There is no way this figure would hold up under close scrutiny. Many stable businesses consider annual sales growth of 10% to be solid. This sort of thing is found in the annual reports for companies. I would really, really like to get my hands on the sales forecasts in the annual reports for companies in the Recording Industry Association of Korea (translated into English of course). It is highly unlikely that they actually predicted this sort of phenomenal growth in their sales forecasts. More likely, they have made up this figure out of thin air based on the number of files transferred.
Another way to retaliate would be to use good old Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Fear: Companies who are using open source solutions to save money would harm their bottom line if they use.NET because of all the license fees they would be forced to pay.
Uncertainty:.NET is an unproven technology. Unproven technologies often fail.
Doubt: Companies using.NET would be left high and dry if it fails. It is likely to fail because it is unproven technology.
We should take active steps to derail the.NET menace.
* Every open source server accepting an IP packet destined for a Microsoft.NET server should "corrupt" it 1% of the time.
* Packets using patented.NET protocols should be corrupted or dropped 5% of the time.
The net effect of these would be to make.NET unreliable, particularly if there are several hops through open source servers.
* Data packets purporting to follow a published standard that do not conform 100% to the published standards - such as attempts by Microsoft to complete the "extend" phase - should be "corrected" so they conform. Kerberos is one example.
It must be OK to do this because Microsoft have been doing this sort of stuff for years. Fake error messages in windows 3.1 running under DR-DOS is just one example.
Attack of the clones? Sounds like the Clone Wars mentioned in New Hope, but I think this title can be improved a bit. Sounds too much like a 50's B-grade title - Attack of the
A simple analysis I would like to see would be to correlate the probes and attacks over the time of the week when they occurred, with granularity measured to the hour, possibly with a 3-hour moving averages. This is likely to provide significant results.
I once analysed the spam I received over the course of a month, and even this very limited data set revealed clearly that more spam is sent on weekends, with Sunday recording twice as much spam as Thursday. Probes and attacks are likely to follow a similar statistical pattern, in part because spammers and blackhats are an overlapping community. --
Back in the dawn of time, the Net was designed as a redundant network. If one link went down, there was usually another path available, and the data could get through. The architecture of the Net resembled a spider's web. These redundant links cost extra money, but with government funding that's not really a limitation.
When ISPs and other companies started using the Net as their business, they chose to implement few redundant links. They cost extra money, they said. Why have two or three separate links to the net when one will do the job?
So what happens when a lot of ISP's and bandwidth providers do this? The net architecture becomes more like a tree with little redundancy. Unlike webs, trees have many vulnerable points. Thus, it is common to see sites being unreachable. For example, my reaching Slashdot from my desk at work in Australia is a journey of over 20 hops, and if any of these links goes down, Slashdot becomes unreachable. The reliability of my connectivity to Slashdot over all these hops is about 95%-98%.
So the solution? Change the architecture of the net by putting it back the way it was! Put back the redundant links, and to hell with the bottom line of the penny-pinching providers. And get the corporations who want reliability to pay for it! The Internet is NOT FREE, yet corporations seem to want to make money off the net without paying for it. Well, big corporations, you get what you pay for. --
For a really good press conference, get hold of several sets of these ROT-13 children's blocks, an eBook, and a video projector.
The script would run as follows:
"For those who are not informed as to the issues, here is a demonstration of the techniques used in the alleged circumvention software."
A set of the children's blocks are laid out so the letters are in alphabetical order and are clearly visible. They are encased in a simple harness so they can all be flipped at the same time.
"Here we have a set of children's blocks, which are readily available from many toy stores all around the nation. The blocks have letters on both sides. Watch what happens when we flip all the blocks over."
The blocks are flipped, revealing the letters on the other side.
"Notice how the letters on the blocks now run from N to Z, then from A to M. In the computer industry, this technique is called 'ROTATE 13' or 'R-O-T-13'."
The video projector displays a portion of the encrypted eBook.
"Here is a section of an eBook. Tou will notice that it appears to be encrypted."
