I've just finished reading the Infinite # of Monkeys Protocol Suite Request For Comments. Man, anybody who would spend that amount of time developing a suite of protocols to network . . . well, an infinite number of monkeys, is A+ certified in my books.
After reading it though, I thought of a few corrections which I thought may be of interest to all you other loyal slashdot readers.
The SIMIAN in the text, runs in to the problem of generating a Unique Value which identifies each of the infinite monkeys in the system. I've always thought that the Infinite Monkey idiom was really rooted more in the laws of Order & Chaos theory (Ya, I made that up). However, even a single monkey with an infinite amount of time would generate every text known to mankind, assuming mankind stopped producing texts sometime in the Finite future.
In fact, using the Infinite in a physical system is only good in terms of identifying its theoretical ability to expand. The KEEPER in the suite even identifies dead monkeys, which is useful, but we all know 1 dead monkey equals Infinity minus one, which is finite. Well, technically, it's an impossible equation.
I've come up with a better solution. An incredibly huge number of monkeys, working within a system which identifies there probability of creating already known texts, and there probability of creating good innovations to classical texts (Neo classical, hmmm).
The modified system makes use of a MOP identifier, or "Monkeys Over-all Performance", which works under two different layers of the system. A Per-Monkey MOP within each zoo calculates the performance of each monkey and relays the information back to a SYSTEM MOP which calculates both the overall performance of each ZOO, and generates the performance of the entire system.
A Probability of Innovative or Neo-Classical Text ID Organizer (or PINTO), would then make use of the very simple following equation to generate a time frame per monkey, per ZOO and per SYSTEM of each text being created in either an Innovative or Perfect way. Texts would be referenced from the GUTENBERG project.
Let A1 = (Character Output / Time) for Monkey Let A2 = (Character Output / Time * Monkeys) for ZOO Let A3 = (Character Output / Time * ZOO's) for System Let B = Byte Size of each text to be produced Let C = characters within language allowable Let D = Average of CRITICS allowable word amount change to Neo-Classical ^ Words in a given language. Let T represent Timed Probability Per Exact Text
T = (B^C / Ax) Time Probability Per Innovative Texts = T / [1 + (B+D) + (B-D)]
The denominator for Timed Probability Per Innovative Text is actually just the total amount of different texts that would be allowed with variants. You can remove the 1 to omit the exact text.
Anybody see any problems? I'm thinking of submitting it.
Anyway, this system could have a definite market under some huge financial backing. Take Microsoft for example, they have a serious interest in developing readable material. I have books from the Microsoft Press which include, "Chess Strategies", "MCSE Exam Notes", and my personal favorite, "Writing Solid Code" written in the late 80s or early 90s by one of MS's top developers . . .
Come to think of it... Microsoft must already use a system like this.
It looks to me like the only real counter-measure in that paper is forcing a DNS lookup. Even that has gaping problems.
If the whole idea behind this counter-measure is adding extra servers to host this ultra-important website (there's a misnomer eh), then we can take examples from every site which has already been hacked and ask them, "Why didn't you just have more bandwidth? (or more servers, same deal though not the same thing)". I mean, Why not just have one site with a 100 T1s installed?
The computer industry today is founded on network experts who make money, and computer illiterates who pay money. No respectable company is going to bother telling its clients, "Hey, pay us for 3 servers instead of one, and we'll host them all". The bandwidth could be filled as easily as the servers.
In the recent attacks, a whole crapload of "zombie" (wired wording?) computers were used to perform the attacks. Well, if I were the guy who orchestrated the attacks: aside from caring if the computers which performed the attack were found (meaning, they could all do DNS lookups for all I care, they would not be shut down in any real time), I could prolong finding them by doing the DNS lookups from home myself, and sending the new IPs for attack to the systems. I could even post the new ips to a hotmail account, and the systems could get them from there.
Then the DNS access log would show me amongst thousands of other users, trying to legitimately access the page. Where is the connection between me, and the DDOS attempts?
The problem with HTTP is not something to analyze in a mechanical way. Information available in limited quantities / time can not be accessed reliably by anonymous persons.
This attack only strengthens the fight against "hackers" and gives even more power to "Clintons" war. If you want a secure system, you need to know every person using it, and what every person does.
