Thats like saying a search warrant compells you to hand over documents so you need to have that letter you threw away last year. If you don't have it they wont throw you in jail
No, preferably the encryption keys would be regenerated every day or so deleting the old secret keys. Thus they can only get the info if you havent deleted your mail and they come into your house and physically invaded your computer.
The danger is covert/massive survelance of the population not serving individuals with good cause search warrants. Hell having to tell the government your secret key returns the world to the way it was 20 years ago no big deal.
Most likely not all the root servers have updated. This happened to a friend right after he registered one of the servers had his entry and the other didn't so your trip time to the various servers determined whether u could resolve it.
I understood they had solved checkers more recently. Solving the game is not necessarily a workable way to play. Storing all the partial sequences stored along the way may be unfeasable
Time to do some installing and just hope others do the same. BTW how much processor time does this cost? Is it enough that adopting this as a universal standrard would cause problems for spamers?
I disagree that a police state is a stable form of government. Police states inevitably make a large portion of the popultion (and worse a large portion of the intelligent population) into criminals of some kind. The power of the government is preserved by the threat of incarceration so the government must have the power to criminalize those who would challenge the system.
This leads to enforcement problems. Criminals are caught for three reasons, stupidity, guilt and societal censure. The guilt causes the crimes to be planed less perfectly (no perfect murders etc,,) and the societal censure means they are turned in by the community recieve no help hiding etc.. Without these factors the police have a very difficult time catching perpratrators for example the IRA. Shielded by like minded people a dissident is very hard to catch.
Thus there is a large possibility to get away with a crime against the government. In order to prevent crime the government must make the penalties draconian. This then provides rallying points for the citezenry against the government. Unlike in other countries where these punishments are conducted exclusively against a less powerful group (the arabs in isreal) by a large racial/socia group in power these indignities would be perpratrated on the american people as a whole thus fermenting rebellion
It is too difficult and time consuming to gather public keys from all your associates esp. people who don't know about PGP etc..
Even when you have the public key it is too much hassle to type in your passphrae for routine email making encrypted mail stand out all the more.
But the truth is we don't need to have passphrase protected emails all the time. Only when we are leery of government search warrants do we need to protect the content at the source/destination. Insteed what is necessery is a encapsulation of the email as it travels the internet. This way it can't be picked up by packet sniffers and it will be impossible to ferret out the real encrypted email.
To this end I suggest a addition to sendmail. Every time it delivers a message to the recieving computer a one time key (diffie-hellman) is generated so the message text is unreadable as it travels the internet.
Before we couldn't do this but now with the loosining of laws this is possible...not perfect but better than the status quo
>Yeah, he caused a lot of money to be lost by some big name
No, he probably didn't. For some reason the cost of computer crime not only includes the damage done (usually minor esp. if u have backups) but also the time for employees to fix the original hole and time to help track down the cracker.
Its as if i walked into an unlocked building stole $5 and theycharged me for putting better locks on the doors and the forensic evidence to track me down.
Hell all the cost overruns in these buisnesses that year were probably blamed on mitnick
You of course (on purpose most likely) ignore the utility advantage gained by messing with the product.
People overclock not only because the price differential (many ppl will overclock and spend more effort then they would looking for a better deal) but because we feel an emotional attachment to our computers and love tinkering.
If 99.9% of all europeans call one of them an ancestor it wouldn't surprise me if something like 90% were in fact descended from all of them. Just a little bit of interbreeding should insure this.
So its worse than than that. For $180 you get told that in fact you had an ancestor 180 years ago
'Eve' probably isn't intended to refer to the actual biblical personage.
For instance it was shown using mitochondrial DNA studies that everyone can trace their ancestory to one women (believed to be from central africa I think). This didn't involve any of her actual DNA just comparisons among currently living DNA.
My guess is such a service, if it is real, is using similar techniques. Who these seven women are is probably unknown their existance is merely deduced from currently availible DNA. If it is indeed the same technique it means that it can only show maternal ancestory (they look in the mitochondrial DNA which can he inherited directly from the mother).
>The internet was very well designed to stop any one entity from doing that.
