Okay, so take the money out of the equation. What if the library started making free copies of the newest best-sellers to give away.
Reading on the Internet consitutes temporary copying. In most cases the copy goes away when you close the browser, or within a day or two depending on the size of your cache.
Copying and republishing/redistributing are two different things, as I've seen pointed out elsewhere in this discussion:
You may make several copies of a song from a CD (perhaps one on your computer, one on a "mix" CD, one on your MP3 player), but you still haven't distributed it. On the other hand, one copy can be distributed via mass media without other copies being kept at the receiving end.
Your last line's analogy is the first phase, where I published something on-line and you go to read it. The problems come in that this company is making a copy in the archive and then allowing others to make copies, circumventing the original publisher.
If you want a real-world example... try get the back issues of the New York Times (or some equally presigious periodicle, movie or television show). Make unlimited copies of those back issues Set up a catalog or web site where you sell or give those copies to anyone who asks for one. I guarantee you will be slapped with a copyright infrigement lawsuit. I can almost guarantee you would loose such a battle if you challanged it.
The only difference in that scenareo and what Wayback is doing, is that the content at Wayback was never in the physcal world (on paper, film, video, actors performing,etc). There seems to be this illusion today that the Internet is a special place where the real-world rules don't apply. The Government seems to think this too at some level judging by the way the alledgedly are attempting to tap it, or censor it in ways that are illegal in the real world.
Your ISP most likely has only one access point to the backbone provider. A packet sniffer or two would be all that is necessary for them to scan every single bit of information that traverses their systems.
Yes moving services to non-standard ports would help you avoid the most rudamentary detection, but if the sniffer starts looking for any packets with http:// in them and then monitors that connection you are still vulnerable.
SSL would make things a little more secure, but what are the chance that every web server will offer SSL connections to every user? The CPU overhead would cause server farms to grow rapidly. SSL still only uses a 128 bit key, and that really is not very secure.
Email... there is no way with current SMTP to prevent sniffing/capture of the smtp envelope. This includes the to and from, and a trail of all the systems the message was passed through. RFC3207 has started discussion on how to ompliment transport layer security similar to SSL to SMTP, thus adding an obsticle to snooping. Still, your ISP could track the to/from IPs of the actual connection.
Such a scheme might allow you email system to look up the public key for the target server, start a connection and send the SMTP headers and message in encrypted form.
The ideal solution to all of this would be for the Gov to just stop spying or trying to spy on its citizens. Of course, evidence show that they keep trying harder and in more secretive ways to do that. Hence MY opinion is that ALL internet protocols should have a secure version that allows an evesdropper to get nothing more than the target and source IP addresses. Said servers should either have a mechanism to offer up their public key on request via the protocol, or identify a location to retrieve it from (along with possible identification verification, ala Verisign[ha]).
Outright I hate the idea, this is just pre-emptive search/seizure. The gov would only propose this because it's in the digital domain where it's A: feasable, B: deemed by J. Pulic to be a non-issue. The could NEVER get such a thing in to action with physical mailings.
But then I thought.... If every ISP had to monitor port 25, isolate all to and from IPs and email addresses (forged or not), and fill up all those hard drives, tapes and whatnot... Can you image how fast SPAM would drop off as the ISPs attempted to control the now real costs of hosting spammers?
BUT... You have to KNOW the thing exists in order to put them in your robots file.
This means that there are MANY sites in that archive that are being captured and re-published without any knowlede by the authors.
the robots.txt file is like making a burular alarm that only stops people you know to rob houses. Wayback should use the robots file to only archive sites that specifically allow them to do so.
The line gets drawn when you re-publish the web page in question. You are correct, by puclishing a web page on a non-protected, publicly accessible server, you explicitly provide rights for your content to be viewed and retained by browsers. In your example, you would be wrong when you decided to later put the page you stored back on-line at something other than the original URL.
