I do not frown on the copyright infringement; However, I agree, that CloudFlare is perjuring themself if they say "They can't shut down the sites".
While they cannot "keep the sites offline"; pulling their service will, at least for the short term block a venue for accessing those sites.
because the termination of CloudFlare's CDN services would have no impact on the existence and ability of these allegedly infringing websites to continue to operate
This is not true. Their web hosting providers could make the same argument, by the way. "A simple movement of the files to a new hosting provider and DNS reconfiguration"
Because removing the CloudFlare CDN service, after the DNS reconfiguration required to re-enable those sites would expose the IP addresses those websites are running on, so that takedown requests can more easily be generated against other providers.
Furthermore, there would be an impact on the performance (Speed) and resource utilization of those websites.
Furthermore, the CDNs protect the sites against conditions that would likely cause DoS and intermittent availability. And there are a limited number of CDN services available
If knowingly extending CDN services to any of these websites, CloudFlare can legitimately said to be aiding and abetting the distribution of their content by those websites.
as long as you promise not to hit the rock against another rock too hard.
I did, and the results were horrible. My attorney is working on my lawsuit against the inventor of rocks for all the damages including my pain and suffering, and my dog's pain and suffering.
Wow, not reading TFA is expected, not reading TFS is common
I read the article. The technology utilizes a "chameleon" hashing algorithm that allows deleting a prior block and substituting a new one in place.
No evidence is left behind of what the original block actually was, thus "History is lost".
The only interesting artifact is the system leaves behind a "tear" which can be seen.
Nonetheless, the network allows such tear. And thus, past the point of no return.... you essentially have users authorized to suppress all records of some particular transaction.
A claim of consensus is NOT a scientific argument.
Agreed.
The track record of many, if not most, scientific studies is very poor.
Indeed. Skepticism is warranted, especially when stakes are high. We need to see complete, successfully duplicated results over studies done decades apart by different unrelated groups in different countries with no common political bond or other common motivation.
Oh yes, and unless we see theories being invalidated and refuted as stated and requiring revision, then something fishy is going on, because that's a vital part of the process as well.
Furthermore, the science of studying studies has some interesting results.
I wonder what the science of studying studies of studies would say.
They did this by seeking a desired result and bending data to their expectations - that's bad science.
Agreed, that is bad science, and any evidence of that occuring taints the project, the group, and the sponsor of the research, so we legitimately begin to doubt and they are deserving of 10-fold the skepticism as before.
The guesswork often exceeds the statistical data.
Guesswork in constructing data between multiple studies is called fabrication, in my book: A type of lying. Just because the lying might be a repeatable lie, does not make it validated.
strong, scientific based observation that many of those record keeping centers have been compromised.
We already understand strong motive for people to tamper the data, with some evidence of past funny business, that doesn't sit well, and merits discounting record keeping centers' data.
Statements made directly contradicted with historical evidence. While they later made adjustments to correct
So not only were they lying with data, they got caught in the act, and tried to apply simple adjustments to "fix" it.
Scientific models used for predictions, but fail to correlate.
If experiment disagrees with prediction, then theory is wrong. If models don't correlate with the real world, then model is wrong.
Media claims. Weather NOT Climate. Dumb BS. How many times have I been told weather isn't climate. And I am told this, in debates discussing weather being used to claim climatic warming. *facepalm*
Double standard is a form of bias in support. Another form of intellectual dishonesty.
A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants.
If your system allows you to go back to earlier blocks and "Edit data in-place", and replace a prior block completely with no record of the original version, Then it's not a real Block chain, because the verification signatures on later blocks for validating the entire chain don't exist or aren't being checked --- which makes it not a chain, taking the word "Chain" out of the word "blockchain".
The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur?
If it's in a blockchain, and it pertains to a cryptocurrency exchange, then it DID occur, because the thing in the Blockchain IS the transaction.
If it's something else, then you establish rules that let you create a New entry which will be recorded As If it was an edit, BUT it is not an "In place" edit; it's a new record in the Blockchain that is interpreted as an edit, so you could then later go back and programmatically see that an edit was made, and the historical information "THat such and such transaction was erased" will always be intact as an element in the chain.
