More like kicking a feisty terrier. Oh, by the way... a Linux user saying FreeBSD sucks
is like a miniature poodle kicking a rottweiler.
The problem about the desktop being the only place Linux hasn't had success is...... the desktop is (still) a huge market.
There are a hell of a lot more desktops than servers or mainframes.
The places where Linux is thriving is behind the scenes.
It's thriving on mobile devices, only because it's behind the scenes, e.g. Android is a great stack, but the user is never exposed to Linux.
In these cases, Linux gets selected because of its flexibility and low cost, for technical reasons.....
but for the most part, the user is none the wiser.
If the IP accessing Google search is an italy IP, turn off the 'autocomplete function'
On every search form and result page, display an orange box with the following text:
We regret to inform you, that your Google search experience due to the actions of Carlo Piana and by order of the court of Milan.
The auto complete function has been disabled for the residents of Italy, due to autocomplete results raising claims of defamation.
If you would like to improve your Google search experience, we encourage you to write to your local member of parliament.
The decision WAS ultimately left up to people('s elected officials). So whats the problem?
The problem is it was not left up to the people.
Judges are appointed officials, not elected officials. And Verizon is one entity bringing the matter to the court.
That is as far from being left up to the people as it gets.
The people are represented by the government regulatory bodies and the elected personnell such as the president, but more
specifically, the FCC on behalf of congress on behalf of the people.
The courts do not really represent the people -- they interpret the law, and utilize the law to settle disputes between parties.
Who would have ever dreamed that a lower court would deem itself so arrogant as to "override" a governmental entity
granted a regulatory power by congress, on behalf of an organization subject to the regulation, merely because the
regulation is considered inconvenient for the corporation so regulated.
The dismissal is essentially saying "it hasn't been published yet", therefore Verizon cannot seek preemptive relief?
They have to actually wait until it's published in the register and harming them....
Meaning to protect their rights now, they will have to file again, after it is published.... possibly with a different outcome.
So they say Verizon is "gaming the system".... but it sounds like in this case, the government's gaming the system.
Not that I disagree with net neutrality. I just disagree with the court's reason for "changing its mind".
Net neutrality should ultimately be left up to the people (preferably _not_ paid lobbyists for either side)
I am sure the big media companies have economists to tell them about that and help them play with the price/demand curves to maximize their profits.
I am sure they also know mathematically that piracy is already baked into the calculations, mostly, and not a huge issue.
I suspect they view piracy as "untapped revenue streams" or "money left on the table", since they few every copy a pirate makes as a lost opportunity to have sold that copy to the pirate for the full inflated retail price; and efforts for stronger legislation, lawsuits, scare tactics, etc, are all about getting as much of that money off the table as possible, or tapping into the "lucrative" piracy revenue stream, by getting pirates (who thought they were getting it for free) to instead be forced into paying amounts they can't afford off the top; and, by reducing the piracy to capture that 1% or so extra sales from pirates who WILL buy the thing, as a result of their efforts.
In other words... all the pain and farces are just efforts to capture a small percentage of the 'piracy' into sales, and to get extra revenue/"compensation" by any means possible.
Pure greed. Nothing about 'protecting themselves', the economy, innovation, or other similar scare tactics they make things out to be.
As their sales are falling for reasons that have naught to do with piracy, and they need all the sources of revenue they can get.
In which case piracy is a bed the rights holders made, and now they should just sleep in it and stop using governments as their attack dogs.
I agree. Also, when someone makes the argument maximizes profit globally... piracy and unintended/negative consequences have to be part of that equation.
If they did not consider it, this is totally a result of their negligence they can fix, without help from the public (whose interest is not best served lashing at pirates on their behalf), and they should be left on their own to fairly correct the situation.
Or (2) if they did consider piracy when proceeding with a policy based on the idea of maximizing profit globally..... then it's all intentional, and it's not in the public interest to reward their greed by consuming resources to try to fight piracy generated by their under-served markets.
they are claiming that a strategy which maximizes profit globally is a failure? Are these people serious?
No.... they are not conceding that it "maximizes profit globally" that might or might not be true.
They are saying "piracy" is a result of failure of the market to provide people a price they can afford for the goods.
Just because something is an economic success to one entity, does not mean that the practice is good for the economy, or serves the public interest.