Who let corporations on the internet anyways? Why do these high-powered idiots in the gov. always put sensitive material on the same networks they host there web pages on? Can they not afford a single, stand alone box and IP?
I found it strange the article mentions that "ever more complicated" versions of the Enigma were cracked - including the "naval" version.
My understanding of the Enigma, was that the Naval version was so incredibly hard to crack, a German U-Boat had to be disabled and boarded so the Naval version could be stolen and reverse engineered.
While the debate is heavily based in the realm of phylosophy, I believe the idea of "Evil" Machinery is at the forefront of our outlooks mainly because it is an archetype of the human psyche.
Man vs. Machine; fear of that which is 'more powerful' than oneself.
No matter the implementation of Neural-Network replicas, I honestly do not believe they will appear suddenly as human or superhuman as one of us, or Bill Gates. Rather they will most likely evolve at a very controllable level (In terms of intelligence). The greatest problem we will face with nano-technology or highly-sophisticated computer systems will not be that these machines will suddenly accumulate a huge amount of knowledge or power in terms of mobility.
The greatest problem we will face, I think, will be when these systems replicate out of control. With a self-evolving system, not created within an antiquated eco-system (or darwinian playground), the problems created will be almost exactly like the problems a virus poses.
Imagine an out-of-control nano-bug which feeds on Oxygen, or CarboHydrates such as Natural Gas or Potatoes. Imagine a silicon based fungus which literally eats silicon. (You've all seen that ST:TNG right? Crazy Wesley).
There is also the possibility of a system which is meant to do something, replicating out of control and doing it wrong, or to excess; such as nano-bugs which are meant to destroy fat in an artary as part of healing a heart-attack victim. Or a replicating robot which communicates through radio waves. An intelligent decision is not needed to make that "intelligent" computer use the entire RF bandwidth and destroy communications accross the globe, all that is needed is a simple mutation in the replication process... over and over again, as will occurr in any replicating organism; more so in an intelligent organism, as intelligence leads to organisms subjecting themselves to increasingly unique environments.
I am not skeptical of the creation of Intelligent machines, and I am not afraid that the "sum of human intelligence" will be unable to guide these (?) 'conscious' machines in our world. I am afraid that we simply won't create the truly intelligent machines first, neither will we first create machines with a learning-cap as unlimited as the cap within ourselves.
The result is very simple: IT managers will start to sit on the sidelines waiting for the standards to settle down before buying any new hardware, and it'll be akin to the side effects of the AT&T breakup in 1984. You can tell what THIS will do computer hardware sales.
I seriously doubt in the simplest terms MicroSoft is holding together the Computer Industry. First of all, the breakup of a Device Oriented Company is completely irrelevant:
Telephones and all Equipment that AT&T deals with, to the best of my knowledge - are Devices. There is a very fine line, which is beginning to be reflected between computers & devices. At the moment however, a device is a system incapable of change - whereas a Computer is. The change is implemented through the Software.
We are already in an Era of multiple OS's running networked multiple-hardware systems in corporate environments. What has happened as a result of this? First of all, IEEE & IETF & ASCII and every other standards association has begun to implement protocol Standards which meet the requirements of every type of connectivity we can imagine. These can be seen from the beginning of SCSI - ISA - PCI - AGP, TCP/IP for the internet... etc. all the way to todays IPv6.0 - lending itself to Voice Over IP communications more efficiently; BlueTooth (back to devices) which is a standard protocol to help computers & "Mellennium" devices communicate with each other. etc. etc.
Standards & Protocols are the wave of yesterday, they have become a part of every developers code, and they have changed the way we see technology. We no longer think of a program as a miraculous invention because it uses a printer & a modem and communicates with itself on other peoples computers. We think of a program as being good/bad based on the darwinian advances it has lent to the evolution of its purpose. It is built to communicate as all other programs of its design, but its GUI, or its Efficiency, or its Purpose is Entirely different or advanced though it communicates the same, meaning it can run its own clients for the same server applications, and it can communicate with any other OS out there over a network thanks to, yes thats right, standards & protocols.
