If they want to go after crime in second life, they should go after gambling. In second life, anyone can create a slot machine or a black jack game and tweak the odds even more to the house's favor. There's no regulation, and although linden labs insist that their lindens are completely worthless, people are spending boatloads of money to buy them and use them for the "simulated" casinos. The US government and most state governments in the US have strict laws about this kind of thing, and that's the crime that should be pursued. A lot of the casinos cheat, and they cheat very subtly in order to not draw too much attention to themselves.
They not only use cookies, but they also use images or any other objects that your browser requests using an if-modified-after-date. The date can be used as a unique identifier; for example, you might receive an image that was dated 12-1-1804#32:42:19 - obviously a bogus date, but it's a properly formatted date. Your browser asks google (or any web server) to send the image, but only if it was modified after 12-1-1804#32:42:19. The server then has your unique identifier through trickery. Google "web bug" - the traditional 1-pixel image. But the same concept applies to any-sized images.
The best way to combat this is to clear your cache after every session (or better yet, don't cache at all. who needs to in the age of fiber-to-the-home or high speed cable?). Firefox allows this as an option: tools->options->privacy->"Always clear my data when I close firefox".
Your MAC address is not used because it is not visible to web servers. (But your IP address may be used, although several users can be behind the same IP).
Don't get me wrong - cheating is a serious problem that is compounded by the internet. But this whole story and the "article" is nothing but a disguised advert for little-known studentoffortune.com. There is no way that this guy is a PhD - just look at the writing style and silly gramatical and spelling errors. The site itself is in its infancy with absolutely no chance of garnering any attention on its own. It is nothing but a glorified "Google Answers" service.
Not quite solipsism. Solipsism is a self-centered mental philosophy which centers existence based on what one individual, (yourself,) can sense (i am the only real thing.. everything else is an illusion). This train of thought could be explained away in a simulation environment; if we were to build our own computer simulation complex enough to support life, each individual in our simulation could exist independently and experience unique and distinct sensations, which flies in the face of solipsism. I'm not saying that our own reality would be an actual model of what we're trying to model in our simulations, but it seems counter-intuitive.
You bring up valid points. The thought of a computer simulation of a universe as complex as our own seems completely ridiculous. However, less than 50 years ago, a concept of vast network of computers who in concert would be computing trillions upon trillions of computations a second was completely laughable. At the exponential rate of progress, I wouldn't count anything out if I were you, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to us now.
That would be completely beyond our comprehension. Who knows... maybe there is a huge stack of simulations within simulations. We're talking completely different realms of existence, realms where we would literally have no capability of gathering any emperical knowledge about. For example, if we built a massive computer simulation advanced enough such that life evolved from it, then how would the beings within the simulation know anything beyond their simulation without direct communication from us? They could explore the galaxy as vast as we created it, but they would never "get out" of their own simulation and into our reality. They would be in the computer, completely oblivious to what's going on outside.
But your question is interesting.. surely there must be some point at the utmost highest level of these so-called simulations. But the underlying point here is that we have no knowledge of how things work outside of our own "simualtion" - the very laws of physics could be completely different or even non-existent. For example, maybe matter can be created from nothing outside of our own realm.
If you believe that computers will eventually be able to run complex simulations of our universe--complex enough to even simulate life--then you cannot simply dismiss the idea that we are ourselves part of a simulation ran by some higher being (namely, God). How the simulation derives life is irrelavant - be it darwinism, the big spaghetti monster, God, whatever. Darwinism does not have to conflict with the philosophy that a God created us in his own computer simulation.
Claim that you had an open WAP and that a neighbor, a pedestrian, a war driver - anyone - could have been behind your IP. Burden of proof is on the RIAA.