The internet was designed to be resistant to assault (nuclear or conventional) by rerouting around missing routers. Given the huge percentage of trafic going through Mae East and Mae West I would be sorta surprised if a well placed conventional attack couldn't all but deystroy it.
This is besides the point as it was never designed to prevent electronic assault. Especially electronc assault which exploits holes in the very machines which make up the internet and is hence magnified to the approrpriate scale.
So why do these people in 3rd world countries work for american companies in sweatshop conditions? Because it is better than what they would be doing otherwise! No one showed up to force them to work they merely thought they were better off for it.
While I agree that child labour should be discouraged (the child is often pressed into labour by his family who may be unaware of severe health risks to him because of it) often without these factories the child would be working grueling hours on a farm or other job.
We come in with our high morals buying from firms which don't use cheap foreign labour (if your are going to pay a reasonable wage you are going to use more skilled productive labour) and take away from these poor people the right to choose whether to work or not. Our moral rectitude takes away their ability to support themselves? right?
The goal of IP is of course to promote creation of informational/artistic works.
The model is we treat each copy of your work as a physical object and people have to pay to get a copy. However, this is far from a perfect model.
Imagine I am selling a computer program. I could price it at $10 and sell to 10 million people or $5 and sell to 15 million people (or to 0 and 100 million people). Clearly wanting to maximize my profit I sell at $10.
So the total worth of the program is 10million dollars to me. If those one-million people who bought it from me approached me at the begining to buy the rights for 11 million dollars I should be happy to let them take it. These people then should be happy to resell the program at $5 dollars to help defray their cost (so they in total pay less then 10 dollars a person). Unfortunatly such a scheme would never work as everyone would pretend they were a $5 purchaser to get the reduced price.
It is a classic defection problem where the seller the buyers and in fact everyone who might wish to use the software is hurt! This problem only gets worse as more and more people are on the internet. The cost in utitility of those billions of people who might have used the program once (but wouldn't have paid a significant amount for it...i.e. making it not worthwhile to sell to them) is huge.
There is another solution. We created the government to deal with defection problems (for things like tax for police and military) why can't they deal with this problem. ALL information on the internet is free but at the end of the year the government surveys people on what they used and what they found valuble.
Sure it might not give the authors what their work is "worth" but the current system doesn't do this either (who really believes a backstreet boys CD is really "worth" more than a quality novel). But as long as it gives them a reasonable amount of money for producing good works they will continue to produce it. Most people making these works do it first for the love of the job but need money otherwise they couldn't maintain themselves.
The authors are happy (they are wider read/heard). The people are happy (they have access to a much wider database of stuff). Instead of having to make due with only those sources you have published you can search the entire database of human works online. Derivitive works would start appearing.
So, in other words, "kiddie porn" is free speech. Really? I didn't know that. Guess ritual rape and mutilation is free speech too, and if done in a pointy hat with candles, it's a religious observance, too.
I really find it interesting how people who are otherwise all for the free distribution of data balk at kiddie porn. This one issue seems to do more damage to the idea of anonimity then any other.
The problem with kiddie porn is that once you admit it is acceptable to ban distribution of material merely because "that is so sick" you have past the threshold and it is easy to start banning other things. If we accept this argument how easy is it to ban fecal matter porn or dog fucking etc.. etc.. Once again there will only be a small minority of people (none of them willing to come out in the open) who really want to watch this stuff so their should be no real political opposition...besides they are sickos anyways.
THIS is how censorship starts.
But kiddie porn is always a video tape of a crime. No! There was a wonderful salon article a couple weeks ago (sorry forgot the link) which talked about various mothers getting in trouble for taking nude pictures of their sons/daughters for their photo album. What if someone downloaded these for his sexual gratification...who would he have hurt (yet he could be thrown in jail for many years).
Did you know it is illegal to posses images that look like kiddie porn. That with a picture from a major newspaper I can commit a felony in photoshop?
Now from a reasonable perspective we should ban speech if the danger of that speech generating immediate harm is large (shouting fire..ordering a hit etc..) now where does kiddie porn fall? Is their ANY evidence that the presence of kiddie porn increases sexual abuse...no. In fact it is not unreasonable to think it actually reduces sexual abuse as the would be sexual predators get their gratification from porn rather than real children.
