The problem with comparing this to land ownership is that there is a limited supply of land.
There is no reasons for domains to have such value, other than their mismanagement by NSI.
Leave.com,.net, and.org to do what they want, and get back to using geographic names with proper naming schemes.
hell.. the only reason domains are so important is because us geeks didn't have the foresight to see this problem, and insist that something other than DNS was used as a primarly lookup mechanism for the WWW.
I will insist there is no such thing as legitimate brokering. Given teh current state of affaris of the NSI trio of domains... do whatever you want.. it's a lost cause anyway.
It used to be you couldn't transfer ownership anyway..
GPL does *not* force you to distribute software. You can give it or not to whoever you want. GPL ensures that anyone in *receipt* of that software is free to distribute it as they want.
In other words, the *software* has it's freedom.. nobody can take 'ownership' and prevent it's spread. Everyone who receives is has the right to redistribute. Nothing in the GPL forces UMICH to put it on their website and let the whole world have it..
Uhhh... no? GPL doesnt' say you have to make sure it's accessible to everyone, it says that *if* you redistrubte, those you distribute to cannot be constrained into who they distribute to.
I am perfectly free to refuse to give you a copy of redhat, but to give it to the next guy. But I cannot prevent that guy from giving it to you. And I have to provide source to the first guy if he asks.
In other words, as long as UMICH doesn't *contractually*, or by way of license, inhibit it's distribution..... it's not a problem.
Yes, as a matter of social politeness, they should run their networks accordingly. But realize, there *are* legitimate reasons to do source-routing, and it *is* part of the IPv4 spec.
Should a place be held liable? Well.. i would say, if I was a tier-1 carrier, I might say 'if you want to attach to our network, you must ensure that such-and-such never enters our network'. THAT is how it should be done.
1) You assumed RedHat would 'do the right thing'. I believe there are several warnings during the install that it will wipe everythign you have. You are the one who had to re-partition your drive; redhat doesnt' do this for you without asking. Also, WinNT does *exactly* the samething.
You are missing IE and Outlook express. What features, specifically? We have mail programs, and IE. IT sounds like, as the article said, you are stuck doing things the MS way.
The VHS comparison is useless. It was a catch 22. Withtou Betamax players, you couldn't watch beta tapes. WIthotu a market of people with betamax players, nobody can economically produce tapes.
This is not the same thing in any way. Systems based on crusoe will run normal, desktop software. IT's x86. They have no barrier to entry in that respect.
Companies *everywhere* will give them a good hard look when they are looking at an embedded/mobile product. The advantages are huge. People make PDA's on non-x86 gear because x86 chips are power hogs. WinCE isn't the naswer, WinCE sucks.
Intel says 'We are planning on bringing out a new chip that's faster and has lower power consumption, to replace our current mobile PIII laptop chips, it might run at 1Ghz'
And the Crusoe is *already* out, and has amazingly low power requirements.
Now, I'm not saying intel isn't capable of bringing out a strong competitor.. but they don't have it yet...
63 % of americans (or any other country probably) also have no idea of what the implications of Microsoft's business practices have been/could be. Sure they like it just the way it is.. it doesn't concern them.
99% of informed technical people who have 5+ years of experience in the network computing environment, and who are skilled at more platforms than just MS Windows do *not* like the way MS works at all.
Actually.. no. They are not illegal in and of themselves.
In the case of the Morris Internet worm, the code itself was not illegal in any way. The charges deal with the fact that Morris *intentionally* releaesd it into the internet *specifically* to break into computers.
I'm not sure whether we allow software patents or not. The fact is.. treaties and things mean we obey US patents (I think...).. so it makes little difference.
As for protecting source.. this is not, and has never been a PATENT issue. nobody is disputing a patent.
This case has only to do with the DMCA, and it's interpretation. It's possible that DeCSS *IS* illegal under the provisions of the DMCA. That is what it's up to the courts to sourt out.
The only protection copyright grants is THE LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to do certain things with copyrighted material (like copy them for various reasons).
This whole thing about copyright law protecting the technological protection mechanisms is bullshit. They are COPY protection mechanisms, not copyright protection mechanisms.
Without debating whether or not source = speech.. the judge saying "Even if it was considered speech, congress could regulate it to protect copyright holders'.