If these people want t archive the internet, they should specifically be reqired to do it on an opt-in basis. You go to their site and enter the URL that you want them to keep archives of.
Of course with PERL you could have the best of both worlds:
Develop in PERL with the flexibilty of the interpeter and all the garbage collection and neato stuff built-in.
When you hit a "stable" release version, use the O module to compule the code. either to Perl byte code for faster loading, or to one of two versions of C code. One just spits out calls to the perl/system libraries, the other is standard C code.
You plan is good start, but is incomplete. Here are the bare minimum (IMHO) requirements to make your plan feasable:
1. Rotate tapes on/off site weekly. This means two complete backup tape sets. There are many services that will do this for you, check your yellow pages. 2. At least quarterly, one complete backup (not incremental or differential) tape set should be pulled from the lineup, and placed in long term, off-site storage. 3. If you don't want the hassles of #2, use a real-time backup utilty like NSIsoftware's DoubleTake (I used to work for them), there are also other similar products. This method requires a second computer with enough disk space to hold all your data. It's a different hassle, but perhaps easier to deal with. 4. VERIFY your backup system at least monthly. Read back data from the backup media and perform test restores. 5. DOCUMENT your plan and proceedures. Keep the documentation in several places, on-site and off so that in the event of disaster (server, site, or responsible person) others can retrieve the information.
If you take posession and responsibility for your users' data, YOU will be blamed if it is not recoverable when needed.
Okay, all the "right way/wrong way" and political stuff aside, I don't understand one thing:
How does the control over who maintains the domain list affect anyones ability to access the Internet? I'm reading the article as saying that by South Africa maintaining the TLD itself, more people will have better access to the Internet.
Is this change suddelly going to put more computers or network connections in to remote/poor sections of the country?
I've heard of making the raquet sing with a nice shot, but this is rediculous.:)
I wonder though, could they make the strings sound a certain tone depending on where the ball was hit. It seems it might make a nice training tool for beginners if they could hear, as well as feel a good hit.
Okay, The 10.1.5 broke the sleep function of my second monitor on my Beige G3/333.
Primary display: built-in ATI Rage Pro Secondary display: 3DFX VooDoo 5/5500
I've got my monitiors set to power down after 10 mins of inactivity. The system itself is set to never sleep.
After waking the monitors up, the main display comes back as normal. The second one powers up to full power mode, but the screen stays black. Going to the monitor's control panel and setting "mirroring" to on enables display on the 2nd mon. Turning mirroring off returns to normal display.
Other than than, one sweet little upgrade (esp the 2d and QT accell on the Pro).
Should be interesting. Most of the crew is gone, Talon and Kreis are dead, Moya was sucked in to a workhole and John was left floating in space all alone with no fuel.
Once again, I point out that is not a declartation of war. The words WAR and DECLARATION are present in your cited text, but only in reference to the War Powers Resolution Requirements.
That is not a delcration of war. It doesn't even address the issue of what happened in Sep. There was no "armed attack against the forces of the United States".
I don't recall anyone in political power in Afganastan requesting our help.
Lastly... I think it's strange that we are bombing Afganastan when most of the hijakers on Sep 11 where Saudi and funded with Saudi money. They were attempting to show the Saudi digust with the continued U.S. occupation of parts of their country in the form of militaty bases.
And the second ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." which I (among others) means that the Government should not be suporting or hindering any religion or operations thereof. Giving money to a religious group is respecting that establishment.
Article 2 prevents space, the Moon and celectial bodies from appropriation or sovereinty. It doesn't seem to say that those entities are protected in part, the implication is that the wholes are protected.
So while a State could not lay claim to the Moon, it could lay claim to some mountain, valley or other area.
Aricle 8 states that a State that places an object into space or on a celestial body, or builds one in space or on a celecial body may maintain "juristiction and control" of such an object. So a country could put up a structure with atmosphere, lighting and climate cotrol, etc and restrict use of that according to their own agenda. One might have to provide unfeddered access to the underlying ground, but that seems to be all.