Another set of children's blocks are laid out in another harness with the first encrypted line of the eBook.
"We have used another set of blocks to duplicate the first line in the eBook. What what happens when we flip these blocks."
The blocks are flipped, and a line about Big Brother from the novel '1984' is revealed.
Here is the sound bite:
"This case is about the alleged circumvention of an alleged technological measure designed to protect copyrighted works. But a protection technique that can be cracked by a two-year-old with toy blocks cannot be considered by any sane person to be effective."
My kid has a set of alphabet blocks that just happen to double as ROT-13 decoders. Aside from being kinda cool, would this be considered an illegal hacking tool under DMCA?
I know this is sort of a Barney Frank "Do I desecrate my tie" question, but isn't there a line to be drawn somewhere?
The clear place to draw the line is shown in the relevant piece of mind-drunk legislation, emphasis mine:
2. Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b) states in relevant part:
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
It can be argued safely that ROT13 is not an effective encryption technique. A competent lawyer can get this Russian gentlemen off easily.
Contribute your child's ROT-13 decoding blocks as a defense exhibit. Demonstrate how these blocks can decrypt a passage in the book. Then watch the judge try to keep a straight face.... --
Sending advertising to mobile phones, pagers and other similar devices is already illegal. It's included in the same law that prohibits junk faxes. If you receive one, ka-ching! you can sue for $500. --
What we can do is compose an anti-spam message and send it to all the addresses listed on this page. The following guidelines are needed for maximum effectiveness and legality.
Valid Reply-to or From address.
Accurate subject line. You may not need to include "ADV:" because you are not selling a product, and this is a bad idea anyway because you don't want the DMA to filter the message.
Removal instructions, with a statement that the e-mail is sent on a strictly opt-out basis according to current DMA guidelines. (Take THAT!)
Comply with removal requests.
Do not mailbomb. Send the messages no more frequently than once every 3 hours. There is no risk of overloading their mail server this way because you will only be sending about a dozen e-mails at a time.
Include a statement which says the message is not spam because it is a part of a targeted marketing campaign. (Take THAT! Oh, the irony!)
Personally address all the mail with correct To: and CC: headers. This helps evade many filters.
The point of the exercise is to give the DMA a practical demonstration of the perils of an opt-out marketing campaign.
The DMA will eventually start requesting removal. Comply with all requests. At this time you will need a new message, with new From, Reply-To and Subject headers, and new content.
If enough people do this, we can disrupt the DMA's e-mail system, and give them a practical demonstration on the problems that unfettered spamming will cause. --
Spam is NOT protected speech because of the following criminal and civil violations:
Spammers trespass on the computing facilities of other people when they send their crap
Spammers steal resources from other people such as bandwidth, disk space, time and money
Spammers are usually violating the Terms of Service of an Internet provider, because most IP's expressly forbid spamming
Spammers who forge the point of origin of an e-mail with fake From or Received headers are committing fraud
Spammers who use the trademarks of businesses in their messages without permission are infringing on those trademarks
Pornographic spammers are sexually harassing many people, and in some cases are even transmitting pornography to minors
Spammers who spam indiscriminately may send their spam to e-mail addresses to people in foreign countries who may have much stricter laws
Spammers who crash computers with their spam are committing criminal acts that can attract prison terms
The First Amendment to the American Constitution does not in any way restrict legislators from passing other laws to protect the rights and property of other people. I cannot legally break into the home of prospective employers to read them my resume. I cannot legally deface buildings with messages I consider important. I cannot legally erect an advertising billboard on someone else's property without permission.
Micro$oft's ".NET" is a move to send computing back 40 years, back to the bad old days of centralised computing resources and remote users.
I would rather keep control of my own personal computing. I don't want my private data residing on servers outside my control. How do I know that Micro$oft can be trusted with it? How do I know that Micro$oft won't steal it by changing their "terms and conditions" with a bait-and-switch? Micro$soft will as usual disclaim all liability for lost data. For these and other reasons, ".NET" cannot be trusted as a reliable computing alternative.