So the user completed step One..... now the tricky bit is Step 2, which is to attach some wires to the solder pads they removed the headphone jack component from, attach the opposite ends of the wire to a headphone receptacle, and mount the headphone receptacle to the whole you drilled.
That's the kind of info that should be available to all shareholders.
Nope, Not the court's decision. It's management's decision to publish to shareholders or not.
And the information they revealed could have negative repurcussions against them as a business.
This is the kind of thing that should have resulted in a default judgement against Oracle and sanctioning their lawyers against participating in further cases.
The dealer "incentives" or "bonuses" are a result of dealers negotiating a lower price with the manufacturers.
The manufacturer can refuse to negotiate, and then the dealer can refuse to sell their product, and thus lock out their access to those customers.
So the existence of dealers does affect the price of the product; HOWEVER, in the real world, all the incentives are just more profit for the middleman. The dealers aren't negotiating with the manufacturers for end customers' benefit.
By prohibiting direct sales, not only do the states protect the dealers' business, they give them a very powerful negotiating tool against manufacturers to increase their own profits even more.
You know.... some commentators could potentially be car salespeople or close relative/friend of a car salesman or other stakeholder at one of those dealerships.
Slashdot has many users. Wait around enough, and you're bound to find somebody commenting in support of less-popular positions.:)
Not only that Manufacturers DO set the price Minimum, AND dealers charge a mark-up.
You will not find dealers selling cars for less than the manufacturer price (After "incentives"), that's for sure, the dealer would go bankrupt.
All the laws do is prevent manufacturers from setting a Price Maximum.
Prohibiting a price maximum does not protect consumers ---- it protects the salesman leeches who sit between the manufacturer and the end user who take their 20% to 40% cut of the sales price, as extra $$$ you pay, which you would not have to pay if you could purchase direct.
No it's not.... being able to dispose of your property is a right.
The states are allowed to regulate the manner in which you may do this, and what the quality of your goods presented for sale must be.
HOWEVER, the regulation of Interstate commerce is reserved for the Federal Government only; the states do not have a legal right to prevent you from exercising the "privilege" to sell something across state lines.
The real motive is protecting the car dealerships from competition and protecting their legacy business model.
Also, protection of Sales Tax revenues, which are huge..... Car sales are one of the largest sources of Sales Tax. If prices go down, then that means lower tax revenue for legislators to fund their programs.
That's just a lame excuse. It has no basis in reality.
Yeah it does.... If the ISP doesn't have SNMP/SSH/etc to the NIU device, then a truck has to be rolled to diagnose, even for an internal network issue.
Then the customer will not be happy when they have to pay the extra fee for the truck roll, plus the technician's time.
Also, for business internet: the cost is more than enough for the ISP to supply a basic CPE for free: However, it's the ISP's property, and important that it is the ISP that has eyes on and manages this point where the ISP's network ends and the customer's begins.
There's absolutely no reason for an SLA-free Internet service to require you to rent a modem.
SLA-free internet service is not business-grade internet; I'm not sure what that is. There Should be an SLA, if you are purchasing a business connection.
The problem is that Comcast uses a fundamentally broken and insecure technology for routing, wherein your cable modem has custom firmware with a crypto key in it that lets it do encrypted RIP for router advertisements upstream.
The technology used is a separate issue ( I think); that may be true in Comcast's case, but other ISPs have the same requirement.... RIP obviously doesn't scale; if they want to do that, then the protocol used should be IBGP.
With Business service, you're paying extra for a higher level of support, therefore, they get to dictate what hardware is used as CPE, so they can monitor it.
If you use your own HW, then they're more limited and providing the higher level of support isn't feasible.
Occasionally regulation is good at solving certain problems the government itself created by distorting the free market. It is better to remove the conditions hindering the market.
