The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
People wear the same clothes as they do in 1995. Style hasn't advanced like it did from the 50's to the 70's. Or from the 70's to the 90's.
People listen to the same kinds of music.
They use the same grammar and language from 20 years ago.
The whole idea of information being free and shared by everyone is actually destructive to society, since that means information becomes devalued when culture becomes democratic. It devalues professional tastemakers, causing populist sensibilities to take hold, which is the exact cause of cultural stagnation. Democratic sensibilities are always obvious, and can never advance the state-of-the-art that professional tastemakers can.
So, not everyone needs to see the same movies, listen to the same music, and so on. It is perfectly fine to limit these items, to make sure there ARE "have-nots". People don't HAVE to have every single goddam song in their library.
We really do need to limit the spread of information, through costs, DRM, or other means, to cause society to advance. Right now the world is frozen in 1995, because information is too open.
Seriously, it is perfectly fine to not know things or to have things. Your life is going to be just fine. But the democratic population wants everything.
Limit them.
Why is this modded -1? I'ts actually a pretty interesting argument, and one I had not heard before. Moderators, using your points as means for censorship makes YOU the bad guy.
The point of the salt is that previously generated and downloadable rainbow tables are of no use. Making new ones would kindof defeat the purpose, as you're effectively brute forcing a tough, hashed password anyway at that point.
This is why it's good practice. It helps mitigate complexity concerns over user supplied passwords, and can make cracking multiple account pwd hashes unrealistic.
I should have just modded this up instead of posting my one word comment. My bad.
Congratulations. You've flunked encryption 101. You never send the plaintext password over the wire, because you can't trust the middleman. Salt and encrypt on the client end, then salt and encrypt on the server end.
SSL is better than anything you could cook up on the client-side, ya dummy.
Yeah, don't worry about it. That's actually how it's supposed to be done. Passwords should be sent over SSL and hashed server-side. Using some half baked client-side crypto is not the way to do it.
One good reason to purchase a mac with Mountain Lion is to be authorized to develop for iOS, or to do any console logging in Safari post iOS 6. In fact, I have one sitting in the corner of my office for exactly that purpose. It runs a little utility which allows us to upload binaries (developed on a platform of our choosing) to the app store, and runs a console logger for safari. Mountain Lion is the only platform authorized to do those two tasks, and so you are pretty much forced to have it if you want to develop for iOS. That god damn mac is the only piece of technology I have ever used that makes me rage with every part of my being.
No. Nowadays, organizations and individuals around the world can register second-level and, in some cases, third-level domain names. (In a URL such as maps.google.com, "google" is a second-level name and "maps" is a third-level domain.) They simply need to find an accredited registrar, comply with the registrant terms and conditions and pay registration and renewal fees. The application for a new gTLD is a much more complex process. An applicant for a new gTLD is, in fact, applying to create and operate a registry business supporting the Internet's domain name system. This involves a number of significant responsibilities, as the operator of a new gTLD is running a piece of visible Internet infrastructure.
Mine was that these new gTLD will be treated exactly like an expensive bracket of.com domains, and the.com domain will simply be made redundant. I am not saying that is how it SHOULD be, simply stating that is how ICANN designed the scam to work. Essentially they are cutting out the market for domain squatting, and taking all that money for themselves.
Was that the intention then? People would drop upwards a million dollars on these things, through some altruistic motive to be more descriptive of the contents?
I just assumed it would work the same way it always has. Companies would by up the same kind of names they did before, simply making the.com redundant. I'm pretty sure that's what ICANN indented as well, as the entire scheme appears to be designed for this purpose.
Yeah... but.com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid. Don't go throwing stones in glass houses... or something like that.
Except if they catch you lying on ANYTHING, it's pretty much a guaranteed conviction for whatever they are charging you for. I would be very careful with your number 2...
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
I disagree with your premise. The immorality of "unauthorized use of knowledge or culture," is not inherent. This is a learned behavior, causing the moral dilemma to be that of one breaking the letter of the law. In your contention, the letter of the law is still being violated, and so fails to solve the moral dilemma.