Nice system. "Congress shall make no law...".... is supposed to mean that NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE BEG AND SCREAM, a law *CANNOT* be made to violate these principles. Freedom of religion, speech, etc.... It doestn' mean they shouldn't, or aren't supposed to, it means they DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER TO DO SO.
Right. Ignorance is no defense, in other words, it is everyone's duty to learn and understand the law. Why is it then, that in court, the judge tells you you must have a lawyer, and that you are not capable of understanding or interpreting the law yourself?
Well put. But let's not forget.... the same thing can happen to us. It's important that we remain vocal. OpenBSD is based in Calgary? Hmm.. I'm in Calgary....
Hey... anyone in Calgary got any old SGI gear they wanna unload? *hint hint*
Just as 802.3 does not specify the physical media, 802.11 does not specify frequency/modulation. 802.11 simply describes the protocol to be used of the wireless media, whatever it may be. 802.3 specifies the frame header, the preamble (used to synchronize the receiver), the checksum, the CSMA/CD mechanism, the backoff mechanism, etc... 802.11 does the same thing for wireless. The media is still variable.
As far as I can tell, 802.11, by itself, does not guarantee that they all play well together. 802.11 covers infrared, FHSS, DSSS, several bands. Now. I'm ignorant, I haven't read the whole spec, and i"m positive a subsection of it does deal with exact physical (radio) modulation & the like... (like 802.11a, 802.11b, etc... who knows).
Just as 802.3 by itself does not indicate the media type (is it 10Base2? 10BaseT? 10Broad25? 100BaseFL?).. 802.11 by itself does not specify the radio band or modulation type. All you can confer when someone says '802.3' or '802.11' is the frame format, and an overall understanding of how the network functions at layers 1&2. Subsections will indicate how various connection methods work. In 802.3, subsections describe physical media of various types, essentially defining standards. 802.11 will be the same way, but it's the frequency and modulation that will be at issue? is it AM IR? FM IR? DSSS 900Mhz ISM? FHSS 2.4Ghz ISM? (subsonic accoustic?) Gravity waves??
TCPDump works fine depending on the card in use. It depends on the layer 2 protocol used on the radio side. In 802.11, this may be the case. not all wireless lan cards use 802.11 (and certainly, many that do use 802.11 are not interoperable; 802.11 applies to several bands.). Proxim, for one.. you can't just sniff on those cards. won't work. The driver (currently) doesn't support it, and I believe the firmware in the proxim radio (that determines how the protocol actually works) doesn't allow it... but proxim doesnt' use a CSMA/CA method.. they use a more detailed protocol where each host has to ask for permission to transmit to it's destination.... and other cards ignore.
Hmm. Depends on the methods used. DSSS is very difficult to sniff without a matching reciever that knows the appropriate codes. FHSS is very difficult to sort out, especially if there are multiple transmitters (otherwise, you could sort out hops temporally). Of course.. signal strength is an indicator...
As for your neighbor using a compatable card to join your lan.. that's the only issue. Though there are a variety of methods employed to prevent sniffing in this manner, most are trivial in the end, and someone with a working knowledge of the driver & hardware in usecould modify it to show them everything. Of course, this also depends on the underlying protocol. Some types of Wlan actually negotiate individual packets securely.
Is SSH just as secure? The whole premise is that SSH is secure no matter who is listening. It's other protocols that will be insecure, as anyone within range can sniff.
100 Meter band? Most 802.11 cards I've seen are 900Mhz (918 orwhatever ISM band is..) or 2.4Ghz (ISM again).
2.4Ghz is about 15 cm.. not 100 Meter...no? Wouldn't 100 Meter be down below VHF?
Also.. cdpd (cellular packet data) is closer than you think.. many cellular providers already have their cdpd networks deployed... but that serves a different market.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with comparing this to land ownership is that there is a limited supply of land.
.com, .net, and .org to do what they want, and get back to using geographic names with proper naming schemes.
There is no reasons for domains to have such value, other than their mismanagement by NSI.
Leave
hell.. the only reason domains are so important is because us geeks didn't have the foresight to see this problem, and insist that something other than DNS was used as a primarly lookup mechanism for the WWW.
I will insist there is no such thing as legitimate brokering.
