while that may be one reason, something like that could be worked around, even in 1986. there had to be other reasons.
Perl's Roots...
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We all know perl was born because you couldnt get something to work right using awk. I'm curious - what could awk not do that implored your self-proclaimed laziness to go off and design Perl?
moore's law indeed slows as time marches forward. when he originally came up with it in the mid-1960's, it was speed doubles every 12 months. Today, it's roughly 18. Maybe this getting to 3.0 GHz from 2.0 in 18 months is evidence of Moore's law stretching itself to something longer than 18 months.
isn't moore's law supposed to slow itself as time goes on? ie - at first speed doubled every 6 months, then that became 12. nowadays it's 18. Are we approaching every 24 months? Also, at some point Moore's law will be non-existant as physical limits will be reached (ie, the speed of light). At that point, Intel will have to focus on (gasp!) actual throughput instead of a GHz number.
actually, i think we had faster one day last summer. I forget the topic, but today we had three intervening articles between the two Pentium 4 articles. Last summer there was something separated by like two or so. And then something similar happened the following day.
for the organization that wants restricted linking, which is cheaper? Hiring someone to add a few lines to apache's config file? Or hiring a lawyer to file a suit? Chances are good that there's already a technician available to have the fix me made, OTOH hiring a lawyer may mean searching for one, which alone costs more than the tech's fix, hiring him, usually with up-front costs, then the actual suit, fees for the court (something has to pay the judges and staff), etc.
I actually read a paper last week about broadcast encryption. The author doesnt directly say it, but he claims that if CSS had used a broadcast encryption scheme, DeCSS would not exist. Hence, the MPAA's need for the DMCA would have been (mostly) non-existant.
Examples like these show why lawyers that deal with technology policy need to understand technology before laying down those policies. Many (All?) of the lawyers who write a website's linking policy simply dont know about the webserver's ability to blacklist a http-referrer. If they did, then many would have the techs configure the server in that manner.
If you're about to turn 18, make sure that there's enough time between your birthday and Election Day to get registered. For example, if your b-day is 10/31, you _will_not_ be able to vote if you register 11/1.
Why I say that -- My b-day is in March. Two weeks after my 18th b-day was a school-board ballot on a major decision, something that requires voter approval/disapproval. I registered on/about 3/26, but was not able to vote as my registration had not yet gone through.
Didnt matter that I didnt vote in that case - the vote was highly favoring of one side. But we've seen an example in recent years of why your one-vote is important -- The 2000 Presidental Election fiasco. And I dont just limit this to Florida, as I think other states had either Dubya or Gore win by small margins. Another good example, although fictitious, is an episode of the Simpsons where a vote passed by a single vote, and Marge critisized Homer for not voting. Homer's replied "eh! it wouldnt have mattered."
If you're old enough, but not registered, do so NOW! It'll ensure paperwork is completed in time. To register, visit your local city hall or call them for more info.
Lastly, on Election Day, GO TO THE BALLOT! You'll receive a ton of mail reminding you, mostly campaign-related, but also something from your county on where to go.
O'Rielly's vi books sell more than Emacs, approximate 2:1 ratio. Several years ago there was a vi vs. Emacs laser tag or something at an open-source conference - Team vi had a near 2:1 size advantage over Team Emacs, size meaning number of people, not physical measurements. Oh, and Tim O'Rielly is an Emacs defector, now uses vi.
good point, but that's only if they hire an outside firm. for things like this, most companies will deploy their in-house legal dept, something that costs only the salaries of the lawyers. smaller companies (who are more likely to hire an outside firm), typically send their own c&d first before sending out lawyers, usually to save money while hoping the linking person complies on first request.