Regulation is also useful for protecting, managing, or provisioning common resources which are real property or the right of use of scarce valuable resources, or Public goods in danger of being destroyed by profiteering people that want to take an unreasonable amount of resource determined by their ability to profit by exploiting, instead of their need to use for personal purposes, And regulation preventing companies from ruining the well-being/value of property of other people that is not the actor's property.
For example: Blocking a neighbor ruining your view of the ocean by constructing a tall fence; Preventing one news company from hogging all the radio spectrum so nobody else can use it; Preventing companies from dumping toxic waste into our lakes and streams; preventing companies from cutting down all the trees on shared public land to sell for paper and timber. Stopping your neighbor from building a poorly-engineered structure on their property that wrecks the drainage for the entire subdivision.
For the public good we need to be able to force people to allow transit through their property, for things such as fibre optic cable, so we can have an internet...... And no, you don't get to charge $1 Million per foot.
Competition doesn't stop companies from exploiting resources that someone else pays for, therefore, regulation is called for to protect that which is common, AND to override individuals' desire to profit, when necessary to create a common good.
North Korea has no reason to be interested in doing that, because their citizens don't have access to the public internet. They already have their own fork, which is no DNS, essentially.
As for Russia and China, there's no real impetus there to attempt to fork the DNS root, because you see, they have their CCTLDs, and they essentially have to play in the ICANN Sandbox to do business with the rest of the world.....
As for technical standards: You would have to be kidding. That requires Real genuine expense and effort, which they are unlikely to put in. Politicians are only interested in standards work where anything can be written and gives them more political power. When you get politicians trying to write standards docs you get dysfunctional organizations like the United Nations' ITU which have already tried to takeover the internet, but they wouldn't know how to swat a fly if it landed on their face, from all the argument, they'd have a 5000-page memo on required standard for swatting a fly, which wouldn't actually be a method that works, by the way
It is not like some politicized bureaucrats have the knowhow and wherewithal to write new technical standards documents that would have any measure of success.
You see...... it's a lot easier to write a law than a technical standard, because technical standards actually have to work without humans or courts filling in the gaps.
As for other resource assignments such as IP Addressing and ASNs, Well, the truth is that IANA under oversight of the US government have handled them very well and Non-politically, so there's no basis for anyone to want to fork these, Especially since regions already have their own local assignment authority, AND Universal co-ordination is especially important and necessary for the internet to work, AND people get that, At least people other than Bureaucrats Who aren't Engineers, and don't get to make technical decisions for ISPs......
A lot of other countries don't particularly like the idea of the US being in charge of this global resources, and they are already preparing their own root DNS servers.
This goes absolutely nowhere without the full support of ISPs and users of numerous other countries of a new common root.
And there's no way they will get the DNSSEC signatures on their new root needed to make it validate on peoples' copy of BIND.
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow
Actually, there is practically zero chance of that happening; However, if a large enough community Did get together to fork it, and build the critical mass to re-do things in support of the public interest, then it would be a very good thing.
Because, you see.... the "Global stakeholder groups" they are talking about..... are actually about a small number of elite and powerful organizations who have certain vested interests
ICANN's clearly more about profit for various commercial entities, than the public good: See The Global TLDs program, and how they're managing that for evidence..
think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like
That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile. Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.
More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.
And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.
I imagine that this might be theoretically possible, but I don't expect that our sun will still be burning if or when it is achieved.
What if we replaced every single cell in your body one by one with a synthetic one controlled by nanomachines designed to execute every cellular process the same way that a biological cell would, however, the nanomachines controlling the cell would have a software program, instead of being controlled by the DNA, and during cell division, the clone would be a Digital copy with an error correcting code (ECC) to guarantee that not a single bit of software code and not a single DNA molecule were copied incorrectly.
Also, in order to dissuade viruses: the software component and the DNA components would be digital signed, and the "Anticancer mechanism" would be a foreign nanomachine frequently visiting different cells to verify the components against the digital signature.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not frown on the copyright infringement; However, I agree, that CloudFlare is perjuring themself if they say "They can't shut down the sites".
While they cannot "keep the sites offline"; pulling their service will, at least for the short term block a venue for accessing those sites.
This is not true.