I absolutely recognize an individuals right to sell their creative works, and even DRM the hell out of it, if that's what they think is best for their own interest. I will however, in no way shape or form, recognize Imaginary Property. Your justifications only serve to increase the legitimacy of IP.
It sounds to me like you are just trying to blame minorities for your own lack of skills. This whole "companies are forced to hire sub-standard employees because of affirmative action" is pure bull shit. The entire premise of this argument stems from a false notion that minorities are inherently inferior. Without this notion, the "problem" you invented is washed out by statistics. No one needs to have a rational conversation about it, because the problem simply doesn't exist. Sure it might happen every once in while, but the only people bitching about it are a bunch of old, out of touch, white dudes who need an excuse to tell their wives why they don't have a job. This is the internet age buddy. The white man's monopoly on knowledge has come to an end, and minorities are indeed coming for "our" jobs. Better adapt, or get left behind.
The NWLF has no love for a Slackware fan. Make sure to put a Debian sticker (or something FOSSie) on your back back or you may be harassed by the locals. And under no circumstances are you to mention anything related to BSD! Wearing sandals with socks will help you blend in. Just keep your head down and you will be ok.
This public safety announcement has been brought to you by your local Washington State Church of the SubGenius.
Anonymous could stop DDoS attacks and instead just run a couple of vulnerability scans to take down their opponents. So much easier!
Maybe I am missing the woosh (I usually do), but this is not really true. One of the main advantages to a DDoS is that it makes it difficult to null route the attacker. An attack originating from a single source can be easily thwarted using automated systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that it limits information sharing.
The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
People wear the same clothes as they do in 1995. Style hasn't advanced like it did from the 50's to the 70's. Or from the 70's to the 90's.
People listen to the same kinds of music.
They use the same grammar and language from 20 years ago.
And so on.
It's a pretty well documented phenomenon, and a great Vanity Fair article from a couple years ago describes this perfectly: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
The whole idea of information being free and shared by everyone is actually destructive to society, since that means information becomes devalued when culture becomes democratic. It devalues professional tastemakers, causing populist sensibilities to take hold, which is the exact cause of cultural stagnation. Democratic sensibilities are always obvious, and can never advance the state-of-the-art that professional tastemakers can.
So, not everyone needs to see the same movies, listen to the same music, and so on. It is perfectly fine to limit these items, to make sure there ARE "have-nots". People don't HAVE to have every single goddam song in their library.
We really do need to limit the spread of information, through costs, DRM, or other means, to cause society to advance. Right now the world is frozen in 1995, because information is too open.
Seriously, it is perfectly fine to not know things or to have things. Your life is going to be just fine. But the democratic population wants everything.
Limit them.
Why is this modded -1? I'ts actually a pretty interesting argument, and one I had not heard before. Moderators, using your points as means for censorship makes YOU the bad guy.
And for the record, the fail is in my own reading comprehension. I misunderstood the GP''s comment.
The point of the salt is that previously generated and downloadable rainbow tables are of no use. Making new ones would kindof defeat the purpose, as you're effectively brute forcing a tough, hashed password anyway at that point.
This is why it's good practice. It helps mitigate complexity concerns over user supplied passwords, and can make cracking multiple account pwd hashes unrealistic.
I should have just modded this up instead of posting my one word comment. My bad.
Fail.
There ya go, pirating like a boss! :-)
tpb.se seems just fine here. Try using the magnet links instead of trackers.
Congratulations. You've flunked encryption 101. You never send the plaintext password over the wire, because you can't trust the middleman. Salt and encrypt on the client end, then salt and encrypt on the server end.
SSL is better than anything you could cook up on the client-side, ya dummy.
Yeah, don't worry about it. That's actually how it's supposed to be done. Passwords should be sent over SSL and hashed server-side. Using some half baked client-side crypto is not the way to do it.
My biggest complaint with Visual Studio is its lack of interoperability.
One good reason to purchase a mac with Mountain Lion is to be authorized to develop for iOS, or to do any console logging in Safari post iOS 6. In fact, I have one sitting in the corner of my office for exactly that purpose. It runs a little utility which allows us to upload binaries (developed on a platform of our choosing) to the app store, and runs a console logger for safari. Mountain Lion is the only platform authorized to do those two tasks, and so you are pretty much forced to have it if you want to develop for iOS. That god damn mac is the only piece of technology I have ever used that makes me rage with every part of my being.