Given teh current state of affaris of the NSI trio of domains... do whatever you want.. it's a lost cause anyway.
It used to be you couldn't transfer ownership anyway..
I'm double posting here I think.. but..
GPL does *not* force you to distribute software. You can give it or not to whoever you want.
GPL ensures that anyone in *receipt* of that software is free to distribute it as they want.
In other words, the *software* has it's freedom.. nobody can take 'ownership' and prevent it's spread. Everyone who receives is has the right to redistribute.
Nothing in the GPL forces UMICH to put it on their website and let the whole world have it..
Uhhh... no?
GPL doesnt' say you have to make sure it's accessible to everyone, it says that *if* you redistrubte, those you distribute to cannot be constrained into who they distribute to.
I am perfectly free to refuse to give you a copy of redhat, but to give it to the next guy. But I cannot prevent that guy from giving it to you.
And I have to provide source to the first guy if he asks.
In other words, as long as UMICH doesn't *contractually*, or by way of license, inhibit it's distribution..... it's not a problem.
Yes, as a matter of social politeness, they should run their networks accordingly.
But realize, there *are* legitimate reasons to do source-routing, and it *is* part of the IPv4 spec.
Should a place be held liable? Well.. i would say, if I was a tier-1 carrier, I might say 'if you want to attach to our network, you must ensure that such-and-such never enters our network'. THAT is how it should be done.
It's not the same case at all.
DeCSS deals wiht the DMCA.
The mp3.com/beam-it case deals with outright copyright infringement.
Why would it be illegal? is there a state or federal law against running a site of adsl?
Because, dimwit, Mac's are a single, prepackaged system. Apple makes them with MacOS. Period.
Microsoft does *not* make computers.. they just forced computer makers to use their OS. BIG difference.
Hell.. by your logic we should force 3com to sell PalmPilots without an OS......
Regarding your "downs"
1) You assumed RedHat would 'do the right thing'. I believe there are several warnings during the install that it will wipe everythign you have. You are the one who had to re-partition your drive; redhat doesnt' do this for you without asking. Also, WinNT does *exactly* the samething.
You are missing IE and Outlook express. What features, specifically? We have mail programs, and IE. IT sounds like, as the article said, you are stuck doing things the MS way.
There are several in existence already, and they've been there for 5+ years.
NCSA.uiuc has one..
The VHS comparison is useless. It was a catch 22. Withtou Betamax players, you couldn't watch beta tapes. WIthotu a market of people with betamax players, nobody can economically produce tapes.
This is not the same thing in any way. Systems based on crusoe will run normal, desktop software. IT's x86. They have no barrier to entry in that respect.
Companies *everywhere* will give them a good hard look when they are looking at an embedded/mobile product. The advantages are huge. People make PDA's on non-x86 gear because x86 chips are power hogs. WinCE isn't the naswer, WinCE sucks.
Intel says 'We are planning on bringing out a new chip that's faster and has lower power consumption, to replace our current mobile PIII laptop chips, it might run at 1Ghz'
And the Crusoe is *already* out, and has amazingly low power requirements.
Now, I'm not saying intel isn't capable of bringing out a strong competitor.. but they don't have it yet...
63 % of americans (or any other country probably) also have no idea of what the implications of Microsoft's business practices have been/could be.
Sure they like it just the way it is.. it doesn't concern them.
99% of informed technical people who have 5+ years of experience in the network computing environment, and who are skilled at more platforms than just MS Windows do *not* like the way MS works at all.
Actually.. no. They are not illegal in and of themselves.
In the case of the Morris Internet worm, the code itself was not illegal in any way. The charges deal with the fact that Morris *intentionally* releaesd it into the internet *specifically* to break into computers.
I'm not sure whether we allow software patents or not. The fact is.. treaties and things mean we obey US patents (I think...).. so it makes little difference.
As for protecting source.. this is not, and has never been a PATENT issue. nobody is disputing a patent.
This case has only to do with the DMCA, and it's interpretation. It's possible that DeCSS *IS* illegal under the provisions of the DMCA. That is what it's up to the courts to sourt out.
What the fuck is a 'copyright protection'?
The only protection copyright grants is THE LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to do certain things with copyrighted material (like copy them for various reasons).
This whole thing about copyright law protecting the technological protection mechanisms is bullshit.