We should therefore work hard to ensure that ".NET" becomes ".NOT". --
Gold is used in recordable CD's. The gold in some of these is so thin that it's translucent. If you have one, hold it up to the light and see for yourself.
Aluminium is used in pressed CD's because of obvious price considerations. The problem with aluminium is that it oxidises easily. Oxidisation of aluminium yields chemical energy, and this is why the fungus can digest it. Gold would be better because it doesn't tarnish in air.
It's a good thing that hard disks use iron oxide. Because it's already oxidised, there's little chemical energy available for a hungry fungus or bacterium. --
That is patently false. If you are a private individual in Australia, you cannot get a domain name in the.au domain. The au domain has strict rules that don't leave any room for private individuals to register a domain. These rules are, as far as I can tell:
gov.au: Government organisations only.
com.au: Registered businesses only.
net.au: Similar to com.au, but probably reserved for internet providers
org.au: registered nonprofit organisations only.
Nowhere is there room for the private individual who wants a domain name for their own computer.
Mr. Elz has without a doubt had a beneficial effect on the au domain, as is amply illustrated by the near absence of cybersquatting. However, he is only one individual, and can be subject to shortsightedness and personal prejudice. Two examples: businesses could not register domains in.au until seven or eight years ago, and individuals cannot register domains in.au even now.
i hope vidomi is forced to release their software source
The more likely outcome is that Vidomi has to stop using GPL'd source and pay damages for copyright infringement.
Also, Microsoft is relevant to this lawsuit, but not in the way you think.
Look at this comment and footnote from the web site:
Yes, I can dual-license the code, but I have chosen not to in this case [link to footnote]
[Footnote] I have chosen not to because their software is, as far as I can tell, primarily meant to rip DVDs (MPEG-2 + AC3), and also installs the DivX 3.11a codec, a hacked version of Microsoft MPEG-4 V3. I'm not a lawyer, and moral issues aside, it is probably in my interest not to have my code specially licensed in a commercial package which is, with high probability, illegal.
In other words, the software distribution in question may also violate Microsoft's copyright. I would be speaking to Microsoft lawyers about a possible joint lawsuit.
Despite the fact that more spam passes through PSI.NET/PSI.COM than any other place on the Internet (source: spamcop.net stats), I have not ever heard of them even being considered for RBL listing. They have been proven to be a spam-friendly provider in the past, but MAPS does nothing.
Yet ABOVE.NET routinely add competing black hole lists (ORBS) to the black hole list without cause.
For these reasons, I don't respect the RBL or MAPS anymore. They are clearly no longer independent entities, but have been subverted to serve corporate interests.
What if a technology based on quantum entanglement is perfected that makes it impossible for anybody to eavesdrop on private peer-to-peer communication? What will the fascist governements do?
Outlaw it, of course. If the RIAA can strangle digital audiotape technology to death in the cradle, then governments who have more power to decide legality can easily prevent the technology from coming to market.
I'm not surprised that M$ are planning to introduce planned obsolescence. But there's no need to bash M$ specifically over this. Other companies have been doing it for years.
Consider:
* Incandescent light globes/bulbs typically have a 1,000 hour lifetime. However, it is possible to make them last much longer. Most wear on incandescent globes happens when they are switched on and the current surges through it. If the initial current pulse was slowed, the globe would last much longer. This isn't done because the manufacturers would sell less globes and hence make less money.
* Modern cars are designed with "crumple zones". These crumple zones are areas like the panels and the like. Repairing modern cars after an accident can be very expensive. Modern cars have been known to be written off after a collision in a car park at speeds under 20 km/h.
* Most electronic equipment is built so that if it breaks down, the cost of repair is often greater than the cost of replacement. A lot of devices like VCR's have plastic gears and cogs. These limit the lifetime of the device and mandate regular replacement.
* Old car batteries used to last 15 years or more. Now they are designed so they have a limited lifetime, typically 3 to 5 years.
