
Something unforseen in DNS: the possibility that someones recieve SMTP might be different than their transmit SMTP, or that anyone would care what their transmit SMTP was at all. If there was such a concept, youd be in business.
On the other hand, If your ISP will relay, could you not also get them to recieve incoming email for you? (they are an ISP)
Tele-workers without a VPN connection
Doing evening work from home without a VPN connection
Doing weekend work from home without a VPN connection
Working while "on the road" without a VPN connection
The same mechanism allows pretty much anyone to send mail supposedly from you.
And VPN connections right new are relatively primitive, I agree, hard to setup and not very well standardized.(Unless you know openssh, with which you can setup a secure tunnel trivially)
The solution being currently to accept email as a wild free-for-all, to put up with spam or try to block it with crude hueristics, and to count on people not to forge source addresses to much. This just doesnt sit well with me. Why do we all accept this sorry state so readily?
I don't think you get it. I have a web site, it is on www.netmar.com for hosting. Their MX record points to mail.netmar.com. My domains have mail.netmar.com as their MX. I check my mail by POPing mail.netmar.com. Netmar does not have SMTP available.
This is what mx records were supposed to be for: if you want the mail service to be run on a different machine for a domain than the web service, you set the mx records appropriately. mx records are supposed to be for SMTP servers.
Why should everyone make themselves vulnerable to source address spoofing just so you can contiune having a misconfigured DNS?
And if you have an ISP that blocks outgoing packets based on port number, well they just suck. Avoid them like the plague. You have no business running a mail server behind a "ISP" that has a noservers policy anyway.
For incoming mail proxies, you could obviously configure your smtp agent to "trust" one upstream mail server. Thats hugely different than trusting the whole internet.
As for virtual domains, so long as they resolve to the correct machine its not a problem. If the mx records resolve to your ISP's mail server, THATS FINE, it doesnt care about the other record types.
Its not poorly thought out, its the way things should have been done from the beginning.
Unlike most I dont think there should be laws against spam: instead why not fix spam in a technical manner.
One simple solution would be only to accept mail from joe@XYZ.com only from XYZ.com's mailserver.
Second would be to make it cost-innefective for the spammer: if your mail program required a handshake (such as a herbivore public-key exchange) and then an encrypted message content, The spammer would have to individually encrypt and send each email to each recipient. This would make spamming vastly unprofitable.
There are many other solution such as these, and there should never be need for stupid laws. I see an smtp server as no different than an http one.
Global warming, chemical, noise, and petroleum poisoning of the worlds oceans are a larger long-term concerns than whaling. Habitat destruction is also a major factor.
Japanese whaling is on a decline, moreso to economic issues than political. The current level of external pressure, combined with the abating of japanese propensity for whale-meat consumption (it is mostly older japanese who eat whale) is likely sufficient to put and end to commercial whaling.
Most of the arguments against the human-driven extinction of the mammoths are based upon population sizes and the difficulty of taking down a mammoth for primitive humans.
What most academics arent considering is that when humans gain access to an easy supply of food, such as mammoth meat, population sizes will spike nicely to take advantage of the resource. Since the mammoths would become increasingly scarce as they were overhunted, the human population of mammoth hunters would also decline. After the last mammoth was eaten, the survivors would switch to other large game. Such a brief spike in human population size would not leave an overwhelming fossil record, because the time involved is so short.
As for how hard mammoths were to take down: its best not to underestimate humans ability to kill things, for fairly obvious reasons. Some academics are quick to belittle the capabilities of earlier humans, probably stemming from their isolation and distance from field survival situations.
Its sad that we as a species continue this trend even to this day. Whales are continuing to decline. Its morose when environmentalist try to push beached whales back into the water: they generally beach themselves due to poisoning or internal injuries casued by human actions and byproducts.
the drive is responsible for enforcing this - it happens below the OS level
Well, thats just about as effective as CSS, a few bits that say "Please dont play this!".
They amount to be effectively identical, which is why they get lumped together. Also, the Key distribution of CSS *is* region specific, so its not possible to be region free and CSS'd, because not all dvd players have all decrytion keys, they only have the ones for their region. (This is more based upon the implementation rather than the algorithm of css)
Why dont I give you a link:clue;