I won't even get into what MicroSoft has continually done to destroy these standards or how poorly it has implemented them, or attempted to make them their "own" standard through encapsulating; Or how MS has slowed the progression of every developement through not releasing its own protocol standards.
What is really important, is that MicroSoft software has nothing to do with the system you buy. The only important thing that matters is that you choose a Server or Client based application which adheres to the important things. Network Device Support, TCP/IP stack, Encryption (DES, MD5), and everything else which is important to you.
Now when you go to choose your applications for your hardware, keep in mind it doesn't matter which OS you choose at all since they all support that.
Oh, except I know from experience that MicroSoft encryption is both horrible and not-included-with-WIN98-for-VPNs.
....
Second of all, Linux as an Operating System is doing very well. Linux is developed by so many people however, that it tends to come out with different releases. Yet in any release of Linux I believe I would be able to configure the things I wish to configure. This is due to the fact that the software itself has been developed and changed based on the ideas and desires of the World. No single Bill Gates could hold back the developement of something useful for their own gain with an open-sourced project.
My point being: Every Software company but MicroSoft is changing the computer industry - because they are actually competing against each other to satisfy people for there profits. No competition between these companies could have the ramifications that MicroSofts competition has. They could not fail to adhere to protocols & standards or develop their own and have them succeed if they were inferior.
When I walk in to an office to Configure a network, I'll read the manual. "Whoa, this OS though obscure uses TCP/IP... probably because it has to. I guess I'll figure out how to configure its internal IP and connect it for the person who actually uses it"... "Oh yeah, page 6: setting the ip.".
"We're better than you are" "... it doesn't matter."
The problem with the Internet is really related to the mean IQ of Wired-Planet-Earth.
It sounds very reasonable and logical to say that the internet must have one governing body, which governs based on the concerns of all countries accross the globe.
I would hope there was a governing body which said "NO" to censorship on the internet and Taxation. On the other hand, the United Nations can't even stop America from going to war. And when it really comes down to it, America is free to do what it wishes unless someone wishes to go and physically fight the most powerful Army in the world. An army which has dropped "The Bomb" Twice.
I doubt wars will be fought over Americas harmless attempts to ruin the lives of "Hackers", and "Deviants" (you and me) everyday. In fact, I bet with 1 standards association, the US Government would set all standards in a fair and democratic way; (and) profit by them hand over foot. Encryption standards would be made international, though standard encryption, or better is developed in foreign countries already. In return the US would charge royalties on MP3s transferred accross the globe. Not just locally.
At the moment, I believe the legal-loophole of Internationalization is the only way to save the internet, and keep it free for all to use and enjoy. If one government believes it can regulate a medium which is at its core the true essence of Human interaction and developement, then let them. I'll move my DECSS code somewhere else, under an assumed name.
Who knows, maybe if the US had a say in International Internet Law, it would come to its senses and be nice and fair to everyone. Bahaha Right.
Because if it equals them, but it's free of charge, it will beat them. A world where there's only one operating system is not a world in which I'd want to use computers. Am I wrong, or is Linux not just a term for any O/S that originated with Linus' Torvalds miraculous creation? An OS which follows the rules of Open-Sourcing and free distribution that Torvalds set out to make a standard? Look at the GUIs for Xfree86, does Linux not resemble Windows now? In the very near future, we'll be able to run all of our favourite windows-only apps on a Linux OS. Yet it's Linux, it's open-source, there's a million different unique distros and tweaks to run the software under, and yes it's free. Each distribution is free to make whichever changes they wish to the operating system, and with open-sourcing and all the different distributors out there (Corel being the latest and greatest as an in-between for home users). I don't think it's fair to treat Linux as a single operating system, capable of being developed like all other software we use today. It's unique because Linux is always going to strive to encompass what everybody wants in an OS, and it does it fast, and it implements it in unique ways. Why not have a replacement for every operating system that's free? If every OS were Linux, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be subject to Darwinian law. They would be even more so, because they are Open-Sourced. After all, there is no reason a particular distributer can't change a particular file-system, interface, add new utilities, remove old utilities, and still distribute there software as Linux; though it looks different, stores files differently, does wholly new things, and doesn't perform the most common old applications. If it makes sense to come up with a distribution like that, it will be done, it will be weighed against all the others, and it will fail or succeed based on its virtues. The name doesn't mean anything, if it's a whole new OS.
