Did anyone else notice the graphic next to the article claiming that the FTC lists online auctions as the #1 source of complaints about Internet fraud?
First, what does that have to do with the PayPaI article?
for instance, RJR convinced a KY state court to issue a restraining order against Jeff Wiegland when he wanted to testify in Georgia against them. Only KY would enforce the order; no other state, or the Feds, would or could touch it.
Better watch the movie again. The company was B&W, he was testifying in Mississippi, and apparently even KY wasn't too keen on enforcing the order, since he came back there after he testified and wasn't arrested. Mississippi had the option of enforcing the order, but a Mississippi judge refused to honor it.
Now we're getting way offtopic, but I'd recommend getting yourself a cheap 486 box with a couple ethernet cards, install Linux or the LRP, and read up on IP Masquerading
Secondly, how does one get a bank of IP addresses these days?
Offtopic, I know, but usually, you get them from your upstream provider. If you need a/20 or larger (approx. 2^12 unique IPs) you can find out all about how to get one at ARIN or your country's local registry (links can be found on the above ARIN page.)
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. If you encrypt the SMTP connection using a public key retrieved from the SMTP server, then you're simply encrypting the link between your machine and the one at your ISP (unless you run your own mail server, or use a client that connects to the addressee's mail server directly... most clients don't do that.) If you're suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, it's your home ISP's private key the FBI would need.
Once they have that private key, there's nothing stopping them from decrypting every SMTP transaction, unless the private key is different for each user. In that case, you've just started requiring users to authenticate with the SMTP server before they get their personal public key, and even then you're only protecting their outgoing mail up to the local SMTP server. What happens when it gets forwarded to the recipient's server? Why would your ISP and his go out of their way to waste cycles encrypting that link, especially with the FBI breathing down their necks?
I just think transport-level encryption is the wrong tool for the job, especially since it doesn't protect particularly well against traffic analysis or someone on the inside at your ISP. If you are running a drug ring and you want to keep your communications private, encrypt everything (even the letters to Grandma) and use a chain of anonymizing crypto-enabled proxies with random delays to conceal the destination of your mail, and send yourself lots of dummy email of random sizes through the same proxies to hamper traffic analysis.
If you're not running a drug ring, encrypt everything anyway. Think of it as sending your email in an envelope instead of on a postcard. If it's too hard for Grandma to decrypt your letters, tell her to dump AOL and set her up with a real mail client that supports PGP.
Unfortunatly encrypting the content of SMPT transfers/http doesn't protect against traffic analysis. Oh well...
It doesn't even protect against the FBI getting the plaintext. Remember, the wiretaps they're talking about here are with the (sometimes grudging) consent of the ISP, so if encrypted SMTP became the norm they'd just require the ISP to provide them with the private key of the mailserver as well, or to provide a tap into the unencrypted stream within the server software itself. The only way to be sure of your encryption is to trust both ends of the link.
Unfortunately, I'd already tried both of those things before I posted. It won't let me set max uploads below 1, and it always includes the downloads directory whether or not I want it to.
Among its other functions, the Napster directory service makes software available that allows users to (1) search a directory that lists the names of files available to be shared by other users who are then online, and (2)
choose whether or not to create a folder on their disk drive where files they wish to share are available to others.
and
In the Napster directory system the files are distributed all over the Internet on millions of PCs, and the users
voluntarily send lists of file names to Napster,
They must be talking about a different Napster. The one we all know and love forces me to share at least the contents of my download directory, and it always uploads the list of files, without even asking.
Paragraph (3) describes the elements which must be present in a notification, including: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Based on eBay's statements, the Church of Scientology has sworn under penalty of perjury that it has an "exclusive right" to copyright on the material that was posted in the auction.
You've apparently misinterpreted something here. That fragment of the DMCA says you're looking at perjury charges if you falsely assert that you represent the owner of the intellectual property. It says nothing about consequences for being wrong about the possible infringement.