I dont know what salary in-house lawyers make, but something tells me the time spent having techs put in technical measures would be amount to something much cheaper.
that's very true. google especially, whcih uses linking structures to rank search queries. alas, most sites only put such policies in place because they dont want a specific entity linking to them. Eg, the NRA may not want anti-gun activists linking to them, so they would set up their policy such that permission is required, knowing that very few are gonna actually ask, and then use that policy to go after those they dont want linking. (this does not mean the NRA has a restricted linking policy, I'm just using them as an example. I dont know what NRA's policy is)
perhaps a fact sheet is needed, maybe hosted on that dontlink site. something that lays out the facts of linking, why linking is good, and how to block links if you desire, associated costs with litigation v. http-referring blacklists, etc. This way, when people get a c&d letter, they can tell the lawyer to kiss off and to read that page.
yeah, you're correct about a lawyer using the tools he knows of, which is why i feel lawyers taht deal with technology policy and law should have some level of technical knowledge and/or have technical advisors. For example, Ed Felton acted as an advisor to either the DoJ or the judge (i forget which) during the US v. Microsoft anti-trust trial.
litigation, nastygrams, etc dont exactly generate income. most of these cases result in the defendant removing the link because they cant afford defending themselves. if anything, simply preparing the c&d letter would be WASTING more money than it would take to have a tech set up and maintain blacklists for http-referrers.
is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems, something that normally cannot be done. Technical problems need technical solutions.
In this case - checking referrer tags in http requests and blocking them as appropriate instead of litigating the defendant into removing a link.
even better: they could deep-link. eg - link directly to a news site's story instead of the front page. best way to accomplish - use large collection of deep links.
it's probably best to choose a school that also has a traditional brick & mortar component.
The Maryland school mentioned might be affiliated with UMD -- but it's not clear whether they're two different schools or not. U of Phoenix is like the Internet equivalent of DeVry. I see commercials on TV for both, and they look like clones and use similar pitches. As for Kaplan, I've only ever heard of them back in high school for SAT prep materials, which are typically useless, IMO.
actually it is oversight. If you actually read the proposed legislation, DoJ has the authority to deny attacks, and prosecute if their denial order gets ignored.
think about it -- AOL/TW has a LOT of customers through their ISPs -- AOL and RoadRunner. RIAA hacking == loss of business, especially for RR. They definitely do not want RIAA hacking into their networks. I would not be surprised if either ISP takes action similar to that of the ISP in this story.
that's true that there's limited IP space, but the game is similar to blacklisting open mail relays used by spammers. You're never gonna get them all.
Also, I suspect that the ISP's honeypots will be found by RIAA, and they'll note to not go after those machines. So the ISP, too, will have to find ways to catch the RIAA. I think a solution would be for various groups/ISPs/individuals to set up their own honeypots, and share their blacklist info, much like anti-spam activists.
the legislation states "copyright holder" - meaning the labels, movie production company, movie distributor, publisher, etc. By using the term "copyright holder", it eliminates the law being specially crafted specifically for the MPAA/RIAA.
The RIAA is a cartel, not the actual copyright holder. For example, OPEC (the oil industry cartel) does not pump/distribute the oil, it's member companies do.
Sony would have the right to hack, but only if it's their copyrighted material, iow, music published by Sony's record label.
Also, there is a LOT of FUD about this law. There is oversight - in that when a "holder" launches an attack, they have to inform the Justice Dept ahead of time, including how and what copyrighted work(s), and probably some other details. Also, they are limited in what they can do. IIRC, they can only perform non-intrusive attacks, such as Denial-of-Service, instead of hacking in via a security hole to delete files.
Unfortunatly, there is a clause granting immunity, which also allows for immunity from unintentional damage. This is basically a loophole allowing "accidental" damage. For example, if Disney finds someone hosting a video file "Snow White", takes some sort of action, and it turns out "Snow White" was the school play and not the movie, then Disney is not liable if the file gets "accidently" destroyed.
As for hiring a third party to perform the attacks, that's probably gonna happen and be permitted. But the ISP will be able to figure out who's attacking anyway, as they're using a honeypot simulating a P2P node hosting spoofed Billboard 100 mp3's. Anyone who attacks the pot get blacklisted.
thinking this out some more... just because AOL/TW is opposed to it, doesnt mean Warner Music is gonna not make use of the law. For example, HP is opposed to the DMCA when it comes to OS security, but that didnt stop one of their lawyers from trying.
You must also deal with the RIAA's member companies, not just RIAA itself. It is technically the labels who own the copyrights and would be the ones to "enforce" those copyrights by hacking. Also, not all of the member companies are in favor of hacking consumer systems -- for example, AOL/TW & child company Warner Music are opposed to it.
Slashdot Mirror
while that may be one reason, something like that could be worked around, even in 1986. there had to be other reasons.
We all know perl was born because you couldnt get something to work right using awk. I'm curious - what could awk not do that implored your self-proclaimed laziness to go off and design Perl?