The public interest is better served when affordable products are available to the public, rather, than when, a foreign corporation's profits are maximized.
I think the lowest-hanging fruit is to sandbox the various CA's to certain domains. The Tunisian gov't shouldn't be able to make certs for paypal.com. They should probably only be making certs for *.tn, so why not have the browsers enforce this? Have the browsers only trust Verisign and the big DNS registrars for.com certs... etc.
What we should do is have one authority for each TLD.
Instead of being issued a "certificate" by some random CA you pick....
you the owner of the domain get to create your own CA valid for your domain only,
and it will be signed by the DNS registry, and the valid-until date will match the expiration date of your domain, exactly.
You renew your domain, your cert is automatically renewed, once you provide the new CSR with a new public key.
Every SSL certificate has a unique SHA1 ID and issuing CA
I suggest we have signed DNS records like this:
web.example.com. 86400 IN A 192.0.0.1
_https._tcp.www.example.com 86400 IN SRV 10 10 443 web.example.com.
_https._tcp.example.com 86400 IN SRV 10 10 443 web.example.com.
_https._tcp.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=tls3 subject="/CN=example.com/O=Example Organization/OU=Example OU" issuer="/C=US/ST=xxxxxxx/L=xxxxxxxxx/O=ca.example.com/serialNumber=xxxxxxxxx" ocsp=http://ocsp.ca.example.com/xxxxxx ciphers=aes256, sha1=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX"
_https._tcp.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=ssl_cross_domain_inclusion +https://subdomain.example.com/* +http://images.example.com/* -all"
_https._tcp.www.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=tls3 subject="/CN=example.com/O=Example Organization/OU=Example OU" issuer="/C=US/ST=xxxxxxx/L=xxxxxxxxx/O=ca.example.com/serialNumber=xxxxxxxxx" ocsp=http://ocsp.ca.example.com/xxxxxx ciphers=aes256, sha1=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX"
_https._tcp.www.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=ssl_cross_domain_inclusion +https://s
And in addition to having certs signed by a CA, the browser should verify the DNS records.
There should also be an attribute on the CA or the certificate indicating that use of the cert will fail if the DNS record is not present.
Also, as long as DNSSEC is used, "self-signed certificates" are no longer bad.
So long as the proper DNS records are in place
Of course there are other things which seem so much easier for the military (like sending what are basically space telescopes when the scientific community have to share just a few).
Something tells me those 'basically space telescopes' have more specialized purposes that make them not so useful to the scientists --
and the government deems national security a few notches in importance above providing scientists resources to make observations.
I suppose... private industry could pitch in and build more telescopes for the scientists, if there's money to be made in it......
E.g. renting out access hours to telescopes to professional (and amateur) astronomers.
There's no such thing as irradiated helium, or at least, none that has a half-life time of over a second.
What's that?
I'm talking about gaseous helium rushing out the leaks, and the flow of helium helping to increasing the flow and wider dispersion of radioactive materials (not talking about the dispersion of the helium itself).
Who said anything about radioactive helium?
There's a real simple shutdown plan.... trigger the explosives that release helium from containers that were designed to be broken in a case like this into the reactor zone, and you've got a tight seal that radiation can't pass through
What the hell are you talking about?
The reactors are already hosed for good. Pumping in sea water sealed the fate of those reactors.
They will never be used to produce electricity again. The introduction of sea water corrodes all equipment,
and that plus the irradiated equipment means the reactors will never be safe [let-alone legal] to operate, ever again.
If there is a leak, pumping helium in would just mean that irradiated helium escapes,
along with the other gaseous emissions.
They would need a continuous supply of Helium, and it does NOTHING against leaks in the reactor
where materials are seeping out, and it does nothing against waste heat and materials being able to penetrate the concrete floor.
The group is charged with breaking and entering a secure government facility, destruction of government property, stealing national secrets and parking illegally."
The other 3 charges are trivial and are easily dismissed with a warning or minor fine.
But parking illegally?!?!? UH oh...... the group is bound to be sentenced to hang.
Bummer man. I guess i'll have to do this the old fashioned way...