Would legalization increase the number of children hurt? Well possibly if we allowed it to be a commercial enterprise but It seems reasonable as a matter of commercial regulation to make it illegal to sell for profit.
Who gets prosecuted under these laws? People who are molesting children...not often (if they are publishing pictures you can convict them on molestation and use them as evidence) as they are clearly getting their kicks somewhere other than porn. The people who get hurt seem to be men who aren't hurting anyone. Which in turn hurts the FBI's ability to find the true molesters as those who might turn informant realize doing so could mean a long prison term.
No, but if I write a piece of software I may release it under the GPL *AND* also sell the code under a commercial liscence.
Why? Because the GPL is a liscense. It is what gives the right to use and modify to those who do not hold the copyright. If I have written the code I own the copyright and hence am not bound by any provision in the GPL (other then the fact I cannot go after legitimate users for copyright infringement). Therefore I am fully within my rights to sell this code seperately.
However if I am a third party company (i.e. one who obtained the code through a GPL'ed source) I have no rights to the code other than what the GPL gives me. As such this third party company cannot resell the code as the original poster claimed.
This is an especially thorny issue in programs requiring external (non-CS knowledge). Take an encryption utility. Maybe it contains 50,000 lines of UI code and 200 lines actually doing cryptographic work. Yet those 200 lines....which may be very dense and difficult for those who are uninitiated to code...constitute the core of the program.
In addition what additional compensation do managers recieve i.e. people like Linus or Miguel or so forth who may do far more work directing others then in the code they contribute themselves.
Team review seems like an exceptionally bad idea on a large project. What if I wrote the driver for a certain type of disk drive? Most people in working on the kernel may not even remember what I did not to mention have any idea how difficult it was.
Besides should we compensate those who write more often used code? If my driver is for a disk drive only I and three others use should I be as compensated as the man who wrote the seagate driver?
All in all it seems like the prospect of money may ruin the development of many projects. Some developers may work to keep others out because they will dilute their potential profits...or write bloated windows type code to increase their profits. It seems this kind of rivalry might tear the development team apart
Because they don't have the copyright. The idea is the original owners either retain the copyright or assign it to asychrony. They also *LISCENSE* the product with the GPL thus anyone may use the product freely but may not, because of this liscence, sell the product commercially.
Whoever in fact holds the copyright is not bound by this restriction and hence can sell it for a profit thereby if a company wants to repackage it and sell it they then must pay royalties to the copyright holders
First of all the car market is very differnt from the internet media market in that there is a stupendous cost of entry into the car market. This means that there will naturally be very few large companies in the market (it is much more efficent for a big company to produce cars then a small one). Secondly what about BMW japenese companies etc...
Right now no new car companies are entering the market not because of some monopolistic stranglehold the big companies have but for the more prosaic (and better for the customer) reason that they are satisfying the customers. Look what happened when american car companies fell into a rut making the same shitty cars...the japenese car companies came along and outcompetied them. Sure it took awhile but this is because making a car is a long complicated buisness which is very expensive (in contrast to a journalist sitting down and typing an article).
Suppose AOL-Timewarner somehow managed to come out with various news-brands to satisfy the diversity interest in media (which I argue is much stronger then in cars which most people car only if it goes fast looks cool and doesn't break). Okay so if they are indeed satisfying the market we must assume management is giving the differnt brands editorial freedom (o.w. they would share the same opnions and people would go find other news sources).
So now people have a wide variety of media outlets with editoral freedom what does it matter if they are indeed owned by time-warner? Moreover, how would AOL-timewarner stop people from going to places like salon.com etc...? You can only run one operating system at once (and have to pay if you want to run extras) but you can go to as many media sites as you wish too.
Slashdot Mirror
What we need is a automated program that goes around disassembling closed source products and comparing them with libraries of GPLed code.
Thats like saying a search warrant compells you to hand over documents so you need to have that letter you threw away last year. If you don't have it they wont throw you in jail
No, preferably the encryption keys would be regenerated every day or so deleting the old secret keys. Thus they can only get the info if
you havent deleted your mail and they come into your house and physically invaded your computer.