Alas, it appears I am the fool on this one.
Is applying for a new gTLD the same as buying a domain name?
No. Nowadays, organizations and individuals around the world can register second-level and, in some cases, third-level domain names. (In a URL such as maps.google.com, "google" is a second-level name and "maps" is a third-level domain.) They simply need to find an accredited registrar, comply with the registrant terms and conditions and pay registration and renewal fees. The application for a new gTLD is a much more complex process. An applicant for a new gTLD is, in fact, applying to create and operate a registry business supporting the Internet's domain name system. This involves a number of significant responsibilities, as the operator of a new gTLD is running a piece of visible Internet infrastructure.
I guess that settles it.
What was your point then?
Mine was that these new gTLD will be treated exactly like an expensive bracket of .com domains, and the .com domain will simply be made redundant. I am not saying that is how it SHOULD be, simply stating that is how ICANN designed the scam to work. Essentially they are cutting out the market for domain squatting, and taking all that money for themselves.
Was that the intention then? People would drop upwards a million dollars on these things, through some altruistic motive to be more descriptive of the contents?
I just assumed it would work the same way it always has. Companies would by up the same kind of names they did before, simply making the .com redundant. I'm pretty sure that's what ICANN indented as well, as the entire scheme appears to be designed for this purpose.
Yeah... but .com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid. Don't go throwing stones in glass houses... or something like that.
Nice edgy comment, but what evidence do you have that ICANN was paid off?
Can you still call it "getting paid off" when the bribery is part of a contract?
The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million
And now I just read the comment above yours. Guess I was late to the party. :)
Lol,saying peer block is like iptables is such an unhelpful answer. That's like saying peer block is the same thing as "windows defender."
The entire point of PeerBlock is the list management and updating. They could have at least pointed you to PeerGuardian or something... sheesh.
Except if they catch you lying on ANYTHING, it's pretty much a guaranteed conviction for whatever they are charging you for. I would be very careful with your number 2...
Hahaha, I had completely forgotten about BitchX. Good times. Thanks for the smile. :)
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
I disagree with your premise. The immorality of "unauthorized use of knowledge or culture," is not inherent. This is a learned behavior, causing the moral dilemma to be that of one breaking the letter of the law. In your contention, the letter of the law is still being violated, and so fails to solve the moral dilemma.
I absolutely recognize an individuals right to sell their creative works, and even DRM the hell out of it, if that's what they think is best for their own interest. I will however, in no way shape or form, recognize Imaginary Property. Your justifications only serve to increase the legitimacy of IP.
Hah, can't believe I got baited into that. No more reading /. at the end of a long day. You win this time, Troll.
It sounds to me like you are just trying to blame minorities for your own lack of skills. This whole "companies are forced to hire sub-standard employees because of affirmative action" is pure bull shit. The entire premise of this argument stems from a false notion that minorities are inherently inferior. Without this notion, the "problem" you invented is washed out by statistics. No one needs to have a rational conversation about it, because the problem simply doesn't exist. Sure it might happen every once in while, but the only people bitching about it are a bunch of old, out of touch, white dudes who need an excuse to tell their wives why they don't have a job. This is the internet age buddy. The white man's monopoly on knowledge has come to an end, and minorities are indeed coming for "our" jobs. Better adapt, or get left behind.
The NWLF has no love for a Slackware fan. Make sure to put a Debian sticker (or something FOSSie) on your back back or you may be harassed by the locals. And under no circumstances are you to mention anything related to BSD! Wearing sandals with socks will help you blend in. Just keep your head down and you will be ok.
This public safety announcement has been brought to you by your local Washington State Church of the SubGenius.
slackware is nice ... ?
Fanboy concurs.
Anonymous could stop DDoS attacks and instead just run a couple of vulnerability scans to take down their opponents. So much easier!
Maybe I am missing the woosh (I usually do), but this is not really true. One of the main advantages to a DDoS is that it makes it difficult to null route the attacker. An attack originating from a single source can be easily thwarted using automated systems.