"Nearly three decades after the nuclear crisis began at Ukraine's Chernobyl power plant Reactor No. 4, there's still a real danger of melted nuclear fuel escaping reactor buildings and releasing a large dose of radiation. So says Obama, a superhuman who spent 15 years pondering about the risks of nuclear powered cheeseballs. Batman believes that melted Pu239 has already leaked through the pornreceptacles and accumulated at the bottoms of the primary erected structures. All attempts to keep the reactor buildings soft may not be enough to prevent the narly fuel from eating through the cardboardwalls, Taco says."
There are some people I just don't want to listen to anymore. I'd like some glasses that will blot out annoying individuals, and some headphones that will recognize the voice of known annoying people and project opposing sounds in all directions, so I won't hear the latest annoying thing they have to say.
I'm uncertain whether to enter serious MicroTweaks or Jokes.
Do I bore myself with minor edits to articles, or raise the ire of Slashdot editors by picking the funniest choices?
"Today is World Backup Day, an occasion to back up your PORN and check on your significant other (for the first time in six months) [while you wait all day for the backup to finish].
It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.
Well, it's true that it does make you look like an infringer as well; and if you do the possess the AP and hardware that facilitated it, your connection did do the downloading, and possession is 9/10 of the law.....
the student will have a hell a time proving in court they weren't the one who'd done it.
You suggest it's not true, if others did the infringing -- but that is not necessarily the case.
If you allow your connection to be used with the knowledge it might be used to facilitate an illegal act,
out of your own negligence, such as infringement, especially if you do anything that might be viewed as encouraging or profiting from that act, then you are complicit with that act, and you fail to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or prevent that, then the court may find you guilty of infringement.
Just the way the makers of third-party Teddy Ruxpin tapes were sued and found liable.
Although they did not commit the infringing act (the end user might infringe) -- they were found liable for copyright infringement.
Just the way Napster or KaZaa were guilty of infringement -- not for copying material themselves, but for contributing to a 3rd party's infringement.
The same as if you leave the front door to your house unlocked when you leave, you can be liable for illegal actions neighborhood kids commit in your house.
Also, as an individual, you are not protected from claims of anothers' infringement by the DMCA safe harbor,
since you don't fit the service provider definitions.
Slashdot Mirror
And surely Google would then be charged with sedition and fomenting revolution.
At which point, Google could defiantly say "viva la revolution"
And from then on, ignore anything the Italian government has to say; while making sure it has no assets located in Italy.
More like kicking a feisty terrier. Oh, by the way... a Linux user saying FreeBSD sucks is like a miniature poodle kicking a rottweiler.
The problem about the desktop being the only place Linux hasn't had success is...... the desktop is (still) a huge market. There are a hell of a lot more desktops than servers or mainframes.
The places where Linux is thriving is behind the scenes.
It's thriving on mobile devices, only because it's behind the scenes, e.g. Android is a great stack, but the user is never exposed to Linux.
In these cases, Linux gets selected because of its flexibility and low cost, for technical reasons..... but for the most part, the user is none the wiser.
If you would like to improve your Google search experience, we encourage you to write to your local member of parliament.
Well, it is true.... it does play (a small number of) nice games[*].
[*] Plenty of wine may be required, not necessarily suitable for underage users.
[*] Use of flash comes with stability caveats.
The decision WAS ultimately left up to people('s elected officials). So whats the problem?
The problem is it was not left up to the people.
Judges are appointed officials, not elected officials. And Verizon is one entity bringing the matter to the court. That is as far from being left up to the people as it gets.
The people are represented by the government regulatory bodies and the elected personnell such as the president, but more specifically, the FCC on behalf of congress on behalf of the people.
The courts do not really represent the people -- they interpret the law, and utilize the law to settle disputes between parties.
Who would have ever dreamed that a lower court would deem itself so arrogant as to "override" a governmental entity granted a regulatory power by congress, on behalf of an organization subject to the regulation, merely because the regulation is considered inconvenient for the corporation so regulated.
The dismissal is essentially saying "it hasn't been published yet", therefore Verizon cannot seek preemptive relief? They have to actually wait until it's published in the register and harming them.... Meaning to protect their rights now, they will have to file again, after it is published.... possibly with a different outcome.
So they say Verizon is "gaming the system".... but it sounds like in this case, the government's gaming the system.
Not that I disagree with net neutrality. I just disagree with the court's reason for "changing its mind". Net neutrality should ultimately be left up to the people (preferably _not_ paid lobbyists for either side)
I am sure the big media companies have economists to tell them about that and help them play with the price/demand curves to maximize their profits.