(doing my own research, imagine that!)
moore's law indeed slows as time marches forward. when he originally came up with it in the mid-1960's, it was speed doubles every 12 months. Today, it's roughly 18. Maybe this getting to 3.0 GHz from 2.0 in 18 months is evidence of Moore's law stretching itself to something longer than 18 months.
isn't moore's law supposed to slow itself as time goes on? ie - at first speed doubled every 6 months, then that became 12. nowadays it's 18. Are we approaching every 24 months? Also, at some point Moore's law will be non-existant as physical limits will be reached (ie, the speed of light). At that point, Intel will have to focus on (gasp!) actual throughput instead of a GHz number.
actually, i think we had faster one day last summer. I forget the topic, but today we had three intervening articles between the two Pentium 4 articles. Last summer there was something separated by like two or so. And then something similar happened the following day.
Warning: Too many connections in
Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Too many connections in
Unable to select database
that's all true, but put it in this light:
for the organization that wants restricted linking, which is cheaper? Hiring someone to add a few lines to apache's config file? Or hiring a lawyer to file a suit? Chances are good that there's already a technician available to have the fix me made, OTOH hiring a lawyer may mean searching for one, which alone costs more than the tech's fix, hiring him, usually with up-front costs, then the actual suit, fees for the court (something has to pay the judges and staff), etc.
I actually read a paper last week about broadcast encryption. The author doesnt directly say it, but he claims that if CSS had used a broadcast encryption scheme, DeCSS would not exist. Hence, the MPAA's need for the DMCA would have been (mostly) non-existant.
Examples like these show why lawyers that deal with technology policy need to understand technology before laying down those policies. Many (All?) of the lawyers who write a website's linking policy simply dont know about the webserver's ability to blacklist a http-referrer. If they did, then many would have the techs configure the server in that manner.
is if their exploits still work a week from now
... as to how long until they show up here
a bit more info --
If you're about to turn 18, make sure that there's enough time between your birthday and Election Day to get registered. For example, if your b-day is 10/31, you _will_not_ be able to vote if you register 11/1.
Why I say that -- My b-day is in March. Two weeks after my 18th b-day was a school-board ballot on a major decision, something that requires voter approval/disapproval. I registered on/about 3/26, but was not able to vote as my registration had not yet gone through.
Didnt matter that I didnt vote in that case - the vote was highly favoring of one side. But we've seen an example in recent years of why your one-vote is important -- The 2000 Presidental Election fiasco. And I dont just limit this to Florida, as I think other states had either Dubya or Gore win by small margins. Another good example, although fictitious, is an episode of the Simpsons where a vote passed by a single vote, and Marge critisized Homer for not voting. Homer's replied "eh! it wouldnt have mattered."
VOTE!!!
If you're old enough, but not registered, do so NOW! It'll ensure paperwork is completed in time. To register, visit your local city hall or call them for more info.
Lastly, on Election Day, GO TO THE BALLOT! You'll receive a ton of mail reminding you, mostly campaign-related, but also something from your county on where to go.
interesting facts:
O'Rielly's vi books sell more than Emacs, approximate 2:1 ratio. Several years ago there was a vi vs. Emacs laser tag or something at an open-source conference - Team vi had a near 2:1 size advantage over Team Emacs, size meaning number of people, not physical measurements. Oh, and Tim O'Rielly is an Emacs defector, now uses vi.
see also: http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/unix_editor.html
good point, but that's only if they hire an outside firm. for things like this, most companies will deploy their in-house legal dept, something that costs only the salaries of the lawyers. smaller companies (who are more likely to hire an outside firm), typically send their own c&d first before sending out lawyers, usually to save money while hoping the linking person complies on first request.