I'll admit, the best I've done to destroy a computer was editing dos 5's version of format.com to say it was installing a game. That was funny, but dos 6 came out the same day, I suck. We all know Microsoft has warped our perception of legitimate application sizes. Every time the standard in HDD size increases by a gig, so does Microsofts O/S, Office, and even the documents you create. Regardless, Open-Sourcing may be getting application sizes down to an acceptable level, but with the advent of periphereal devices, and the cross-platform applications which are to be ported to Linux under WINE, we are still going to see ever-increasing standards in Application size. Linux itself, in all of its various forms still moves with the standard. When a new scripting language is released, which generates code slightly larger than the last, it will still be implemented. What will happen when 500k bin's and 1 Meg MicroSoft executables are running under Linux? The size of a program which can overcome all obstacles will suddenly go unnoticed to everyday users. People don't get smarter, complicated things just get simpler.
not that Linux viruses cant be written, that's easy. But because the barriers it would have to break in order to spread are too difficult to do in 5K of code (optimal size for a really nasty virus).
An absurd claim, coming from an avowed leftist. Are you going to tell me that the great leftist Stalin was non-violent? What about Mao and Ho Chi Minh? No, I think it's safe to say that leftists are very violent people indeed.
Is it just me, or are you taking a huge spectrum of political beliefs, giving the entire spectrum two possible categories, and claiming all parts of a single category are bad because of their affiliation with other members of your own categorizing scheme?
I always wondered...say you have a REALLY rigid pole (please no jokes:P) and it spanned from here to say the Sun, and you yanked on that pole, would the information (the force of the tug) exceed the speed of light
No, actually. A beam of light sent from the tugger to earth would arrive either first or around the same time as the *tug* (depending on how rigid your pole is!).
To understand this, you have to accept that the pole can not be infinitly rigid, it is comprised of molecules which themselves must move the distance of the tug. So imagine the pole not as a single object, but as an enormous number of segments pushing or pulling each other (as it actually is).
This means if an observer could follow the pole from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, s/he would see a ripple of compression travelling the length of the pole all the way to the earth.
Having a pole with no space between molecules would violate many laws of nuclear physics I'm sure, and the pole itself would probably be so dense it would collapse in on itself and both ends would shoot towards each other into a black hole in the middle.
Slashdot Mirror
I've just finished reading the Infinite # of Monkeys Protocol Suite Request For Comments. Man, anybody who would spend that amount of time developing a suite of protocols to network . . . well, an infinite number of monkeys, is A+ certified in my books.
After reading it though, I thought of a few corrections which I thought may be of interest to all you other loyal slashdot readers.
The SIMIAN in the text, runs in to the problem of generating a Unique Value which identifies each of the infinite monkeys in the system. I've always thought that the Infinite Monkey idiom was really rooted more in the laws of Order & Chaos theory (Ya, I made that up). However, even a single monkey with an infinite amount of time would generate every text known to mankind, assuming mankind stopped producing texts sometime in the Finite future.
In fact, using the Infinite in a physical system is only good in terms of identifying its theoretical ability to expand. The KEEPER in the suite even identifies dead monkeys, which is useful, but we all know 1 dead monkey equals Infinity minus one, which is finite. Well, technically, it's an impossible equation.
I've come up with a better solution. An incredibly huge number of monkeys, working within a system which identifies there probability of creating already known texts, and there probability of creating good innovations to classical texts (Neo classical, hmmm).
The modified system makes use of a MOP identifier, or "Monkeys Over-all Performance", which works under two different layers of the system. A Per-Monkey MOP within each zoo calculates the performance of each monkey and relays the information back to a SYSTEM MOP which calculates both the overall performance of each ZOO, and generates the performance of the entire system.
A Probability of Innovative or Neo-Classical Text ID Organizer (or PINTO), would then make use of the very simple following equation to generate a time frame per monkey, per ZOO and per SYSTEM of each text being created in either an Innovative or Perfect way. Texts would be referenced from the GUTENBERG project.