I think that's a good thing: imagine the case where you are a copyright holder and send notice as described above, the service provider fails to remove the allegedly infringing material, and you are forced to sue. Suppose you lose the suit due to a loophole or a technicality or a slightly-broader-than-expected interpretation of Fair Use on the part of the court. Should you then be guilty of perjury? Of course not.
That would only be true if it weren't for the fact that the four satellites must be above the horizon in order to be seen. Because they are all "above" you to one degree or another, the ideal configuration for altitude solution (a tetrahedron with you at the center) can never be achieved. The upshot is that the altitude fix has an error of about 1.5 times that of the latitude and longitude. It's not deliberate, it's an artifact of the fact that you're standing on a big ground plane. Also, it's possible to get a really horrible configuration of satellites (for example, due to being in an "urban canyon" or a real canyon) that makes it impossible to get the same precision in all directions horizontally, regardless of the fact that you're tracking four or more birds. Good GPS receivers (and not-so-good ones) report the quality of the horizontal solution and the quality of the vertical solution as separate numbers. Civilian GPS receivers are designed to stop reporting fixes above certain altitudes or faster than certain velocities. It's this fact, not the quality of the altitude solution, that prevents their use in long-range weapons delivery systems.
Sec. 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
I read this to say that the author of the original bits holds the copyright to the original bits, and the author of the modified bits holds the copyright to the modified bits (that's why FSF makes you sign over your rights to the code you want to contribute to their projects.)
However, as the GPL states (section 5), the author of the derivative work has no right to distribute the original parts (that's essentially what part (a) says in the stuff above) except where that right was conferred by the GPL, and only under the terms stated in the GPL.
I've seen comments to the effect of "if the GPL is upheld that will uphold shrink-wrap licenses." That isn't true either. The GPL specifically states (section 5 again) that you are under no obligation to accept it. However, if you choose not to accept it you are bound by the (more restrictive) copyright law. This does make me worry about programs like cygwin that require you to accept the GPL before performing the installation; I think those might themselves be a violation of the GPL.
I know it's ESR's baby, for better or worse, but do we really need the standard ESR-vs-RMS bullshit in a document that's supposed to be an objective recounting of our slang? I refer to:
Changes in the language of the version 2.0 GPL did not eliminate this problem.
and
(Some people object that the name `Linux' should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term `GNU/Linux' want the the {FSF} to get most of the credit for Linux because RMS and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term `GNU/Linux' has gained more than minority acceptance).
Kooks on Usenet have been protesting for years that the email they get is overwhelmingly in favor of whatever halfwitted notion they're spouting today, and that the flames they've taken in public are not representative of all the supportive lurkers. They never seem to be able to substantiate the claim, either. The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
So who will be the first to write a Java applet that can use a proxy server running on a nonstandard port to access blocked sites and render them in all their glory? For that matter, if a client-side solution won't work (perhaps the library is uptight about Java and has disabled it) who will be the first to fuse Gecko and GD to produce a proxy server that serves proxied webpages as imagemaps?
Yes, such proxy servers and/or the source of the java applet would quickly get added to the blacklist. But if enough existed, and if more came online every day, one could easily form a mailing list to distribute the addresses of new proxy servers as they became available. The goal here, of course, is to force the censorware manufacturers to add so many URLs to their blacklists that the performance of the censored machines and/or networks suffers significantly.
To really get their goat, of course, would require some dedicated individuals who regularly go to the "100% safe from free speech!" library and bring up a questionable site or two for the benefit of the other patrons.
The Cheryl paragraph, and another sentence later ("Some people collect baseball cards...") were probably "scare quotes" in the print version of the article - those little sidebar-like things with the large fonts, usually offset from the rest of the article somehow, designed to get you to read the rest of the article.
Personally, I have no problem with the control key being where it is. I like it a little better on non-Windoze keyboards, because if I miss it I don't end up switching to a different application, but I wouldn't be able to live with it to the left of the A anymore (once upon a time, I used a Wyse-50 for everything, and those have it to the left of the A, but I've retrained now.) In my opinion, the need to retrain for the new location is balanced by the fact that I can now touch-type ctrl-A by using the right control key. ("Like shift, only further.")