I am sure they also know mathematically that piracy is already baked into the calculations, mostly, and not a huge issue.
I suspect they view piracy as "untapped revenue streams" or "money left on the table", since they few every copy a pirate makes as a lost opportunity to have sold that copy to the pirate for the full inflated retail price; and efforts for stronger legislation, lawsuits, scare tactics, etc, are all about getting as much of that money off the table as possible, or tapping into the "lucrative" piracy revenue stream, by getting pirates (who thought they were getting it for free) to instead be forced into paying amounts they can't afford off the top; and, by reducing the piracy to capture that 1% or so extra sales from pirates who WILL buy the thing, as a result of their efforts.
In other words... all the pain and farces are just efforts to capture a small percentage of the 'piracy' into sales, and to get extra revenue/"compensation" by any means possible.
Pure greed. Nothing about 'protecting themselves', the economy, innovation, or other similar scare tactics they make things out to be.
As their sales are falling for reasons that have naught to do with piracy, and they need all the sources of revenue they can get.
In which case piracy is a bed the rights holders made, and now they should just sleep in it and stop using governments as their attack dogs.
I agree. Also, when someone makes the argument maximizes profit globally... piracy and unintended/negative consequences have to be part of that equation.
If they did not consider it, this is totally a result of their negligence they can fix, without help from the public (whose interest is not best served lashing at pirates on their behalf), and they should be left on their own to fairly correct the situation.
Or (2) if they did consider piracy when proceeding with a policy based on the idea of maximizing profit globally..... then it's all intentional, and it's not in the public interest to reward their greed by consuming resources to try to fight piracy generated by their under-served markets.
they are claiming that a strategy which maximizes profit globally is a failure? Are these people serious?
No.... they are not conceding that it "maximizes profit globally" that might or might not be true.
They are saying "piracy" is a result of failure of the market to provide people a price they can afford for the goods.
Just because something is an economic success to one entity, does not mean that the practice is good for the economy, or serves the public interest.
The public interest is better served when affordable products are available to the public, rather, than when, a foreign corporation's profits are maximized.
I think the lowest-hanging fruit is to sandbox the various CA's to certain domains. The Tunisian gov't shouldn't be able to make certs for paypal.com. They should probably only be making certs for *.tn, so why not have the browsers enforce this? Have the browsers only trust Verisign and the big DNS registrars for .com certs... etc.
What we should do is have one authority for each TLD.
Instead of being issued a "certificate" by some random CA you pick.... you the owner of the domain get to create your own CA valid for your domain only, and it will be signed by the DNS registry, and the valid-until date will match the expiration date of your domain, exactly.
You renew your domain, your cert is automatically renewed, once you provide the new CSR with a new public key.
Note tried to sue MP3 out of existence. Haven't succeeded... at least not yet?
DNS Bindings for SSL certificates
Here's how it would work:
Every SSL certificate has a unique SHA1 ID and issuing CA
I suggest we have signed DNS records like this:
web.example.com. 86400 IN A 192.0.0.1
_https._tcp.www.example.com 86400 IN SRV 10 10 443 web.example.com.
_https._tcp.example.com 86400 IN SRV 10 10 443 web.example.com.
_https._tcp.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=tls3 subject="/CN=example.com/O=Example Organization/OU=Example OU" issuer="/C=US/ST=xxxxxxx/L=xxxxxxxxx/O=ca.example.com/serialNumber=xxxxxxxxx" ocsp=http://ocsp.ca.example.com/xxxxxx ciphers=aes256, sha1=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX"
_https._tcp.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=ssl_cross_domain_inclusion +https://subdomain.example.com/* +http://images.example.com/* -all"
_https._tcp.www.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=tls3 subject="/CN=example.com/O=Example Organization/OU=Example OU" issuer="/C=US/ST=xxxxxxx/L=xxxxxxxxx/O=ca.example.com/serialNumber=xxxxxxxxx" ocsp=http://ocsp.ca.example.com/xxxxxx ciphers=aes256, sha1=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX"
_https._tcp.www.example.com. 604800 IN TXT "v=ssl_cross_domain_inclusion +https://s
And in addition to having certs signed by a CA, the browser should verify the DNS records. There should also be an attribute on the CA or the certificate indicating that use of the cert will fail if the DNS record is not present.