Their web hosting providers could make the same argument, by the way.
"A simple movement of the files to a new hosting provider and DNS reconfiguration"
Because removing the CloudFlare CDN service, after the DNS reconfiguration required to re-enable those sites would expose the IP addresses those websites are running on, so that takedown requests can more easily be generated against other providers.
Furthermore, there would be an impact on the performance (Speed) and resource utilization of those websites.
Furthermore, the CDNs protect the sites against conditions that would likely cause DoS and intermittent availability.
And there are a limited number of CDN services available
If knowingly extending CDN services to any of these websites, CloudFlare can legitimately said to be aiding and abetting the distribution of their content by those websites.
as long as you promise not to hit the rock against another rock too hard.
I did, and the results were horrible. My attorney is working on my lawsuit against the inventor of rocks for all the damages including my pain and suffering, and my dog's pain and suffering.
Wow, not reading TFA is expected, not reading TFS is common
I read the article. The technology utilizes a "chameleon" hashing algorithm that allows deleting a prior block and
substituting a new one in place.
No evidence is left behind of what the original block actually was, thus "History is lost".
The only interesting artifact is the system leaves behind a "tear" which can be seen.
Nonetheless, the network allows such tear. And thus, past the point of no return.... you essentially have users authorized to
suppress all records of some particular transaction.
A claim of consensus is NOT a scientific argument.
Agreed.
The track record of many, if not most, scientific studies is very poor.
Indeed. Skepticism is warranted, especially when stakes are high.
We need to see complete, successfully duplicated results over studies done decades apart
by different unrelated groups in different countries with no common political bond or other common motivation.
Oh yes, and unless we see theories being invalidated and refuted as stated and requiring revision, then something fishy is going on, because that's a vital part of the process as well.
Furthermore, the science of studying studies has some interesting results.
I wonder what the science of studying studies of studies would say.
They did this by seeking a desired result and bending data to their expectations - that's bad science.
Agreed, that is bad science, and any evidence of that occuring taints the project, the group, and the sponsor of the research, so we legitimately begin to doubt and they are deserving of 10-fold the skepticism as before.
The guesswork often exceeds the statistical data.
Guesswork in constructing data between multiple studies is called fabrication, in my book: A type of lying.
Just because the lying might be a repeatable lie, does not make it validated.
strong, scientific based observation that many of those record keeping centers have been compromised.
We already understand strong motive for people to tamper the data, with some evidence of past funny business, that doesn't sit well, and merits discounting record keeping centers' data.
Statements made directly contradicted with historical evidence. While they later made adjustments to correct
So not only were they lying with data, they got caught in the act, and tried to apply simple adjustments to "fix" it.
Scientific models used for predictions, but fail to correlate.
If experiment disagrees with prediction, then theory is wrong.
If models don't correlate with the real world, then model is wrong.
Media claims. Weather NOT Climate. Dumb BS. How many times have I been told weather isn't climate. And I am told this, in debates discussing weather being used to claim climatic warming. *facepalm*
Double standard is a form of bias in support. Another form of intellectual dishonesty.
A blockchain with limited participants is still a blockchain. It's as trustworthy as those participants.
If your system allows you to go back to earlier blocks and "Edit data in-place", and replace a prior block completely with no record of the original version, Then it's not a real Block chain, because the verification signatures on later blocks for validating the entire chain don't exist or aren't being checked --- which makes it not a chain, taking the word "Chain" out of the word "blockchain".
The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur?
If it's in a blockchain, and it pertains to a cryptocurrency exchange, then it DID occur, because the thing in the Blockchain IS the transaction.
If it's something else, then you establish rules that let you create a New entry which will be recorded As If it was an edit, BUT it is not an "In place" edit; it's a new record in the Blockchain that is interpreted as an edit, so you could then later go back and programmatically see that an edit was made, and the historical information "THat such and such transaction was erased" will always be intact as an element in the chain.
So the user completed step One..... now the tricky bit is Step 2, which is to attach some wires to the solder pads they removed the headphone jack component from, attach the opposite ends of the wire to a headphone receptacle, and mount the headphone receptacle to the whole you drilled.