So in the end, we have a treaty that doesn't (in my view) accomplish much of anything regarding non-state control of celectial bodies. Sure they can't "control" a planet, but perhaps large portions of one, and certainly the parts they build stuff on.
Elaboration: The treaty doesn't prevent the placement of weapons systems is space. It just prevents nuclear and other "mass destruction" weapons systems in space. We COULD put pilot-slaved Vulcan cannon's on the space shuttle and start shooting up all the other countries satellites if we so desired.:)
Okay... Where's the delcaration of War signed by the US congress that allows us to be bombing Afganastan right now? There is none. Our troops are invading a soverign nation without any legal justification. We are kidnapping residents/inhabitants of that nation and holding them hostage.
Allowing Federal money to be given to religious based charities. This seems to directly violate the separation of church/state provisions in the Constitution.
I think I understand that the treaty forbids State ownership of property on other bodies in the solar system, but that personal property would be allowed.
So what do we get? Colinization by those who can afford to get themselves to the New World, and can fight off attackers of their claims, and can survive the harsh and unpredictable nature of the local climate.
Is it me, or is this just another form of the whole Europe to Americas move a few centuries ago, then the whole "go west young man" a little later?
The upside is that because of clause #2 in that treaty, we can skip the whole Revolutionary war theme this time.
I see no problem with the treaty, or the restrictions. But given Bush's repeated demostration that he sees no reason to follow International or even U.S. law when he doesn't feel like it, clause 2 will probably become moot.
G. Changes to ReplayTV Service. At its discretion, ReplayTV may automatically add, modify, or disable any feature or functionality of the ReplayTV Service or on the ReplayTV 4500...
seems to say it very cleary. They (Sonic) can disable any (and all) feature(s) and function(s) of your box. One would assume permanently unless you hacked it later to restore functions.
What I find more interesting is the section in F:
You understand that (a) ReplayTV does not guarantee the access to or recording of any particular program,...
That I think could be reasonable interpeted to mean they, at some time, may decide their "must see" shows can be recorded in liu of your prefered show in a time-slot.
Then there's section H:
You may make one copy of the software you download for backup purposes only...
They seem to say there is an esablished and accessable method for the user of the box to remove and add the software from the Replay box. But, I don't see anywhere in the agreement that they force me to use ONLY Replay TV's provided software. Why can't a someone/group write an open source replacement and distribute that?
If there were a free, non company controlled software that would allow the Replay to operate as a PVR with scheduling and other useful features, and you installed that. Their section H says you can't loan, transfer, etc. the software to any other person except as permitted by law. And the law permits reverse engineering for many reasons (as discussed elsewhere in this thread).
As I also mentioned in the previous article on Replay/SonicBlue, you could also leave the box alone and build an external firewall to protect your box from their advertisements/forced programming choices/snooping. After reading the agreement, I see nothing that would prevent you from reverse engineering the network/communitcations protocols ove they are outside the box.
some quick math: ~2.7e+21 stars in the Universe. We're already out of 'bits' and we're still talking about some of the largest strucures in the universe, nowhere near the size of the Plank numbers.
*Meaning I'm not astro or quantum physisist or mathmetician.
Any bets that within the next month AT&T will remedy this now that it's been published here?
My cableco charges a "cable overhead" fee and filters out the cable channels at the node if you don't subscribe to their TV service along with the data service.
Re:lies, damn lies and statistics
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 1
But maybe that's because the US Economy has unfair and devastating effects on the global environment?
I'm not saying I'm for the Kyoto Treaty, (I'm not, but for the reason that I don't think greenhouse gases are the cause of the supposed warkimg) just pointing out another view.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so take the money out of the equation. What if the library started making free copies of the newest best-sellers to give away.
,etc). There seems to be this illusion today that the Internet is a special place where the real-world rules don't apply.
Reading on the Internet consitutes temporary copying. In most cases the copy goes away when you close the browser, or within a day or two depending on the size of your cache.