I dont know what salary in-house lawyers make, but something tells me the time spent having techs put in technical measures would be amount to something much cheaper.
that's very true. google especially, whcih uses linking structures to rank search queries. alas, most sites only put such policies in place because they dont want a specific entity linking to them. Eg, the NRA may not want anti-gun activists linking to them, so they would set up their policy such that permission is required, knowing that very few are gonna actually ask, and then use that policy to go after those they dont want linking. (this does not mean the NRA has a restricted linking policy, I'm just using them as an example. I dont know what NRA's policy is)
perhaps a fact sheet is needed, maybe hosted on that dontlink site. something that lays out the facts of linking, why linking is good, and how to block links if you desire, associated costs with litigation v. http-referring blacklists, etc. This way, when people get a c&d letter, they can tell the lawyer to kiss off and to read that page.
yeah, you're correct about a lawyer using the tools he knows of, which is why i feel lawyers taht deal with technology policy and law should have some level of technical knowledge and/or have technical advisors. For example, Ed Felton acted as an advisor to either the DoJ or the judge (i forget which) during the US v. Microsoft anti-trust trial.
litigation, nastygrams, etc dont exactly generate income. most of these cases result in the defendant removing the link because they cant afford defending themselves. if anything, simply preparing the c&d letter would be WASTING more money than it would take to have a tech set up and maintain blacklists for http-referrers.
is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems, something that normally cannot be done. Technical problems need technical solutions.
In this case - checking referrer tags in http requests and blocking them as appropriate instead of litigating the defendant into removing a link.
even better: they could deep-link. eg - link directly to a news site's story instead of the front page. best way to accomplish - use large collection of deep links.
it's probably best to choose a school that also has a traditional brick & mortar component.
The Maryland school mentioned might be affiliated with UMD -- but it's not clear whether they're two different schools or not. U of Phoenix is like the Internet equivalent of DeVry. I see commercials on TV for both, and they look like clones and use similar pitches. As for Kaplan, I've only ever heard of them back in high school for SAT prep materials, which are typically useless, IMO.
actually it is oversight. If you actually read the proposed legislation, DoJ has the authority to deny attacks, and prosecute if their denial order gets ignored.
news articles about the proposed legislation.
think about it -- AOL/TW has a LOT of customers through their ISPs -- AOL and RoadRunner. RIAA hacking == loss of business, especially for RR. They definitely do not want RIAA hacking into their networks. I would not be surprised if either ISP takes action similar to that of the ISP in this story.
that's true that there's limited IP space, but the game is similar to blacklisting open mail relays used by spammers. You're never gonna get them all.
Also, I suspect that the ISP's honeypots will be found by RIAA, and they'll note to not go after those machines. So the ISP, too, will have to find ways to catch the RIAA. I think a solution would be for various groups/ISPs/individuals to set up their own honeypots, and share their blacklist info, much like anti-spam activists.
read the article. you'll see how this ISP will handle that. (hint: honeypots)
the legislation states "copyright holder" - meaning the labels, movie production company, movie distributor, publisher, etc. By using the term "copyright holder", it eliminates the law being specially crafted specifically for the MPAA/RIAA.
The RIAA is a cartel, not the actual copyright holder. For example, OPEC (the oil industry cartel) does not pump/distribute the oil, it's member companies do.
Sony would have the right to hack, but only if it's their copyrighted material, iow, music published by Sony's record label.
Also, there is a LOT of FUD about this law. There is oversight - in that when a "holder" launches an attack, they have to inform the Justice Dept ahead of time, including how and what copyrighted work(s), and probably some other details. Also, they are limited in what they can do. IIRC, they can only perform non-intrusive attacks, such as Denial-of-Service, instead of hacking in via a security hole to delete files.
Unfortunatly, there is a clause granting immunity, which also allows for immunity from unintentional damage. This is basically a loophole allowing "accidental" damage. For example, if Disney finds someone hosting a video file "Snow White", takes some sort of action, and it turns out "Snow White" was the school play and not the movie, then Disney is not liable if the file gets "accidently" destroyed.
As for hiring a third party to perform the attacks, that's probably gonna happen and be permitted. But the ISP will be able to figure out who's attacking anyway, as they're using a honeypot simulating a P2P node hosting spoofed Billboard 100 mp3's. Anyone who attacks the pot get blacklisted.
thinking this out some more...
just because AOL/TW is opposed to it, doesnt mean Warner Music is gonna not make use of the law. For example, HP is opposed to the DMCA when it comes to OS security, but that didnt stop one of their lawyers from trying.
not so fast.
You must also deal with the RIAA's member companies, not just RIAA itself. It is technically the labels who own the copyrights and would be the ones to "enforce" those copyrights by hacking. Also, not all of the member companies are in favor of hacking consumer systems -- for example, AOL/TW & child company Warner Music are opposed to it.