The danger is covert/massive survelance of the population not serving individuals with good cause search warrants. Hell having to tell the government your secret key returns the world to the way it was 20 years ago no big deal.
We invade their asses and install a "free" form of government.
Remember they are communists and a threat to the american way of life.
Most likely not all the root servers have updated. This happened to a friend right after he registered one of the servers had his entry and the other didn't so your trip time to the various servers determined whether u could resolve it.
I understood they had solved checkers more recently. Solving the game is not necessarily a workable way to play. Storing all the partial sequences stored along the way may be unfeasable
Time to do some installing and just hope others do the same. BTW how much processor time does this cost? Is it enough that adopting this as a universal standrard would cause problems for spamers?
I disagree that a police state is a stable form of government. Police states inevitably make a large portion of the popultion (and worse a large portion of the intelligent population) into criminals of some kind. The power of the government is preserved by the threat of incarceration so the government must have the power to criminalize those who would challenge the system.
This leads to enforcement problems. Criminals are caught for three reasons, stupidity, guilt and societal censure. The guilt causes the crimes to be planed less perfectly (no perfect murders etc,,) and the societal censure means they are turned in by the community recieve no help hiding etc.. Without these factors the police have a very difficult time catching perpratrators for example the IRA. Shielded by like minded people a dissident is very hard to catch.
Thus there is a large possibility to get away with a crime against the government. In order to prevent crime the government must make the penalties draconian. This then provides rallying points for the citezenry against the government. Unlike in other countries where these punishments are conducted exclusively against a less powerful group (the arabs in isreal) by a large racial/socia group in power these indignities would be perpratrated on the american people as a whole thus fermenting rebellion
So why doesnt everyone encrypt their emails now?
It is too difficult and time consuming to gather public keys from all your associates esp. people who don't know about PGP etc..
Even when you have the public key it is too much hassle to type in your passphrae for routine email making encrypted mail stand out all the more.
But the truth is we don't need to have passphrase protected emails all the time. Only when we are leery of government search warrants do we need to protect the content at the source/destination. Insteed what is necessery is a encapsulation of the email as it travels the internet. This way it can't be picked up by packet sniffers and it will be impossible to ferret out the real encrypted email.
To this end I suggest a addition to sendmail. Every time it delivers a message to the recieving computer a one time key (diffie-hellman) is generated so the message text is unreadable as it travels the internet.
Before we couldn't do this but now with the loosining of laws this is possible...not perfect but better than the status quo
>Yeah, he caused a lot of money to be lost by some big name
No, he probably didn't. For some reason the cost of computer crime not only includes the damage done (usually minor esp. if u have backups) but also the time for employees to fix the original hole and time to help track down the cracker.
Its as if i walked into an unlocked building stole $5 and theycharged me for putting better locks on the doors and the forensic evidence to track me down.
Hell all the cost overruns in these buisnesses that year were probably blamed on mitnick
You of course (on purpose most likely) ignore the utility advantage gained by messing with the product.
People overclock not only because the price differential (many ppl will overclock and spend more effort then they would looking for a better deal) but because we feel an emotional attachment to our computers and love tinkering.
If 99.9% of all europeans call one of them an ancestor it wouldn't surprise me if something like 90% were in fact descended from all of them. Just a little bit of interbreeding should insure this.
So its worse than than that. For $180 you get told that in fact you had an ancestor 180 years ago
'Eve' probably isn't intended to refer to the actual biblical personage.
For instance it was shown using mitochondrial DNA studies that everyone can trace their ancestory to one women (believed to be from central africa I think). This didn't involve any of her actual DNA just comparisons among currently living DNA.
My guess is such a service, if it is real, is using similar techniques. Who these seven women are is probably unknown their existance is merely deduced from currently availible DNA. If it is indeed the same technique it means that it can only show maternal ancestory (they look in the mitochondrial DNA which can he inherited directly from the mother).
>The internet was very well designed to stop any one entity from doing that.
The internet was designed to be resistant to assault (nuclear or conventional) by rerouting around missing routers. Given the huge percentage of trafic going through Mae East and Mae West I would be sorta surprised if a well placed conventional attack couldn't all but deystroy it.