Deleting cookies is a great start, but it's not enough. Sneaky web developers use "web bugs" these days. The trick is simple: have one image (or a series of images) on the web site take on unique expiration dates for each user. When the user connects to the web server, the client sends "Please give me this image if it hasn't been updated since (unique date that can be tied to client)." The server says "Ah, you're Mr. Smith! The image hasn't been modified." Basically, it acts as a cookie. So, to get around that, you either need to disable caching (which is perfectly reasonable with today's broadband) or delete your cache frequently.
keystroke logging is much worse than wiretapping! not only can private communication between people (email, IM) be recorded, but even more personal privacy (journal, diary) can be recorded via keystroke! your own private diary can now be snooped on by the FBI. how does that make you feel?!?
8% isn't so bad, especially when you consider how long machines are up before they are rebooted. Company machines are often up for several days at a time (sometimes a few weeks) before a reboot. Sure, 1 out of 12 times I might have to reboot due to one issue or another, but 1 out of 12 (8%) is really pretty good, all things considered. That 1 time comes maybe once a month.
some bored geek designed the microdrones to spy on the hot chics in those apartment complexes and then had to give it up to the military when he was caught.
Why buy an iPod when you can buy a PocketPC, equip it with as much memory as you want (it's cheap these days), and do infinitely more things with it beyond just listening to mp3's, such as watch movies or play games?
You claim that you would have never bought the song anyway, so downloading it does not result in a loss of revenue.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't scale well at all.
For example, suppose a new hapless record store decides to open up shop in your town and you have a device that instantly copies a CD without having to ever open the case. (They're not far off in the future, btw.) You figure, you're not going to buy the CD anyway, so it's not costing the record store any revenue if you use your device on their CDs. Furthermore, suppose that everyone in your town felt the same way as you do: nobody in your town feels as though they were going to buy a CD, so copying CD's isn't costing any revenue. Thus, you and everyone else in your town go to the new shop, never buy a CD, copy every single CD in the store, and then leave. Is the record store going to make any money? No- they've lost all of their venues for revenue to those who feel as though they weren't causing the record store to lose any revenue.
That's pretty much what's happening, except we're talkin millions of people compared to the few thousands that might live in your town. Naturally, there are the exceptions. Some people download songs and then decide to buy an entire album, thus actually generating more revenue, but those are pretty rare.
When you illegally downloaded the catchy little tune instead of purchasing it from a legal means or listening to it via a medium that has paid for or otherwise rightfully obtained the rights to broadcast that catchy little tune, you have obtained the catchy little tune through venues that weren't approved of by the copyright holder, which is illegal and unethical.
True, illegally downloading music is not a criminal offense. As I mentioned, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
True, illegally downloading content is not stealing for the very reason that you have mentioned- illegally downloading content is not depriving anyone of physical property.
However, it's along the same lines of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.
When you illegally download content, you are in effect illegally obtaining something that wasn't yours to obtain, which is pretty much the spirit of stealing; the only difference is that stealing results in the change of possession whereas illegally downloading results in loss of revenue.
I definitely agree that illegally downloading music falls under the category of stealing, although some will play the semantics game. Part of the problem, though, is the lack of anonymity. It's pretty scary when a coorperation or a big organization such as the RIAA can demand the identities of users given a non-criminal reason. (Illegally downloading music a civil matter, not a criminal matter, although I believe it should be a criminal matter).
Close, but not exactly. MUTE relies on a ACO-like (ant colony optimization) routing system, which is pretty inefficient and relies too much on randomness and luck. ACO is fantastic for some domains, such as TSP and shortest path, but it's not ideal for a p2p communication setup. My proposed method can be thought of more as like electricity rather than ants. An electron shares its excitement with the neighboring electron, who shares its excitement with the next electron, etc. until the flow is reversed.
I am an recording artist myself with a few (very small-time and very local) cd's out. The point isn't about music or movies.. it's about all content and privacy. Imagine 10 years from now when the government suddenly takes an interest in those people scouring p2p networks for certain text articles or specific words. They can't come knocking on your door because they won't know who you are.