I have no problem with the arrow keys. I've trained my fingers to find the home row without looking, and I can find it without looking. I've also trained them to find the escape key, the arrow keys, and the "six pack" without looking (don't get me started on that so-called "Natural" keyboard!) Function keys are still difficult, but only because they put that stupid gap between groups, and put them too far from the number keys.
I have no problem with chorded keys. Anyone who learned to touch-type also learned how to use shift, and control (at least now) is no different. Alt is a bit of a pain, but only because they moved the right one an inch to the left on the abominable Windoze keyboards.
That brings me to my main point. I use more than one keyboard, from different eras. On this keyboard, the alt key is in the wrong place. I can deal with that, usually - I've retrained, again. But I'm a DOS user (I know, I know, please put the rotten fruits away now) and I have to use the backslash key. You know, the one that's above the (smaller) enter key. Er, to the right of the (smaller) shift key. Er, no, to the left of the (smaller) backspace key. Damn, just where is the friggin' thing?
Maybe if Red Hat bought Corel, they would be able to make sure we get everything in WP8 for Linux that comes standard with WP8 for Windows. Like for example SGML support, maybe.
But it's not gonna happen. Still, makes me wish I'd had a few thousand extra to buy Red Hat stock two weeks ago.
Perhaps you failed to notice that I was talking about Comedy Central and not about the show's creators and producers. Any fool could figure out that something referring to such recent events was the work of the network, and not of the people who probably stopped thinking about last night's episode months ago.
Those of us who watched South Park last night may have noticed that Comedy Central inserted a brief, tasteful message saying simply "In memory of Mary Key Bergman" after the closing credits. I didn't realize when I saw it who she was, but I commend Comedy Central for the way they handled it - quietly, and without fanfare, as befits the solemnity of the occasion.
You and I both know the long-term costs of NT (scalability, reliability), but NT is FAMILIAR to people.
People don't switch to Linux because they don't know what it will cost them to do a setup, and if you don't know a cost, you cannot justify a purchase to your division managers or your directors.
What about that other cost, the hidden one you assume when you have incompetent schmucks adminning your server because "It looks like Win95, so it must be just as simple."
It also appears to be transaction-oriented: a sequence of instructions that would fault will have no effect, regardless of whether it would have executed a write to memory before the fault. This could be handy, because it means that bad code won't corrupt memory on the way down.
I still don't see what the big deal is here. It's been possible to implant pets and livestock with that technology for years now. Everything else he talks about in the interview makes the vague hand-waving of a Nicholas Negroponte seem like certainties by comparison. And what's with the advice to ignore people who are educated in specific fields? If a physicist tells me it's impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, why should I ignore him just because he doesn't know how we do things in Computer Science these days? What is this guy's educational background, anyway? What has he done besides had himself implanted with a livestock monitor? Why are we listening to him?
Slashdot Mirror
First, what does that have to do with the PayPaI article?
Second, isn't that a story in and of itself?
Better watch the movie again. The company was B&W, he was testifying in Mississippi, and apparently even KY wasn't too keen on enforcing the order, since he came back there after he testified and wasn't arrested. Mississippi had the option of enforcing the order, but a Mississippi judge refused to honor it.
Now we're getting way offtopic, but I'd recommend getting yourself a cheap 486 box with a couple ethernet cards, install Linux or the LRP, and read up on IP Masquerading
JavaScript Error: http://www.iam.com/portfolio/Portfolio_Main_Page.j html,
line 643:
syntax error.
if (swi === 1) clickon (1);
..........^
What browser is that supposed to work on?
Offtopic, I know, but usually, you get them from your upstream provider. If you need a /20 or larger (approx. 2^12 unique IPs) you can find out all about how to get one at ARIN or your country's local registry (links can be found on the above ARIN page.)
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. If you encrypt the SMTP connection using a public key retrieved from the SMTP server, then you're simply encrypting the link between your machine and the one at your ISP (unless you run your own mail server, or use a client that connects to the addressee's mail server directly... most clients don't do that.) If you're suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, it's your home ISP's private key the FBI would need.