This is besides the point as it was never designed to prevent electronic assault. Especially electronc assault which exploits holes in the very machines which make up the internet and is hence magnified to the approrpriate scale.
Even if I grant your point then the back door should be stored as a properly hashed password and thus not derivable from any decompile.
So why do these people in 3rd world countries work for american companies in sweatshop conditions? Because it is better than what they would be doing otherwise! No one showed up to force them to work they merely thought they were better off for it.
While I agree that child labour should be discouraged (the child is often pressed into labour by his family who may be unaware of severe health risks to him because of it) often without these factories the child would be working grueling hours on a farm or other job.
We come in with our high morals buying from firms which don't use cheap foreign labour (if your are going to pay a reasonable wage you are going to use more skilled productive labour) and take away from these poor people the right to choose whether to work or not. Our moral rectitude takes away their ability to support themselves? right?
And you didn't even mention her wonderful role in blackballing writers and actors in hollywood for communist leanings
The goal of IP is of course to promote creation of informational/artistic works.
The model is we treat each copy of your work as a physical object and people have to pay to get a copy. However, this is far from a perfect model.
Imagine I am selling a computer program. I could price it at $10 and sell to 10 million people or $5 and sell to 15 million people (or to 0 and 100 million people). Clearly wanting to maximize my profit I sell at $10.
So the total worth of the program is 10million dollars to me. If those one-million people who bought it from me approached me at the begining to buy the rights for 11 million dollars I should be happy to let them take it. These people then should be happy to resell the program at $5 dollars to help defray their cost (so they in total pay less then 10 dollars a person). Unfortunatly such a scheme would never work as everyone would pretend they were a $5 purchaser to get the reduced price.
It is a classic defection problem where the seller the buyers and in fact everyone who might wish to use the software is hurt! This problem only gets worse as more and more people are on the internet. The cost in utitility of those billions of people who might have used the program once (but wouldn't have paid a significant amount for it...i.e. making it not worthwhile to sell to them) is huge.
There is another solution. We created the government to deal with defection problems (for things like tax for police and military) why can't they deal with this problem. ALL information on the internet is free but at the end of the year the government surveys people on what they used and what they found valuble.
Sure it might not give the authors what their work is "worth" but the current system doesn't do this either (who really believes a backstreet boys CD is really "worth" more than a quality novel). But as long as it gives them a reasonable amount of money for producing good works they will continue to produce it. Most people making these works do it first for the love of the job but need money otherwise they couldn't maintain themselves.
The authors are happy (they are wider read/heard). The people are happy (they have access to a much wider database of stuff). Instead of having to make due with only those sources you have published you can search the entire database of human works online. Derivitive works would start appearing.
Yes, as they said in the article
So, in other words, "kiddie porn" is free speech. Really? I didn't know that. Guess ritual rape and mutilation is free speech too, and if done in a pointy hat with candles, it's a religious observance, too.
I really find it interesting how people who are otherwise all for the free distribution of data balk at kiddie porn. This one issue seems to do more damage to the idea of anonimity then any other.
The problem with kiddie porn is that once you admit it is acceptable to ban distribution of material merely because "that is so sick" you have past the threshold and it is easy to start banning other things. If we accept this argument how easy is it to ban fecal matter porn or dog fucking etc.. etc.. Once again there will only be a small minority of people (none of them willing to come out in the open) who really want to watch this stuff so their should be no real political opposition...besides they are sickos anyways.
THIS is how censorship starts.
But kiddie porn is always a video tape of a crime. No! There was a wonderful salon article a couple weeks ago (sorry forgot the link) which talked about various mothers getting in trouble for taking nude pictures of their sons/daughters for their photo album. What if someone downloaded these for his sexual gratification...who would he have hurt (yet he could be thrown in jail for many years).
Did you know it is illegal to posses images that look like kiddie porn. That with a picture from a major newspaper I can commit a felony in photoshop?
