I agree that the product in question is certainly a niche product. I think of it more along the lines of a wireless network connection you can bring from hotel to hotel and be able to work on your laptop. Not a very large population needs to do that, but the capability is there and $150 is nothing to people who would actually use it for that.
With most hotels starting to offer wireless anyways, it's becoming and even smaller niche market, but the market is still there.
I just went through a list of everyone I know who owns a computer.
Parents, Grandparents, brother, sister, aunt/uncle, cousin, cousin, friends from highschool (x5), 75 year old librarian, neighbor.
Every last one of them has internet access as well. 100%.
I've thought this over for about 5 minutes, so it *IS* possible I'm missing someone I know who has a computer but no internet access, but I honestly can't think of any. Considering that computers come with 3-6 months of free AOL/Earthlink nowadays, I really don't think that the number of unconnected computers are higher than 5-10% if even that high.
Sure, as long as that person gets shot, and they accidentally bring him to this research facility instead of a hospital...
I'm certainly not familiar with the way they test these things, but wouldn't they need to do thier tests initially on people who understand what they are going to undertake and sign off on it? I'm pretty sure this would more likely be used initially to assist with organ transplants on terminally ill patients as opposed to on an ER patient who was just shot.
Also, the article has "Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?
They were refering to the use of this in medical emergencies. Put someone into this state, work on the damaged tissue with no bleeding or time crunch, then revive when they are fixed.
I'm more interested in knowing who the hell is going to volunteer for this procedure...
This is certainly a discussion we won't agree on. The law doesn't force you to use the filter, it doesn't put any horrible burden on the ISP (adding a low power squid server isn't going to kill an ISP's profitability), and the list of sites is supplied!
It's almost a redundant law considering most ISP's in Utah already offer this service because of high demand!
Perhaps I just prefer to fight the fights that matter, like if the filtering was mandatory.
Thats dumb. If a law is reasonable there is no reason to object to it! Thats like saying they're going to make it illegal to drink caffeine and drive, and when people complain they can say "but you didn't complain that you can't drink alcohol and drive, why are you complaining now?"
Of course it has nothing to due with sex. Why does it need to have to do with sex? It's a service they are required to offer by the government, but it's not something that they have implemented without your consent. All they are saying is that the ISP needs to make it available in some way for people who want the service. And they are providing the list to the ISP. There is no ambiguity of what the state says you must offer to filter. It's a service the customer has to opt-in on.
While I agree that children should be protected from unsuitable content the problem here is that this is the first step on a very slippery slope.
As strange as it sounds, making the first step onto a slippery slope doesn't mean you're gonna fall. Not that I trust the government's track record in this area, having them make a rule that you need to provide this filtering at the request of your customers is similar to making phone companies block 900 numbers at your request. Are you upset that phone companies have to give you the ability to block 900 numbers?
Who's job will it be to advertise / promote this filter?
The state of Ohio creates the list. You just need to implement it and put on your signup page how to configure it.
Also it's this forcing the need for more hardware onto the ISP's aka higher running costs.
I've worked for a few ISP's in my time. I've never seen one that didn't have enough spare parts sitting around collecting dust that they couldn't toss together a squid server.
Wouldn't better wording for the law be that the AG's office provide this list AND a proxy server. Then require that the ISP's either allow customers to use that proxy, or they provide such filters themselves.
Then additional costs aren't forced onto the ISP's
Wait, you want the government to have a list of all the places that you go on the internet? At least your ISP can say "We don't keep logs of where you go." Also, what about performance. You get 100,000 households going through this proxy server how much infrastructure is the government gonna have to provide?
That aside how long will it be before all the ISP's will be required to pass ALL traffic through such filters. How long before the filters include not only porn but other material that the state decides is offensive ?
This is where the slippery slope comes in. I don't have an answer to this. As the bill stands it's just making sure that parents have the OPTION.
Agreed. Just download the list once a day/week/whatever, import it into danguardian/squid. Give your customers the address of your proxy server and you now have given access to a filtered internet to those users who want it.
Would providing information on where to get cybersitter put an ISP into compliance?
This isn't forcing the filtering onto any users, but it does make sure the users have the CHOICE of the filter.
On a side note: How can the ACLU be upset at this? It's giving people *MORE* choices -- filtered internet or unfiltered internet, where unfiltered internet was the only option before. Since it defaults to unfiltered, what the hell is the problem?
These web pages are served by Bill Buzbee's Magic-1 Homebrew Minicomputer using Adam Dunkel's uIP TCP/IP stack.
The uIP code was compiled using a Magic-1 retargeting of the LCC portable C compiler, and assembled with a custom assembler. The physical connection to the internet is done though Magic-1's auxiliary serial port via SLIP to a PC running SuSE 9.2 Linux, and finally on to my home DSL line.
Click on the links above to see some status information about the web server, the TCP/IP stack and Magic-1.