I'll bet the iPhone 81kers are Clinton supporters. The rational human beings are almost all on the Trump train.
That's the kind of info that should be available to all shareholders.
Nope, Not the court's decision. It's management's decision to publish to shareholders or not.
And the information they revealed could have negative repurcussions against them as a business.
This is the kind of thing that should have resulted in a default judgement against Oracle and sanctioning their lawyers against participating in further cases.
It would be better if Akamai survives, but is HURT by this choice of theirs, such that they revisit their policy.
taking into account all of the dealer incentives
The dealer "incentives" or "bonuses" are a result of dealers negotiating a lower price with the manufacturers.
The manufacturer can refuse to negotiate, and then the dealer can refuse to sell their product, and thus lock out their access to those customers.
So the existence of dealers does affect the price of the product; HOWEVER, in the real world, all the incentives are just more profit for the middleman.
The dealers aren't negotiating with the manufacturers for end customers' benefit.
By prohibiting direct sales, not only do the states protect the dealers' business, they give them a very powerful negotiating tool against manufacturers to increase their own profits even more.
And then dknj showed up.
You know.... some commentators could potentially be car salespeople or close relative/friend of a car salesman or other stakeholder at one of those dealerships.
Slashdot has many users. Wait around enough, and you're bound to find somebody commenting in support of less-popular positions. :)
It prevents the manufacturers from setting a Price Maximum and putting all those bad salespeople out of a job.
allows the manufacturer to set the price.
Not only that Manufacturers DO set the price Minimum, AND dealers charge a mark-up.
You will not find dealers selling cars for less than the manufacturer price (After "incentives"), that's for sure,
the dealer would go bankrupt.
All the laws do is prevent manufacturers from setting a Price Maximum.
Prohibiting a price maximum does not protect consumers ---- it protects the salesman leeches who sit between the manufacturer and the end user who take their 20% to 40% cut of the sales price, as extra $$$ you pay, which you would not have to pay if you could purchase direct.
No it's not.... being able to dispose of your property is a right.
The states are allowed to regulate the manner in which you may do this, and what the quality of your goods presented for sale must be.
HOWEVER, the regulation of Interstate commerce is reserved for the Federal Government only;
the states do not have a legal right to prevent you from exercising the "privilege" to sell something across state lines.
The real motive is protecting the car dealerships from competition and protecting their legacy business model.
Also, protection of Sales Tax revenues, which are huge..... Car sales are one of the largest sources of Sales Tax.
If prices go down, then that means lower tax revenue for legislators to fund their programs.
That's just a lame excuse. It has no basis in reality.
Yeah it does.... If the ISP doesn't have SNMP/SSH/etc to the NIU device, then a truck has to be rolled to diagnose, even for an internal network issue.
Then the customer will not be happy when they have to pay the extra fee for the truck roll, plus the technician's time.
Also, for business internet: the cost is more than enough for the ISP to supply a basic CPE for free: However,
it's the ISP's property, and important that it is the ISP that has eyes on and manages this point where the ISP's network ends and the customer's begins.
There's absolutely no reason for an SLA-free Internet service to require you to rent a modem.
SLA-free internet service is not business-grade internet; I'm not sure what that is.
There Should be an SLA, if you are purchasing a business connection.
The problem is that Comcast uses a fundamentally broken and insecure technology for routing, wherein your cable modem has custom firmware with a crypto key in it that lets it do encrypted RIP for router advertisements upstream.
The technology used is a separate issue ( I think); that may be true in Comcast's case, but other ISPs have the same requirement.... RIP obviously doesn't scale; if they want to do that, then the protocol used should be IBGP.
With Business service, you're paying extra for a higher level of support, therefore, they get to dictate what hardware is used as CPE, so they can monitor it.
If you use your own HW, then they're more limited and providing the higher level of support isn't feasible.
My monthly bill from charter has a $9 fee for "Modem lease".
are you saying regulation doesn't solve anything?
Occasionally regulation is good at solving certain problems the government itself created by distorting the free market.