Now from a reasonable perspective we should ban speech if the danger of that speech generating immediate harm is large (shouting fire..ordering a hit etc..) now where does kiddie porn fall? Is their ANY evidence that the presence of kiddie porn increases sexual abuse...no. In fact it is not unreasonable to think it actually reduces sexual abuse as the would be sexual predators get their gratification from porn rather than real children.
Would legalization increase the number of children hurt? Well possibly if we allowed it to be a commercial enterprise but It seems reasonable as a matter of commercial regulation to make it illegal to sell for profit.
Who gets prosecuted under these laws? People who are molesting children...not often (if they are publishing pictures you can convict them on molestation and use them as evidence) as they are clearly getting their kicks somewhere other than porn. The people who get hurt seem to be men who aren't hurting anyone. Which in turn hurts the FBI's ability to find the true molesters as those who might turn informant realize doing so could mean a long prison term.
Why apply these changes to FreeBSD. It would seem that OpenBSD, alreading being security audited etc.. would be far the better choice.
Are there some features of FreeBSD they wish to preserve? And why not merely attempt to integrate these into OpenBSD?
No, but if I write a piece of software I may release it under the GPL *AND* also sell the code under a commercial liscence.
Why? Because the GPL is a liscense. It is what gives the right to use and modify to those who do not hold the copyright. If I have written the code I own the copyright and hence am not bound by any provision in the GPL (other then the fact I cannot go after legitimate users for copyright infringement). Therefore I am fully within my rights to sell this code seperately.
However if I am a third party company (i.e. one who obtained the code through a GPL'ed source) I have no rights to the code other than what the GPL gives me. As such this third party company cannot resell the code as the original poster claimed.
This is an especially thorny issue in programs requiring external (non-CS knowledge). Take an encryption utility. Maybe it contains 50,000 lines of UI code and 200 lines actually doing cryptographic work. Yet those 200 lines....which may be very dense and difficult for those who are uninitiated to code...constitute the core of the program.
In addition what additional compensation do managers recieve i.e. people like Linus or Miguel or so forth who may do far more work directing others then in the code they contribute themselves.
Team review seems like an exceptionally bad idea on a large project. What if I wrote the driver for a certain type of disk drive? Most people in working on the kernel may not even remember what I did not to mention have any idea how difficult it was.
Besides should we compensate those who write more often used code? If my driver is for a disk drive only I and three others use should I be as compensated as the man who wrote the seagate driver?
All in all it seems like the prospect of money may ruin the development of many projects. Some developers may work to keep others out because they will dilute their potential profits...or write bloated windows type code to increase their profits. It seems this kind of rivalry might tear the development team apart
Because they don't have the copyright. The idea is the original owners either retain the copyright or assign it to asychrony. They also *LISCENSE* the product with the GPL thus anyone may use the product freely but may not, because of this liscence, sell the product commercially.
Whoever in fact holds the copyright is not bound by this restriction and hence can sell it for a profit thereby if a company wants to repackage it and sell it they then must pay royalties to the copyright holders
First of all the car market is very differnt from the internet media market in that there is a stupendous cost of entry into the car market. This means that there will naturally be very few large companies in the market (it is much more efficent for a big company to produce cars then a small one). Secondly what about BMW japenese companies etc...
Right now no new car companies are entering the market not because of some monopolistic stranglehold the big companies have but for the more prosaic (and better for the customer) reason that they are satisfying the customers. Look what happened when american car companies fell into a rut making the same shitty cars...the japenese car companies came along and outcompetied them. Sure it took awhile but this is because making a car is a long complicated buisness which is very expensive (in contrast to a journalist sitting down and typing an article).
Suppose AOL-Timewarner somehow managed to come out with various news-brands to satisfy the diversity interest in media (which I argue is much stronger then in cars which most people car only if it goes fast looks cool and doesn't break). Okay so if they are indeed satisfying the market we must assume management is giving the differnt brands editorial freedom (o.w. they would share the same opnions and people would go find other news sources).
So now people have a wide variety of media outlets with editoral freedom what does it matter if they are indeed owned by time-warner? Moreover, how would AOL-timewarner stop people from going to places like salon.com etc...? You can only run one operating system at once (and have to pay if you want to run extras) but you can go to as many media sites as you wish too.