So why is M$ any different to any other corporation seeking to maximise profits by any legal means available?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way this figure would hold up under close scrutiny. Many stable businesses consider annual sales growth of 10% to be solid. This sort of thing is found in the annual reports for companies. I would really, really like to get my hands on the sales forecasts in the annual reports for companies in the Recording Industry Association of Korea (translated into English of course). It is highly unlikely that they actually predicted this sort of phenomenal growth in their sales forecasts. More likely, they have made up this figure out of thin air based on the number of files transferred.
Another way to retaliate would be to use good old Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
.NET because of all the license fees they would be forced to pay.
.NET is an unproven technology. Unproven technologies often fail.
.NET would be left high and dry if it fails. It is likely to fail because it is unproven technology.
Fear: Companies who are using open source solutions to save money would harm their bottom line if they use
Uncertainty:
Doubt: Companies using
We should take active steps to derail the .NET menace.
.NET server should "corrupt" it 1% of the time.
.NET protocols should be corrupted or dropped 5% of the time.
.NET unreliable, particularly if there are several hops through open source servers.
* Every open source server accepting an IP packet destined for a Microsoft
* Packets using patented
The net effect of these would be to make
* Data packets purporting to follow a published standard that do not conform 100% to the published standards - such as attempts by Microsoft to complete the "extend" phase - should be "corrected" so they conform. Kerberos is one example.
It must be OK to do this because Microsoft have been doing this sort of stuff for years. Fake error messages in windows 3.1 running under DR-DOS is just one example.
Attack of the clones? Sounds like the Clone Wars mentioned in New Hope, but I think this title can be improved a bit. Sounds too much like a 50's B-grade title - Attack of the
A trojan is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
TopText is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
Therefore TopText is a trojan.
--
A simple analysis I would like to see would be to correlate the probes and attacks over the time of the week when they occurred, with granularity measured to the hour, possibly with a 3-hour moving averages. This is likely to provide significant results.
I once analysed the spam I received over the course of a month, and even this very limited data set revealed clearly that more spam is sent on weekends, with Sunday recording twice as much spam as Thursday. Probes and attacks are likely to follow a similar statistical pattern, in part because spammers and blackhats are an overlapping community.
--
Back in the dawn of time, the Net was designed as a redundant network. If one link went down, there was usually another path available, and the data could get through. The architecture of the Net resembled a spider's web. These redundant links cost extra money, but with government funding that's not really a limitation.
When ISPs and other companies started using the Net as their business, they chose to implement few redundant links. They cost extra money, they said. Why have two or three separate links to the net when one will do the job?
So what happens when a lot of ISP's and bandwidth providers do this? The net architecture becomes more like a tree with little redundancy. Unlike webs, trees have many vulnerable points. Thus, it is common to see sites being unreachable. For example, my reaching Slashdot from my desk at work in Australia is a journey of over 20 hops, and if any of these links goes down, Slashdot becomes unreachable. The reliability of my connectivity to Slashdot over all these hops is about 95%-98%.
So the solution? Change the architecture of the net by putting it back the way it was! Put back the redundant links, and to hell with the bottom line of the penny-pinching providers. And get the corporations who want reliability to pay for it! The Internet is NOT FREE, yet corporations seem to want to make money off the net without paying for it. Well, big corporations, you get what you pay for.
--
Your wife is wrong of course. That's chemical warfare.
--
First, read this comment on ROT'13: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/18/11362 44&cid=524 and note the bit about the Child's blocks.
For a really good press conference, get hold of several sets of these ROT-13 children's blocks, an eBook, and a video projector.
The script would run as follows:
"For those who are not informed as to the issues, here is a demonstration of the techniques used in the alleged circumvention software."
A set of the children's blocks are laid out so the letters are in alphabetical order and are clearly visible. They are encased in a simple harness so they can all be flipped at the same time.
"Here we have a set of children's blocks, which are readily available from many toy stores all around the nation. The blocks have letters on both sides. Watch what happens when we flip all the blocks over."
The blocks are flipped, revealing the letters on the other side.