Let A1 = (Character Output / Time) for Monkey
Let A2 = (Character Output / Time * Monkeys) for ZOO
Let A3 = (Character Output / Time * ZOO's) for System
Let B = Byte Size of each text to be produced
Let C = characters within language allowable
Let D = Average of CRITICS allowable word amount change to Neo-Classical ^ Words in a given language.
Let T represent Timed Probability Per Exact Text
T = (B^C / Ax)
Time Probability Per Innovative Texts = T / [1 + (B+D) + (B-D)]
The denominator for Timed Probability Per Innovative Text is actually just the total amount of different texts that would be allowed with variants. You can remove the 1 to omit the exact text.
Anybody see any problems? I'm thinking of submitting it.
Anyway, this system could have a definite market under some huge financial backing. Take Microsoft for example, they have a serious interest in developing readable material. I have books from the Microsoft Press which include, "Chess Strategies", "MCSE Exam Notes", and my personal favorite, "Writing Solid Code" written in the late 80s or early 90s by one of MS's top developers . . .
Come to think of it... Microsoft must already use a system like this.
It looks to me like the only real counter-measure in that paper is forcing a DNS lookup. Even that has gaping problems.
If the whole idea behind this counter-measure is adding extra servers to host this ultra-important website (there's a misnomer eh), then we can take examples from every site which has already been hacked and ask them, "Why didn't you just have more bandwidth? (or more servers, same deal though not the same thing)". I mean, Why not just have one site with a 100 T1s installed?
The computer industry today is founded on network experts who make money, and computer illiterates who pay money. No respectable company is going to bother telling its clients, "Hey, pay us for 3 servers instead of one, and we'll host them all". The bandwidth could be filled as easily as the servers.
In the recent attacks, a whole crapload of "zombie" (wired wording?) computers were used to perform the attacks. Well, if I were the guy who orchestrated the attacks: aside from caring if the computers which performed the attack were found (meaning, they could all do DNS lookups for all I care, they would not be shut down in any real time), I could prolong finding them by doing the DNS lookups from home myself, and sending the new IPs for attack to the systems. I could even post the new ips to a hotmail account, and the systems could get them from there.
Then the DNS access log would show me amongst thousands of other users, trying to legitimately access the page. Where is the connection between me, and the DDOS attempts?
The problem with HTTP is not something to analyze in a mechanical way. Information available in limited quantities / time can not be accessed reliably by anonymous persons.
This attack only strengthens the fight against "hackers" and gives even more power to "Clintons" war. If you want a secure system, you need to know every person using it, and what every person does.
Who let corporations on the internet anyways? Why do these high-powered idiots in the gov. always put sensitive material on the same networks they host there web pages on? Can they not afford a single, stand alone box and IP?
.
I found it strange the article mentions that "ever more complicated" versions of the Enigma were cracked - including the "naval" version.
My understanding of the Enigma, was that the Naval version was so incredibly hard to crack, a German U-Boat had to be disabled and boarded so the Naval version could be stolen and reverse engineered.
While the debate is heavily based in the realm of phylosophy, I believe the idea of "Evil" Machinery is at the forefront of our outlooks mainly because it is an archetype of the human psyche.
Man vs. Machine; fear of that which is 'more powerful' than oneself.
No matter the implementation of Neural-Network replicas, I honestly do not believe they will appear suddenly as human or superhuman as one of us, or Bill Gates. Rather they will most likely evolve at a very controllable level (In terms of intelligence). The greatest problem we will face with nano-technology or highly-sophisticated computer systems will not be that these machines will suddenly accumulate a huge amount of knowledge or power in terms of mobility.
The greatest problem we will face, I think, will be when these systems replicate out of control. With a self-evolving system, not created within an antiquated eco-system (or darwinian playground), the problems created will be almost exactly like the problems a virus poses.
Imagine an out-of-control nano-bug which feeds on Oxygen, or CarboHydrates such as Natural Gas or Potatoes. Imagine a silicon based fungus which literally eats silicon. (You've all seen that ST:TNG right? Crazy Wesley).