They are COPY protection mechanisms, not copyright protection mechanisms.
Without debating whether or not source = speech..
the judge saying
"Even if it was considered speech, congress could regulate it to protect copyright holders'.
Nice system.
"Congress shall make no law...".... is supposed to mean that NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE BEG AND SCREAM, a law *CANNOT* be made to violate these principles. Freedom of religion, speech, etc.... It doestn' mean they shouldn't, or aren't supposed to, it means they DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER TO DO SO.
Right. Ignorance is no defense, in other words, it is everyone's duty to learn and understand the law.
Why is it then, that in court, the judge tells you you must have a lawyer, and that you are not capable of understanding or interpreting the law yourself?
Well put. But let's not forget.... the same thing can happen to us. It's important that we remain vocal.
OpenBSD is based in Calgary? Hmm.. I'm in Calgary....
Hey... anyone in Calgary got any old SGI gear they wanna unload? *hint hint*
Just as 802.3 does not specify the physical media, 802.11 does not specify frequency/modulation.
802.11 simply describes the protocol to be used of the wireless media, whatever it may be.
802.3 specifies the frame header, the preamble (used to synchronize the receiver), the checksum, the CSMA/CD mechanism, the backoff mechanism, etc...
802.11 does the same thing for wireless. The media is still variable.
As far as I can tell, 802.11, by itself, does not guarantee that they all play well together.
802.11 covers infrared, FHSS, DSSS, several bands.
Now. I'm ignorant, I haven't read the whole spec, and i"m positive a subsection of it does deal with exact physical (radio) modulation & the like... (like 802.11a, 802.11b, etc... who knows).
Just as 802.3 by itself does not indicate the media type (is it 10Base2? 10BaseT? 10Broad25? 100BaseFL?).. 802.11 by itself does not specify the radio band or modulation type.
All you can confer when someone says '802.3' or '802.11' is the frame format, and an overall understanding of how the network functions at layers 1&2.
Subsections will indicate how various connection methods work. In 802.3, subsections describe physical media of various types, essentially defining standards. 802.11 will be the same way, but it's the frequency and modulation that will be at issue? is it AM IR? FM IR? DSSS 900Mhz ISM? FHSS 2.4Ghz ISM? (subsonic accoustic?) Gravity waves??
That depends on what's in the way, and what frequency you are using.
if it's 900 Mhz and a few trees, you might be okay.
If it's 2.4 Ghz and some trees.. hard to say. might work great.. might not.
If it's 3 new york blocks of steel reinforced concrete buildings.. not a chance.
TCPDump works fine depending on the card in use.
It depends on the layer 2 protocol used on the radio side. In 802.11, this may be the case.
not all wireless lan cards use 802.11 (and certainly, many that do use 802.11 are not interoperable; 802.11 applies to several bands.).
Proxim, for one.. you can't just sniff on those cards. won't work. The driver (currently) doesn't support it, and I believe the firmware in the proxim radio (that determines how the protocol actually works) doesn't allow it... but proxim doesnt' use a CSMA/CA method.. they use a more detailed protocol where each host has to ask for permission to transmit to it's destination.... and other cards ignore.
Hmm.
Depends on the methods used.
DSSS is very difficult to sniff without a matching reciever that knows the appropriate codes.
FHSS is very difficult to sort out, especially if there are multiple transmitters (otherwise, you could sort out hops temporally). Of course.. signal strength is an indicator...
As for your neighbor using a compatable card to join your lan.. that's the only issue. Though there are a variety of methods employed to prevent sniffing in this manner, most are trivial in the end, and someone with a working knowledge of the driver & hardware in usecould modify it to show them everything. Of course, this also depends on the underlying protocol. Some types of Wlan actually negotiate individual packets securely.
Is SSH just as secure? The whole premise is that SSH is secure no matter who is listening. It's other protocols that will be insecure, as anyone within range can sniff.
100 Meter band?
Most 802.11 cards I've seen are 900Mhz (918 orwhatever ISM band is..) or 2.4Ghz (ISM again).
2.4Ghz is about 15 cm.. not 100 Meter...no?
Wouldn't 100 Meter be down below VHF?
Also.. cdpd (cellular packet data) is closer than you think.. many cellular providers already have their cdpd networks deployed... but that serves a different market.