"Notice how the letters on the blocks now run from N to Z, then from A to M. In the computer industry, this technique is called 'ROTATE 13' or 'R-O-T-13'."
The video projector displays a portion of the encrypted eBook.
"Here is a section of an eBook. Tou will notice that it appears to be encrypted."
Another set of children's blocks are laid out in another harness with the first encrypted line of the eBook.
"We have used another set of blocks to duplicate the first line in the eBook. What what happens when we flip these blocks."
The blocks are flipped, and a line about Big Brother from the novel '1984' is revealed.
Here is the sound bite:
"This case is about the alleged circumvention of an alleged technological measure designed to protect copyrighted works. But a protection technique that can be cracked by a two-year-old with toy blocks cannot be considered by any sane person to be effective."
Ouch. This will hit below the waterline.
--
Is it just me, or does everyone find it cool that TERRA is GREEN in ROT-13? There has to be an environmental statement in there somewhere....
--
My kid has a set of alphabet blocks that just happen to double as ROT-13 decoders. Aside from being kinda cool, would this be considered an illegal hacking tool under DMCA?
I know this is sort of a Barney Frank "Do I desecrate my tie" question, but isn't there a line to be drawn somewhere?
The clear place to draw the line is shown in the relevant piece of mind-drunk legislation, emphasis mine:
2. Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b) states in relevant part:
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
It can be argued safely that ROT13 is not an effective encryption technique. A competent lawyer can get this Russian gentlemen off easily.
Contribute your child's ROT-13 decoding blocks as a defense exhibit. Demonstrate how these blocks can decrypt a passage in the book. Then watch the judge try to keep a straight face....
--
Sending advertising to mobile phones, pagers and other similar devices is already illegal. It's included in the same law that prohibits junk faxes. If you receive one, ka-ching! you can sue for $500.
--
Do your politicians have e-mail addresses? Spam them until their e-mail boxes bounce mail. Or better still, just forward all your spam to them.
--
Like Britain....
--
... is that you need a LOT of sustained firepower to put a BORG cube ship out of commission. If you only cripple them, they regenerate!
--
I had a truly evil idea recently that might just work.
We can address the spamming problem by spamming the DMA. They list e-mail addresses on the Internet on this page:
http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l
What we can do is compose an anti-spam message and send it to all the addresses listed on this page. The following guidelines are needed for maximum effectiveness and legality.
The point of the exercise is to give the DMA a practical demonstration of the perils of an opt-out marketing campaign.
The DMA will eventually start requesting removal. Comply with all requests. At this time you will need a new message, with new From, Reply-To and Subject headers, and new content.
If enough people do this, we can disrupt the DMA's e-mail system, and give them a practical demonstration on the problems that unfettered spamming will cause.
--
Spam is NOT protected speech because of the following criminal and civil violations:
The First Amendment to the American Constitution does not in any way restrict legislators from passing other laws to protect the rights and property of other people. I cannot legally break into the home of prospective employers to read them my resume. I cannot legally deface buildings with messages I consider important. I cannot legally erect an advertising billboard on someone else's property without permission.
So why should spam be treated any differently?
--
Micro$oft's ".NET" is a move to send computing back 40 years, back to the bad old days of centralised computing resources and remote users.
I would rather keep control of my own personal computing. I don't want my private data residing on servers outside my control. How do I know that Micro$oft can be trusted with it? How do I know that Micro$oft won't steal it by changing their "terms and conditions" with a bait-and-switch? Micro$soft will as usual disclaim all liability for lost data. For these and other reasons, ".NET" cannot be trusted as a reliable computing alternative.
We should therefore work hard to ensure that ".NET" becomes ".NOT".
--
Gold is used in recordable CD's. The gold in some of these is so thin that it's translucent. If you have one, hold it up to the light and see for yourself.
Aluminium is used in pressed CD's because of obvious price considerations. The problem with aluminium is that it oxidises easily. Oxidisation of aluminium yields chemical energy, and this is why the fungus can digest it. Gold would be better because it doesn't tarnish in air.