Once they have that private key, there's nothing stopping them from decrypting every SMTP transaction, unless the private key is different for each user. In that case, you've just started requiring users to authenticate with the SMTP server before they get their personal public key, and even then you're only protecting their outgoing mail up to the local SMTP server. What happens when it gets forwarded to the recipient's server? Why would your ISP and his go out of their way to waste cycles encrypting that link, especially with the FBI breathing down their necks?
I just think transport-level encryption is the wrong tool for the job, especially since it doesn't protect particularly well against traffic analysis or someone on the inside at your ISP. If you are running a drug ring and you want to keep your communications private, encrypt everything (even the letters to Grandma) and use a chain of anonymizing crypto-enabled proxies with random delays to conceal the destination of your mail, and send yourself lots of dummy email of random sizes through the same proxies to hamper traffic analysis.
If you're not running a drug ring, encrypt everything anyway. Think of it as sending your email in an envelope instead of on a postcard. If it's too hard for Grandma to decrypt your letters, tell her to dump AOL and set her up with a real mail client that supports PGP.
It doesn't even protect against the FBI getting the plaintext. Remember, the wiretaps they're talking about here are with the (sometimes grudging) consent of the ISP, so if encrypted SMTP became the norm they'd just require the ISP to provide them with the private key of the mailserver as well, or to provide a tap into the unencrypted stream within the server software itself. The only way to be sure of your encryption is to trust both ends of the link.
Unfortunately, I'd already tried both of those things before I posted. It won't let me set max uploads below 1, and it always includes the downloads directory whether or not I want it to.
Perhaps there's a new version of the client?
They must be talking about a different Napster. The one we all know and love forces me to share at least the contents of my download directory, and it always uploads the list of files, without even asking.
You've apparently misinterpreted something here. That fragment of the DMCA says you're looking at perjury charges if you falsely assert that you represent the owner of the intellectual property. It says nothing about consequences for being wrong about the possible infringement.
I think that's a good thing: imagine the case where you are a copyright holder and send notice as described above, the service provider fails to remove the allegedly infringing material, and you are forced to sue. Suppose you lose the suit due to a loophole or a technicality or a slightly-broader-than-expected interpretation of Fair Use on the part of the court. Should you then be guilty of perjury? Of course not.Oh, and I am not a lawyer. Duh.
That would only be true if it weren't for the fact that the four satellites must be above the horizon in order to be seen. Because they are all "above" you to one degree or another, the ideal configuration for altitude solution (a tetrahedron with you at the center) can never be achieved. The upshot is that the altitude fix has an error of about 1.5 times that of the latitude and longitude. It's not deliberate, it's an artifact of the fact that you're standing on a big ground plane. Also, it's possible to get a really horrible configuration of satellites (for example, due to being in an "urban canyon" or a real canyon) that makes it impossible to get the same precision in all directions horizontally, regardless of the fact that you're tracking four or more birds. Good GPS receivers (and not-so-good ones) report the quality of the horizontal solution and the quality of the vertical solution as separate numbers. Civilian GPS receivers are designed to stop reporting fixes above certain altitudes or faster than certain velocities. It's this fact, not the quality of the altitude solution, that prevents their use in long-range weapons delivery systems.
I read this to say that the author of the original bits holds the copyright to the original bits, and the author of the modified bits holds the copyright to the modified bits (that's why FSF makes you sign over your rights to the code you want to contribute to their projects.)
However, as the GPL states (section 5), the author of the derivative work has no right to distribute the original parts (that's essentially what part (a) says in the stuff above) except where that right was conferred by the GPL, and only under the terms stated in the GPL.
I've seen comments to the effect of "if the GPL is upheld that will uphold shrink-wrap licenses." That isn't true either. The GPL specifically states (section 5 again) that you are under no obligation to accept it. However, if you choose not to accept it you are bound by the (more restrictive) copyright law. This does make me worry about programs like cygwin that require you to accept the GPL before performing the installation; I think those might themselves be a violation of the GPL.