There is also the possibility of a system which is meant to do something, replicating out of control and doing it wrong, or to excess; such as nano-bugs which are meant to destroy fat in an artary as part of healing a heart-attack victim. Or a replicating robot which communicates through radio waves. An intelligent decision is not needed to make that "intelligent" computer use the entire RF bandwidth and destroy communications accross the globe, all that is needed is a simple mutation in the replication process... over and over again, as will occurr in any replicating organism; more so in an intelligent organism, as intelligence leads to organisms subjecting themselves to increasingly unique environments.
I am not skeptical of the creation of Intelligent machines, and I am not afraid that the "sum of human intelligence" will be unable to guide these (?) 'conscious' machines in our world. I am afraid that we simply won't create the truly intelligent machines first, neither will we first create machines with a learning-cap as unlimited as the cap within ourselves.
The result is very simple: IT managers will start to sit on the sidelines waiting for the standards to settle down before buying any new hardware, and it'll be akin to the side effects of the AT&T breakup in 1984. You can tell what THIS will do computer hardware sales.
....
I seriously doubt in the simplest terms MicroSoft is holding together the Computer Industry. First of all, the breakup of a Device Oriented Company is completely irrelevant:
Telephones and all Equipment that AT&T deals with, to the best of my knowledge - are Devices. There is a very fine line, which is beginning to be reflected between computers & devices. At the moment however, a device is a system incapable of change - whereas a Computer is. The change is implemented through the Software.
We are already in an Era of multiple OS's running networked multiple-hardware systems in corporate environments. What has happened as a result of this? First of all, IEEE & IETF & ASCII and every other standards association has begun to implement protocol Standards which meet the requirements of every type of connectivity we can imagine. These can be seen from the beginning of SCSI - ISA - PCI - AGP, TCP/IP for the internet... etc. all the way to todays IPv6.0 - lending itself to Voice Over IP communications more efficiently; BlueTooth (back to devices) which is a standard protocol to help computers & "Mellennium" devices communicate with each other. etc. etc.
Standards & Protocols are the wave of yesterday, they have become a part of every developers code, and they have changed the way we see technology. We no longer think of a program as a miraculous invention because it uses a printer & a modem and communicates with itself on other peoples computers. We think of a program as being good/bad based on the darwinian advances it has lent to the evolution of its purpose. It is built to communicate as all other programs of its design, but its GUI, or its Efficiency, or its Purpose is Entirely different or advanced though it communicates the same, meaning it can run its own clients for the same server applications, and it can communicate with any other OS out there over a network thanks to, yes thats right, standards & protocols.
I won't even get into what MicroSoft has continually done to destroy these standards or how poorly it has implemented them, or attempted to make them their "own" standard through encapsulating; Or how MS has slowed the progression of every developement through not releasing its own protocol standards.
What is really important, is that MicroSoft software has nothing to do with the system you buy. The only important thing that matters is that you choose a Server or Client based application which adheres to the important things. Network Device Support, TCP/IP stack, Encryption (DES, MD5), and everything else which is important to you.
Now when you go to choose your applications for your hardware, keep in mind it doesn't matter which OS you choose at all since they all support that.
Oh, except I know from experience that MicroSoft encryption is both horrible and not-included-with-WIN98-for-VPNs.
Second of all, Linux as an Operating System is doing very well. Linux is developed by so many people however, that it tends to come out with different releases. Yet in any release of Linux I believe I would be able to configure the things I wish to configure. This is due to the fact that the software itself has been developed and changed based on the ideas and desires of the World. No single Bill Gates could hold back the developement of something useful for their own gain with an open-sourced project.
My point being: Every Software company but MicroSoft is changing the computer industry - because they are actually competing against each other to satisfy people for there profits. No competition between these companies could have the ramifications that MicroSofts competition has. They could not fail to adhere to protocols & standards or develop their own and have them succeed if they were inferior.
When I walk in to an office to Configure a network, I'll read the manual. "Whoa, this OS though obscure uses TCP/IP... probably because it has to. I guess I'll figure out how to configure its internal IP and connect it for the person who actually uses it"... "Oh yeah, page 6: setting the ip.".
"We're better than you are"
"... it doesn't matter."
The problem with the Internet is really related to the mean IQ of Wired-Planet-Earth.
It sounds very reasonable and logical to say that the internet must have one governing body, which governs based on the concerns of all countries accross the globe.