--- end site text
I have the site mirror'd via wget, but have no place I can put it that wouldn't slashdot just as fast. If anyone has an idea where I can post it, let me know. email me at puevfs@zubayvar.arg (ROT-13 encrypted -- you'll need to brute force it for the key)
Any other site and I would feel the need to post this anonymously but...
In the Han Solo Trilogy the Kessel Run was through an area of space which was littered with black holes, and the idea was that you fly close enough to the black hole so as to have the gravity compress space, then travel through that compressed space so your odometer reads 12 parsecs, yer your real traveled distance is greater than that.
Not for the physics purist, but the author did well in redeeming Lucas.
I know that editors can't be bothered to check the accuracy of stories, but you think that at least the submitters would RTFM...
Actually, it seems the submitter did "read the fine material", but didn't "understand the fine material". It's a reading comprehension issue that we need to resolve with this submitter.
Actually, what would be even better is to configure his web server to report itself as IIS in the headers it returns.
Not really. We want to test to see if a site hosted on IIS gets a higher ranking than a site hosted on apache. By making apache say it's IIS we will find out if an apache server pretending to be IIS gets a better ranking than an apache server being an apache server. The results may be similar, but we can't be sure until we test and see how the site actually ranks when hosted on an actual IIS server.
IMO the true test would be to take his site which is hosted on Apache, move it to being hosted on IIS and watch and see if his ranking goes up or down after the next time it is indexed.
Not to mention the modding-up for the people who explain it.
Add in the modding up of the person who points out that the person who explained the modding up procedure is being modded up and it's a full blown mod orgy.
Also, I don't think the hashing algorithms on these networks are tied to the entire file; I think it only hashes parts of the files (for speed), so that means that there's a chance a bogus file of the same size could have the same hash.
Actually, this makes sense. If the P2P programs are sidestepping and just hashing a small portion of the file then this is easy to implement. Find out which portion of the file they are hashing, get that portion of the file, put it into your bogus file at those exact points and pad your file to the proper size. Of course, then the fix is an easy one, patch the P2P client to hash the entire file =)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the product in question is certainly a niche product. I think of it more along the lines of a wireless network connection you can bring from hotel to hotel and be able to work on your laptop. Not a very large population needs to do that, but the capability is there and $150 is nothing to people who would actually use it for that.
With most hotels starting to offer wireless anyways, it's becoming and even smaller niche market, but the market is still there.
I just went through a list of everyone I know who owns a computer.
Parents, Grandparents, brother, sister, aunt/uncle, cousin, cousin, friends from highschool (x5), 75 year old librarian, neighbor.
Every last one of them has internet access as well. 100%.
I've thought this over for about 5 minutes, so it *IS* possible I'm missing someone I know who has a computer but no internet access, but I honestly can't think of any. Considering that computers come with 3-6 months of free AOL/Earthlink nowadays, I really don't think that the number of unconnected computers are higher than 5-10% if even that high.
Wish I could find a study on this.
There's this vitamin called Vitamin B17 and it cures cancer!
I don't know about that. In the 1940's they gave B17s to the military and it really bombed.
A mortally wounded gunshot victim?
Sure, as long as that person gets shot, and they accidentally bring him to this research facility instead of a hospital...
I'm certainly not familiar with the way they test these things, but wouldn't they need to do thier tests initially on people who understand what they are going to undertake and sign off on it? I'm pretty sure this would more likely be used initially to assist with organ transplants on terminally ill patients as opposed to on an ER patient who was just shot.
Also, the article has "Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?
They were refering to the use of this in medical emergencies. Put someone into this state, work on the damaged tissue with no bleeding or time crunch, then revive when they are fixed.
I'm more interested in knowing who the hell is going to volunteer for this procedure...
So what the supreme court ruled was that you own your land, but the wealthy business pwns j00
This is certainly a discussion we won't agree on. The law doesn't force you to use the filter, it doesn't put any horrible burden on the ISP (adding a low power squid server isn't going to kill an ISP's profitability), and the list of sites is supplied!
It's almost a redundant law considering most ISP's in Utah already offer this service because of high demand!
Perhaps I just prefer to fight the fights that matter, like if the filtering was mandatory.
The 900 number blocking is also "opt-in", just like this content filter.
Thats dumb. If a law is reasonable there is no reason to object to it! Thats like saying they're going to make it illegal to drink caffeine and drive, and when people complain they can say "but you didn't complain that you can't drink alcohol and drive, why are you complaining now?"
Of course it has nothing to due with sex. Why does it need to have to do with sex? It's a service they are required to offer by the government, but it's not something that they have implemented without your consent. All they are saying is that the ISP needs to make it available in some way for people who want the service. And they are providing the list to the ISP. There is no ambiguity of what the state says you must offer to filter. It's a service the customer has to opt-in on.
While I agree that children should be protected from unsuitable content the problem here is that this is the first step on a very slippery slope.
As strange as it sounds, making the first step onto a slippery slope doesn't mean you're gonna fall. Not that I trust the government's track record in this area, having them make a rule that you need to provide this filtering at the request of your customers is similar to making phone companies block 900 numbers at your request. Are you upset that phone companies have to give you the ability to block 900 numbers?