No it's not. Where's the answer to question 6?
Kooks on Usenet have been protesting for years that the email they get is overwhelmingly in favor of whatever halfwitted notion they're spouting today, and that the flames they've taken in public are not representative of all the supportive lurkers. They never seem to be able to substantiate the claim, either. The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
Yes, such proxy servers and/or the source of the java applet would quickly get added to the blacklist. But if enough existed, and if more came online every day, one could easily form a mailing list to distribute the addresses of new proxy servers as they became available. The goal here, of course, is to force the censorware manufacturers to add so many URLs to their blacklists that the performance of the censored machines and/or networks suffers significantly.
To really get their goat, of course, would require some dedicated individuals who regularly go to the "100% safe from free speech!" library and bring up a questionable site or two for the benefit of the other patrons.
Standard disclaimers apply
The Cheryl paragraph, and another sentence later ("Some people collect baseball cards...") were probably "scare quotes" in the print version of the article - those little sidebar-like things with the large fonts, usually offset from the rest of the article somehow, designed to get you to read the rest of the article.
I have no problem with the arrow keys. I've trained my fingers to find the home row without looking, and I can find it without looking. I've also trained them to find the escape key, the arrow keys, and the "six pack" without looking (don't get me started on that so-called "Natural" keyboard!) Function keys are still difficult, but only because they put that stupid gap between groups, and put them too far from the number keys.
I have no problem with chorded keys. Anyone who learned to touch-type also learned how to use shift, and control (at least now) is no different. Alt is a bit of a pain, but only because they moved the right one an inch to the left on the abominable Windoze keyboards.
That brings me to my main point. I use more than one keyboard, from different eras. On this keyboard, the alt key is in the wrong place. I can deal with that, usually - I've retrained, again. But I'm a DOS user (I know, I know, please put the rotten fruits away now) and I have to use the backslash key. You know, the one that's above the (smaller) enter key. Er, to the right of the (smaller) shift key. Er, no, to the left of the (smaller) backspace key. Damn, just where is the friggin' thing?
thinking: rd /s docs\temp /s docs[enter]temp
typing: rd
thinking: damned backslash!
Tom, you missed the single greatest problem facing touch-typists today: the backslash key.
But it's not gonna happen. Still, makes me wish I'd had a few thousand extra to buy Red Hat stock two weeks ago.
...read "Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures" as "Paul Allen's Vultures"? If so, did you reread it, only to read it the same way again?
Perhaps you failed to notice that I was talking about Comedy Central and not about the show's creators and producers. Any fool could figure out that something referring to such recent events was the work of the network, and not of the people who probably stopped thinking about last night's episode months ago.
Those of us who watched South Park last night may have noticed that Comedy Central inserted a brief, tasteful message saying simply "In memory of Mary Key Bergman" after the closing credits. I didn't realize when I saw it who she was, but I commend Comedy Central for the way they handled it - quietly, and without fanfare, as befits the solemnity of the occasion.
You and I both know the long-term costs of NT (scalability, reliability), but NT is FAMILIAR to people.
People don't switch to Linux because they don't know what it will cost them to do a setup, and if you don't know a cost, you cannot justify a purchase to your division managers or your directors.
What about that other cost, the hidden one you assume when you have incompetent schmucks adminning your server because "It looks like Win95, so it must be just as simple."It also appears to be transaction-oriented: a sequence of instructions that would fault will have no effect, regardless of whether it would have executed a write to memory before the fault. This could be handy, because it means that bad code won't corrupt memory on the way down.
I still don't see what the big deal is here. It's been possible to implant pets and livestock with that technology for years now. Everything else he talks about in the interview makes the vague hand-waving of a Nicholas Negroponte seem like certainties by comparison. And what's with the advice to ignore people who are educated in specific fields? If a physicist tells me it's impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, why should I ignore him just because he doesn't know how we do things in Computer Science these days? What is this guy's educational background, anyway? What has he done besides had himself implanted with a livestock monitor? Why are we listening to him?