Copying and republishing/redistributing are two different things, as I've seen pointed out elsewhere in this discussion:
You may make several copies of a song from a CD (perhaps one on your computer, one on a "mix" CD, one on your MP3 player), but you still haven't distributed it.
On the other hand, one copy can be distributed via mass media without other copies being kept at the receiving end.
Your last line's analogy is the first phase, where I published something on-line and you go to read it. The problems come in that this company is making a copy in the archive and then allowing others to make copies, circumventing the original publisher.
If you want a real-world example... try get the back issues of the New York Times (or some equally presigious periodicle, movie or television show). Make unlimited copies of those back issues Set up a catalog or web site where you sell or give those copies to anyone who asks for one. I guarantee you will be slapped with a copyright infrigement lawsuit. I can almost guarantee you would loose such a battle if you challanged it.
The only difference in that scenareo and what Wayback is doing, is that the content at Wayback was never in the physcal world (on paper, film, video, actors performing
The Government seems to think this too at some level judging by the way the alledgedly are attempting to tap it, or censor it in ways that are illegal in the real world.
Your ISP most likely has only one access point to the backbone provider. A packet sniffer or two would be all that is necessary for them to scan every single bit of information that traverses their systems.
Yes moving services to non-standard ports would help you avoid the most rudamentary detection, but if the sniffer starts looking for any packets with http:// in them and then monitors that connection you are still vulnerable.
SSL would make things a little more secure, but what are the chance that every web server will offer SSL connections to every user? The CPU overhead would cause server farms to grow rapidly. SSL still only uses a 128 bit key, and that really is not very secure.
Email... there is no way with current SMTP to prevent sniffing/capture of the smtp envelope. This includes the to and from, and a trail of all the systems the message was passed through. RFC3207 has started discussion on how to ompliment transport layer security similar to SSL to SMTP, thus adding an obsticle to snooping. Still, your ISP could track the to/from IPs of the actual connection.
Such a scheme might allow you email system to look up the public key for the target server, start a connection and send the SMTP headers and message in encrypted form.
The ideal solution to all of this would be for the Gov to just stop spying or trying to spy on its citizens. Of course, evidence show that they keep trying harder and in more secretive ways to do that. Hence MY opinion is that ALL internet protocols should have a secure version that allows an evesdropper to get nothing more than the target and source IP addresses. Said servers should either have a mechanism to offer up their public key on request via the protocol, or identify a location to retrieve it from (along with possible identification verification, ala Verisign[ha]).
Your own example shows that the URL required to access the document (now archived) has been altered.
Doing evil in the name of good is still evil.
Outright I hate the idea, this is just pre-emptive search/seizure. The gov would only propose this because it's in the digital domain where it's A: feasable, B: deemed by J. Pulic to be a non-issue. The could NEVER get such a thing in to action with physical mailings.
But then I thought.... If every ISP had to monitor port 25, isolate all to and from IPs and email addresses (forged or not), and fill up all those hard drives, tapes and whatnot...
Can you image how fast SPAM would drop off as the ISPs attempted to control the now real costs of hosting spammers?
No, the issue is more like the library deciding to sell copies of the books it carries, without the author or publisher's permission.
BUT...
You have to KNOW the thing exists in order to put them in your robots file.
This means that there are MANY sites in that archive that are being captured and re-published without any knowlede by the authors.
the robots.txt file is like making a burular alarm that only stops people you know to rob houses. Wayback should use the robots file to only archive sites that specifically allow them to do so.
The line gets drawn when you re-publish the web page in question.
You are correct, by puclishing a web page on a non-protected, publicly accessible server, you explicitly provide rights for your content to be viewed and retained by browsers.
In your example, you would be wrong when you decided to later put the page you stored back on-line at something other than the original URL.
If these people want t archive the internet, they should specifically be reqired to do it on an opt-in basis. You go to their site and enter the URL that you want them to keep archives of.