Who's job will it be to advertise / promote this filter?
The state of Ohio creates the list. You just need to implement it and put on your signup page how to configure it.
Also it's this forcing the need for more hardware onto the ISP's aka higher running costs.
I've worked for a few ISP's in my time. I've never seen one that didn't have enough spare parts sitting around collecting dust that they couldn't toss together a squid server.
Wouldn't better wording for the law be that the AG's office provide this list AND a proxy server. Then require that the ISP's either allow customers to use that proxy, or they provide such filters themselves. Then additional costs aren't forced onto the ISP's
Wait, you want the government to have a list of all the places that you go on the internet? At least your ISP can say "We don't keep logs of where you go." Also, what about performance. You get 100,000 households going through this proxy server how much infrastructure is the government gonna have to provide?
That aside how long will it be before all the ISP's will be required to pass ALL traffic through such filters. How long before the filters include not only porn but other material that the state decides is offensive ?
This is where the slippery slope comes in. I don't have an answer to this. As the bill stands it's just making sure that parents have the OPTION.
Would I use the filter? Hell no.
Agreed. Just download the list once a day/week/whatever, import it into danguardian/squid. Give your customers the address of your proxy server and you now have given access to a filtered internet to those users who want it.
Would providing information on where to get cybersitter put an ISP into compliance?
This isn't forcing the filtering onto any users, but it does make sure the users have the CHOICE of the filter.
On a side note: How can the ACLU be upset at this? It's giving people *MORE* choices -- filtered internet or unfiltered internet, where unfiltered internet was the only option before. Since it defaults to unfiltered, what the hell is the problem?
Sorry no UFO, all he found was porn.
Our Decoy worked!
Welcome
These web pages are served by Bill Buzbee's Magic-1 Homebrew Minicomputer using Adam Dunkel's uIP TCP/IP stack.
The uIP code was compiled using a Magic-1 retargeting of the LCC portable C compiler, and assembled with a custom assembler. The physical connection to the internet is done though Magic-1's auxiliary serial port via SLIP to a PC running SuSE 9.2 Linux, and finally on to my home DSL line. Click on the links above to see some status information about the web server, the TCP/IP stack and Magic-1.
--- end site text
I have the site mirror'd via wget, but have no place I can put it that wouldn't slashdot just as fast. If anyone has an idea where I can post it, let me know. email me at puevfs@zubayvar.arg (ROT-13 encrypted -- you'll need to brute force it for the key)
'restore' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.
You are entering the command at the wrong interface. That's not a command you use at a command prompt. It's a verbal command for your IT underling.
Any other site and I would feel the need to post this anonymously but...
In the Han Solo Trilogy the Kessel Run was through an area of space which was littered with black holes, and the idea was that you fly close enough to the black hole so as to have the gravity compress space, then travel through that compressed space so your odometer reads 12 parsecs, yer your real traveled distance is greater than that.
Not for the physics purist, but the author did well in redeeming Lucas.
I know that editors can't be bothered to check the accuracy of stories, but you think that at least the submitters would RTFM...
Actually, it seems the submitter did "read the fine material", but didn't "understand the fine material". It's a reading comprehension issue that we need to resolve with this submitter.
Actually, what would be even better is to configure his web server to report itself as IIS in the headers it returns.
Not really. We want to test to see if a site hosted on IIS gets a higher ranking than a site hosted on apache. By making apache say it's IIS we will find out if an apache server pretending to be IIS gets a better ranking than an apache server being an apache server. The results may be similar, but we can't be sure until we test and see how the site actually ranks when hosted on an actual IIS server.
And then you would also need to move it _back_ to Apache to see if the ranking declines again.
I thought moving it back to apache would be the natural thing to do after running a webpage on IIS for a short while... *shudder*
IMO the true test would be to take his site which is hosted on Apache, move it to being hosted on IIS and watch and see if his ranking goes up or down after the next time it is indexed.
Not to mention the modding-up for the people who explain it.
Add in the modding up of the person who points out that the person who explained the modding up procedure is being modded up and it's a full blown mod orgy.
It used to be legally protected, until insane laws (DMCA)
The DMCA specifically allows reverse engineering for compatibility.
Power companies don't generally use diesel generators. Coal/Oil/Nuclear/Wind/Water yes, but not diesel.
Also, I don't think the hashing algorithms on these networks are tied to the entire file; I think it only hashes parts of the files (for speed), so that means that there's a chance a bogus file of the same size could have the same hash.
Actually, this makes sense. If the P2P programs are sidestepping and just hashing a small portion of the file then this is easy to implement. Find out which portion of the file they are hashing, get that portion of the file, put it into your bogus file at those exact points and pad your file to the proper size. Of course, then the fix is an easy one, patch the P2P client to hash the entire file =)
So large as to be easily seen from space?
Don't say that to her face...