It's a good thing that hard disks use iron oxide. Because it's already oxidised, there's little chemical energy available for a hungry fungus or bacterium.
--
there's nothing wrong with the current system
.au domain. The au domain has strict rules that don't leave any room for private individuals to register a domain. These rules are, as far as I can tell:
.au until seven or eight years ago, and individuals cannot register domains in .au even now.
That is patently false. If you are a private individual in Australia, you cannot get a domain name in the
gov.au: Government organisations only.
com.au: Registered businesses only.
net.au: Similar to com.au, but probably reserved for internet providers
org.au: registered nonprofit organisations only.
Nowhere is there room for the private individual who wants a domain name for their own computer.
Mr. Elz has without a doubt had a beneficial effect on the au domain, as is amply illustrated by the near absence of cybersquatting. However, he is only one individual, and can be subject to shortsightedness and personal prejudice. Two examples: businesses could not register domains in
--
i hope vidomi is forced to release their software source
The more likely outcome is that Vidomi has to stop using GPL'd source and pay damages for copyright infringement.
Also, Microsoft is relevant to this lawsuit, but not in the way you think.
Look at this comment and footnote from the web site:
Yes, I can dual-license the code, but I have chosen not to in this case [link to footnote]
[Footnote] I have chosen not to because their software is, as far as I can tell, primarily meant to rip DVDs (MPEG-2 + AC3), and also installs the DivX 3.11a codec, a hacked version of Microsoft MPEG-4 V3. I'm not a lawyer, and moral issues aside, it is probably in my interest not to have my code specially licensed in a commercial package which is, with high probability, illegal.
In other words, the software distribution in question may also violate Microsoft's copyright. I would be speaking to Microsoft lawyers about a possible joint lawsuit.
--
Despite the fact that more spam passes through PSI.NET/PSI.COM than any other place on the Internet (source: spamcop.net stats), I have not ever heard of them even being considered for RBL listing. They have been proven to be a spam-friendly provider in the past, but MAPS does nothing.
Yet ABOVE.NET routinely add competing black hole lists (ORBS) to the black hole list without cause.
For these reasons, I don't respect the RBL or MAPS anymore. They are clearly no longer independent entities, but have been subverted to serve corporate interests.
--
A better solution would be careful game design that thwarts cheaters. For details, please refer to the Slashdot posting titled "Combating Cheating In Online Games". It refers to an article on gamasutra.com titled "How to Hurt the Hackers: The Scoop on Internet Cheating and How You Can Combat It". Please disregard gamasutra's incorrect use of the word "hacker" here.
--
What if a technology based on quantum entanglement is perfected that makes it impossible for anybody to eavesdrop on private peer-to-peer communication? What will the fascist governements do?
Outlaw it, of course. If the RIAA can strangle digital audiotape technology to death in the cradle, then governments who have more power to decide legality can easily prevent the technology from coming to market.
--
I'm not surprised that M$ are planning to introduce planned obsolescence. But there's no need to bash M$ specifically over this. Other companies have been doing it for years.
Consider:
* Incandescent light globes/bulbs typically have a 1,000 hour lifetime. However, it is possible to make them last much longer. Most wear on incandescent globes happens when they are switched on and the current surges through it. If the initial current pulse was slowed, the globe would last much longer. This isn't done because the manufacturers would sell less globes and hence make less money.
* Modern cars are designed with "crumple zones". These crumple zones are areas like the panels and the like. Repairing modern cars after an accident can be very expensive. Modern cars have been known to be written off after a collision in a car park at speeds under 20 km/h.
* Most electronic equipment is built so that if it breaks down, the cost of repair is often greater than the cost of replacement. A lot of devices like VCR's have plastic gears and cogs. These limit the lifetime of the device and mandate regular replacement.
* Old car batteries used to last 15 years or more. Now they are designed so they have a limited lifetime, typically 3 to 5 years.
So why is M$ any different to any other corporation seeking to maximise profits by any legal means available?
--