Of course with PERL you could have the best of both worlds:
Develop in PERL with the flexibilty of the interpeter and all the garbage collection and neato stuff built-in.
When you hit a "stable" release version, use the O module to compule the code. either to Perl byte code for faster loading, or to one of two versions of C code. One just spits out calls to the perl/system libraries, the other is standard C code.
You plan is good start, but is incomplete. Here are the bare minimum (IMHO) requirements to make your plan feasable:
1. Rotate tapes on/off site weekly. This means two complete backup tape sets. There are many services that will do this for you, check your yellow pages.
2. At least quarterly, one complete backup (not incremental or differential) tape set should be pulled from the lineup, and placed in long term, off-site storage.
3. If you don't want the hassles of #2, use a real-time backup utilty like NSIsoftware's DoubleTake (I used to work for them), there are also other similar products. This method requires a second computer with enough disk space to hold all your data. It's a different hassle, but perhaps easier to deal with.
4. VERIFY your backup system at least monthly. Read back data from the backup media and perform test restores.
5. DOCUMENT your plan and proceedures. Keep the documentation in several places, on-site and off so that in the event of disaster (server, site, or responsible person) others can retrieve the information.
If you take posession and responsibility for your users' data, YOU will be blamed if it is not recoverable when needed.
Okay, all the "right way/wrong way" and political stuff aside, I don't understand one thing:
How does the control over who maintains the domain list affect anyones ability to access the Internet? I'm reading the article as saying that by South Africa maintaining the TLD itself, more people will have better access to the Internet.
Is this change suddelly going to put more computers or network connections in to remote/poor sections of the country?
I've heard of making the raquet sing with a nice shot, but this is rediculous. :)
I wonder though, could they make the strings sound a certain tone depending on where the ball was hit. It seems it might make a nice training tool for beginners if they could hear, as well as feel a good hit.
perhaps if we find some hydrinos, we could combine them with some dryinos and get pure energy?
Okay, The 10.1.5 broke the sleep function of my second monitor on my Beige G3/333.
Primary display: built-in ATI Rage Pro
Secondary display: 3DFX VooDoo 5/5500
I've got my monitiors set to power down after 10 mins of inactivity. The system itself is set to never sleep.
After waking the monitors up, the main display comes back as normal. The second one powers up to full power mode, but the screen stays black. Going to the monitor's control panel and setting "mirroring" to on enables display on the 2nd mon. Turning mirroring off returns to normal display.
Other than than, one sweet little upgrade (esp the 2d and QT accell on the Pro).
Should be interesting.
Most of the crew is gone, Talon and Kreis are dead, Moya was sucked in to a workhole and John was left floating in space all alone with no fuel.
What a way to start a new season.
Once again, I point out that is not a declartation of war. The words WAR and DECLARATION are present in your cited text, but only in reference to the War Powers Resolution Requirements.
That is not a delcration of war.
It doesn't even address the issue of what happened in Sep. There was no "armed attack against the forces of the United States".
I don't recall anyone in political power in Afganastan requesting our help.
Lastly... I think it's strange that we are bombing Afganastan when most of the hijakers on Sep 11 where Saudi and funded with Saudi money. They were attempting to show the Saudi digust with the continued U.S. occupation of parts of their country in the form of militaty bases.
And the second ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." which I (among others) means that the Government should not be suporting or hindering any religion or operations thereof. Giving money to a religious group is respecting that establishment.
Article 2 prevents space, the Moon and celectial bodies from appropriation or sovereinty. It doesn't seem to say that those entities are protected in part, the implication is that the wholes are protected.
So while a State could not lay claim to the Moon, it could lay claim to some mountain, valley or other area.
Aricle 8 states that a State that places an object into space or on a celestial body, or builds one in space or on a celecial body may maintain "juristiction and control" of such an object.