It is better to remove the conditions hindering the market.
Regulation is also useful for protecting, managing, or provisioning common resources which are real property or the right of use of scarce valuable resources, or Public goods in danger of being destroyed by profiteering people that want to take an unreasonable amount of resource determined by their ability to profit by exploiting, instead of their need to use for personal purposes, And regulation preventing companies from ruining the well-being/value of property of other people that is not the actor's property.
For example: Blocking a neighbor ruining your view of the ocean by constructing a tall fence; Preventing one news company from hogging all the radio spectrum so nobody else can use it; Preventing companies from dumping toxic waste into our lakes and streams;
preventing companies from cutting down all the trees on shared public land to sell for paper and timber.
Stopping your neighbor from building a poorly-engineered structure on their property that wrecks the drainage for the entire subdivision.
For the public good we need to be able to force people to allow transit through their property, for things such as fibre optic cable, so we can have an internet...... And no, you don't get to charge $1 Million per foot.
Competition doesn't stop companies from exploiting resources that someone else pays for, therefore,
regulation is called for to protect that which is common, AND to override individuals' desire to profit, when necessary to
create a common good.
North Korea has no reason to be interested in doing that, because
their citizens don't have access to the public internet. They already have their own fork,
which is no DNS, essentially.
As for Russia and China, there's no real impetus there to attempt to fork the DNS root,
because you see, they have their CCTLDs, and they essentially have to play in the ICANN Sandbox
to do business with the rest of the world.....
As for technical standards: You would have to be kidding. That requires Real genuine expense and effort,
which they are unlikely to put in. Politicians are only interested in standards work where anything can be written and gives them more political power. When you get politicians trying to write standards docs you get dysfunctional organizations like the United Nations' ITU which have already tried to takeover the internet, but they wouldn't know how to swat a fly if it landed on their face, from all the argument, they'd have a 5000-page memo on required standard for swatting a fly, which wouldn't actually be a method that works, by the way
It is not like some politicized bureaucrats have the knowhow and wherewithal to write new technical standards documents that would have any measure of success.
You see...... it's a lot easier to write a law than a technical standard, because technical standards actually have to work without humans or courts filling in the gaps.
As for other resource assignments such as IP Addressing and ASNs, Well, the truth is that IANA under oversight of the US government have handled them very well and Non-politically, so there's no basis for anyone to want to fork these, Especially since regions already have their own local assignment authority, AND Universal co-ordination is especially important and necessary for the internet to work, AND people get that, At least people other than Bureaucrats Who aren't Engineers, and don't get to make technical decisions for ISPs......
A lot of other countries don't particularly like the idea of the US being in charge of this global resources, and they are already preparing their own root DNS servers.
This goes absolutely nowhere without the full support of ISPs and users of numerous other countries of a new common root.
And there's no way they will get the DNSSEC signatures on their new root needed to make it validate on peoples' copy of BIND.
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow
Actually, there is practically zero chance of that happening; However, if a large enough community Did get together to fork it, and build the critical mass to re-do things in support of the public interest, then it would be a very good thing.
Because, you see.... the "Global stakeholder groups" they are talking about..... are actually about a small number of elite and powerful organizations who have certain vested interests
ICANN's clearly more about profit for various commercial entities, than the public good: See The Global TLDs program, and how they're managing that for evidence..
think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like
That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile.
Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.
More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.
And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.
I imagine that this might be theoretically possible, but I don't expect that our sun will still be burning if or when it is achieved.
What if we replaced every single cell in your body one by one with a synthetic one controlled by nanomachines designed to execute every cellular process the same way that a biological cell would, however, the nanomachines controlling the cell would have a software program, instead of being controlled by the DNA, and during cell division, the clone would be a Digital copy with an error correcting code (ECC) to guarantee that not a single bit of software code and not a single DNA molecule were copied incorrectly.
Also, in order to dissuade viruses: the software component and the DNA components would be digital signed, and the "Anticancer mechanism" would be a foreign nanomachine frequently visiting different cells to verify the components against the digital signature.