I would hope there was a governing body which said "NO" to censorship on the internet and Taxation. On the other hand, the United Nations can't even stop America from going to war. And when it really comes down to it, America is free to do what it wishes unless someone wishes to go and physically fight the most powerful Army in the world. An army which has dropped "The Bomb" Twice.
I doubt wars will be fought over Americas harmless attempts to ruin the lives of "Hackers", and "Deviants" (you and me) everyday. In fact, I bet with 1 standards association, the US Government would set all standards in a fair and democratic way; (and) profit by them hand over foot. Encryption standards would be made international, though standard encryption, or better is developed in foreign countries already. In return the US would charge royalties on MP3s transferred accross the globe. Not just locally.
At the moment, I believe the legal-loophole of Internationalization is the only way to save the internet, and keep it free for all to use and enjoy. If one government believes it can regulate a medium which is at its core the true essence of Human interaction and developement, then let them. I'll move my DECSS code somewhere else, under an assumed name.
Who knows, maybe if the US had a say in International Internet Law, it would come to its senses and be nice and fair to everyone.
Bahaha Right.
Because if it equals them, but it's free of charge, it will beat them. A world where there's only one operating system is not a world in which I'd want to use computers.
Am I wrong, or is Linux not just a term for any O/S that originated with Linus' Torvalds miraculous creation? An OS which follows the rules of Open-Sourcing and free distribution that Torvalds set out to make a standard?
Look at the GUIs for Xfree86, does Linux not resemble Windows now? In the very near future, we'll be able to run all of our favourite windows-only apps on a Linux OS. Yet it's Linux, it's open-source, there's a million different unique distros and tweaks to run the software under, and yes it's free.
Each distribution is free to make whichever changes they wish to the operating system, and with open-sourcing and all the different distributors out there (Corel being the latest and greatest as an in-between for home users). I don't think it's fair to treat Linux as a single operating system, capable of being developed like all other software we use today. It's unique because Linux is always going to strive to encompass what everybody wants in an OS, and it does it fast, and it implements it in unique ways.
Why not have a replacement for every operating system that's free? If every OS were Linux, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be subject to Darwinian law. They would be even more so, because they are Open-Sourced.
After all, there is no reason a particular distributer can't change a particular file-system, interface, add new utilities, remove old utilities, and still distribute there software as Linux; though it looks different, stores files differently, does wholly new things, and doesn't perform the most common old applications. If it makes sense to come up with a distribution like that, it will be done, it will be weighed against all the others, and it will fail or succeed based on its virtues.
The name doesn't mean anything, if it's a whole new OS.
We all know Microsoft has warped our perception of legitimate application sizes. Every time the standard in HDD size increases by a gig, so does Microsofts O/S, Office, and even the documents you create.
Regardless, Open-Sourcing may be getting application sizes down to an acceptable level, but with the advent of periphereal devices, and the cross-platform applications which are to be ported to Linux under WINE, we are still going to see ever-increasing standards in Application size.
Linux itself, in all of its various forms still moves with the standard. When a new scripting language is released, which generates code slightly larger than the last, it will still be implemented.
What will happen when 500k bin's and 1 Meg MicroSoft executables are running under Linux? The size of a program which can overcome all obstacles will suddenly go unnoticed to everyday users.
People don't get smarter, complicated things just get simpler.
Is it just me, or are you taking a huge spectrum of political beliefs, giving the entire spectrum two possible categories, and claiming all parts of a single category are bad because of their affiliation with other members of your own categorizing scheme?
Whoa, my brain's on fire . . .
No, actually. A beam of light sent from the tugger to earth would arrive either first or around the same time as the *tug* (depending on how rigid your pole is!).
To understand this, you have to accept that the pole can not be infinitly rigid, it is comprised of molecules which themselves must move the distance of the tug. So imagine the pole not as a single object, but as an enormous number of segments pushing or pulling each other (as it actually is).
This means if an observer could follow the pole from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, s/he would see a ripple of compression travelling the length of the pole all the way to the earth.
Having a pole with no space between molecules would violate many laws of nuclear physics I'm sure, and the pole itself would probably be so dense it would collapse in on itself and both ends would shoot towards each other into a black hole in the middle.
Like some sort of cosmic, nuclear sex change.
Ace905