So a country could put up a structure with atmosphere, lighting and climate cotrol, etc and restrict use of that according to their own agenda. One might have to provide unfeddered access to the underlying ground, but that seems to be all.
So in the end, we have a treaty that doesn't (in my view) accomplish much of anything regarding non-state control of celectial bodies.
Sure they can't "control" a planet, but perhaps large portions of one, and certainly the parts they build stuff on.
Elaboration: :)
The treaty doesn't prevent the placement of weapons systems is space. It just prevents nuclear and other "mass destruction" weapons systems in space.
We COULD put pilot-slaved Vulcan cannon's on the space shuttle and start shooting up all the other countries satellites if we so desired.
Okay... Where's the delcaration of War signed by the US congress that allows us to be bombing Afganastan right now?
There is none. Our troops are invading a soverign nation without any legal justification. We are kidnapping residents/inhabitants of that nation and holding them hostage.
Allowing Federal money to be given to religious based charities. This seems to directly violate the separation of church/state provisions in the Constitution.
I think I understand that the treaty forbids State ownership of property on other bodies in the solar system, but that personal property would be allowed.
So what do we get? Colinization by those who can afford to get themselves to the New World, and can fight off attackers of their claims, and can survive the harsh and unpredictable nature of the local climate.
Is it me, or is this just another form of the whole Europe to Americas move a few centuries ago, then the whole "go west young man" a little later?
The upside is that because of clause #2 in that treaty, we can skip the whole Revolutionary war theme this time.
I see no problem with the treaty, or the restrictions. But given Bush's repeated demostration that he sees no reason to follow International or even U.S. law when he doesn't feel like it, clause 2 will probably become moot.
seems to say it very cleary. They (Sonic) can disable any (and all) feature(s) and function(s) of your box. One would assume permanently unless you hacked it later to restore functions.
What I find more interesting is the section in F:That I think could be reasonable interpeted to mean they, at some time, may decide their "must see" shows can be recorded in liu of your prefered show in a time-slot.
Then there's section H: They seem to say there is an esablished and accessable method for the user of the box to remove and add the software from the Replay box. But, I don't see anywhere in the agreement that they force me to use ONLY Replay TV's provided software. Why can't a someone/group write an open source replacement and distribute that?
If there were a free, non company controlled software that would allow the Replay to operate as a PVR with scheduling and other useful features, and you installed that. Their section H says you can't loan, transfer, etc. the software to any other person except as permitted by law. And the law permits reverse engineering for many reasons (as discussed elsewhere in this thread).
As I also mentioned in the previous article on Replay/SonicBlue, you could also leave the box alone and build an external firewall to protect your box from their advertisements/forced programming choices/snooping. After reading the agreement, I see nothing that would prevent you from reverse engineering the network/communitcations protocols ove they are outside the box.
oops. At e21, we're not out of bits in his model. I was remembering 19, not 90.
But you can see that if you start drilling down to planets,moons,planetoids you will likely reach e+90 quickly.
Getting down to the molecular and atomic levels, I think we'd quickly get in to the e+(e+100)s area of 'bits' of information that can be stored.
Even not looking at plank though we still run out of bits before we run out of things.
Some dumb guy* math:
3.0e+3 galaxies in the Hubble deep field
2.0e+9 stars in our galaxy.
4.6e+8 HDF field images are required to coved the sky
some quick math: ~2.7e+21 stars in the Universe. We're already out of 'bits' and we're still talking about some of the largest strucures in the universe, nowhere near the size of the Plank numbers.
*Meaning I'm not astro or quantum physisist or mathmetician.
Any bets that within the next month AT&T will remedy this now that it's been published here?
My cableco charges a "cable overhead" fee and filters out the cable channels at the node if you don't subscribe to their TV service along with the data service.
But maybe that's because the US Economy has unfair and devastating effects on the global environment?
I'm not saying I'm for the Kyoto Treaty, (I'm not, but for the reason that I don't think greenhouse gases are the cause of the supposed warkimg) just pointing out another view.