Also, as long as DNSSEC is used, "self-signed certificates" are no longer bad. So long as the proper DNS records are in place
Of course there are other things which seem so much easier for the military (like sending what are basically space telescopes when the scientific community have to share just a few).
Something tells me those 'basically space telescopes' have more specialized purposes that make them not so useful to the scientists -- and the government deems national security a few notches in importance above providing scientists resources to make observations.
I suppose... private industry could pitch in and build more telescopes for the scientists, if there's money to be made in it...... E.g. renting out access hours to telescopes to professional (and amateur) astronomers.
There's no such thing as irradiated helium, or at least, none that has a half-life time of over a second.
What's that? I'm talking about gaseous helium rushing out the leaks, and the flow of helium helping to increasing the flow and wider dispersion of radioactive materials (not talking about the dispersion of the helium itself). Who said anything about radioactive helium?
There's a real simple shutdown plan.... trigger the explosives that release helium from containers that were designed to be broken in a case like this into the reactor zone, and you've got a tight seal that radiation can't pass through
What the hell are you talking about? The reactors are already hosed for good. Pumping in sea water sealed the fate of those reactors. They will never be used to produce electricity again. The introduction of sea water corrodes all equipment, and that plus the irradiated equipment means the reactors will never be safe [let-alone legal] to operate, ever again.
If there is a leak, pumping helium in would just mean that irradiated helium escapes, along with the other gaseous emissions.
They would need a continuous supply of Helium, and it does NOTHING against leaks in the reactor where materials are seeping out, and it does nothing against waste heat and materials being able to penetrate the concrete floor.
The group is charged with breaking and entering a secure government facility, destruction of government property, stealing national secrets and parking illegally."
The other 3 charges are trivial and are easily dismissed with a warning or minor fine.
But parking illegally?!?!? UH oh...... the group is bound to be sentenced to hang.
Bummer man. I guess i'll have to do this the old fashioned way...
There... didn't fix it for you.
This is too likely to be true.
Why don't we have an article about the TSA's "strip naked in public" program, as the new mandatory alternative to full HD body scanners?
There are some people I just don't want to listen to anymore. I'd like some glasses that will blot out annoying individuals, and some headphones that will recognize the voice of known annoying people and project opposing sounds in all directions, so I won't hear the latest annoying thing they have to say.
Now Today... is Go Forward (and Stop backing up) day.
I'm uncertain whether to enter serious MicroTweaks or Jokes. Do I bore myself with minor edits to articles, or raise the ire of Slashdot editors by picking the funniest choices?
#%&@)%*@(JFIAW
Endless loop
***BOOM*****
"Today is World Backup Day, an occasion to back up your PORN and check on your significant other (for the first time in six months) [while you wait all day for the backup to finish].
There, fixed it for you.
But nobody will believe it because of the date, so the password harvest will proceed until a few million people are victims of identity theft.
Par for the course on Slashdot.
But why do you say until a few million people are victims?
Why would it stop at a few million?
There's no excuse anymore to not have an automated backup system in place.
There are plenty of excuses.. you just don't like them.... automated backup systems cost money :-)
It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.
Well, it's true that it does make you look like an infringer as well; and if you do the possess the AP and hardware that facilitated it, your connection did do the downloading, and possession is 9/10 of the law..... the student will have a hell a time proving in court they weren't the one who'd done it.
You suggest it's not true, if others did the infringing -- but that is not necessarily the case.
If you allow your connection to be used with the knowledge it might be used to facilitate an illegal act, out of your own negligence, such as infringement, especially if you do anything that might be viewed as encouraging or profiting from that act, then you are complicit with that act, and you fail to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or prevent that, then the court may find you guilty of infringement.
Just the way the makers of third-party Teddy Ruxpin tapes were sued and found liable. Although they did not commit the infringing act (the end user might infringe) -- they were found liable for copyright infringement.
Just the way Napster or KaZaa were guilty of infringement -- not for copying material themselves, but for contributing to a 3rd party's infringement.
The same as if you leave the front door to your house unlocked when you leave, you can be liable for illegal actions neighborhood kids commit in your house.
Also, as an individual, you are not protected from claims of anothers' infringement by the DMCA safe harbor, since you don't fit the service provider definitions.