Slashdot Mirror
If they want to go after crime in second life, they should go after gambling. In second life, anyone can create a slot machine or a black jack game and tweak the odds even more to the house's favor. There's no regulation, and although linden labs insist that their lindens are completely worthless, people are spending boatloads of money to buy them and use them for the "simulated" casinos. The US government and most state governments in the US have strict laws about this kind of thing, and that's the crime that should be pursued. A lot of the casinos cheat, and they cheat very subtly in order to not draw too much attention to themselves.
They not only use cookies, but they also use images or any other objects that your browser requests using an if-modified-after-date. The date can be used as a unique identifier; for example, you might receive an image that was dated 12-1-1804#32:42:19 - obviously a bogus date, but it's a properly formatted date. Your browser asks google (or any web server) to send the image, but only if it was modified after 12-1-1804#32:42:19. The server then has your unique identifier through trickery. Google "web bug" - the traditional 1-pixel image. But the same concept applies to any-sized images.
The best way to combat this is to clear your cache after every session (or better yet, don't cache at all. who needs to in the age of fiber-to-the-home or high speed cable?). Firefox allows this as an option: tools->options->privacy->"Always clear my data when I close firefox".
Your MAC address is not used because it is not visible to web servers. (But your IP address may be used, although several users can be behind the same IP).
sporting events.
Don't get me wrong - cheating is a serious problem that is compounded by the internet. But this whole story and the "article" is nothing but a disguised advert for little-known studentoffortune.com. There is no way that this guy is a PhD - just look at the writing style and silly gramatical and spelling errors. The site itself is in its infancy with absolutely no chance of garnering any attention on its own. It is nothing but a glorified "Google Answers" service.
Dude, even the Browns can beat any non-US team.
Not quite solipsism. Solipsism is a self-centered mental philosophy which centers existence based on what one individual, (yourself,) can sense (i am the only real thing.. everything else is an illusion). This train of thought could be explained away in a simulation environment; if we were to build our own computer simulation complex enough to support life, each individual in our simulation could exist independently and experience unique and distinct sensations, which flies in the face of solipsism. I'm not saying that our own reality would be an actual model of what we're trying to model in our simulations, but it seems counter-intuitive.
You bring up valid points. The thought of a computer simulation of a universe as complex as our own seems completely ridiculous. However, less than 50 years ago, a concept of vast network of computers who in concert would be computing trillions upon trillions of computations a second was completely laughable. At the exponential rate of progress, I wouldn't count anything out if I were you, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to us now.
That would be completely beyond our comprehension. Who knows... maybe there is a huge stack of simulations within simulations. We're talking completely different realms of existence, realms where we would literally have no capability of gathering any emperical knowledge about. For example, if we built a massive computer simulation advanced enough such that life evolved from it, then how would the beings within the simulation know anything beyond their simulation without direct communication from us? They could explore the galaxy as vast as we created it, but they would never "get out" of their own simulation and into our reality. They would be in the computer, completely oblivious to what's going on outside.
But your question is interesting.. surely there must be some point at the utmost highest level of these so-called simulations. But the underlying point here is that we have no knowledge of how things work outside of our own "simualtion" - the very laws of physics could be completely different or even non-existent. For example, maybe matter can be created from nothing outside of our own realm.
If you believe that computers will eventually be able to run complex simulations of our universe--complex enough to even simulate life--then you cannot simply dismiss the idea that we are ourselves part of a simulation ran by some higher being (namely, God). How the simulation derives life is irrelavant - be it darwinism, the big spaghetti monster, God, whatever. Darwinism does not have to conflict with the philosophy that a God created us in his own computer simulation.
Claim that you had an open WAP and that a neighbor, a pedestrian, a war driver - anyone - could have been behind your IP. Burden of proof is on the RIAA.
>> Project Gotham Racing 3 crashes before finishing the first lap
You're playing a racing game. You're gonna crash.
Well, they can kiss my ( | ).
It's hard to take a "security expert" seriously when he says he uses an FTP client.
Deleting cookies is a great start, but it's not enough. Sneaky web developers use "web bugs" these days. The trick is simple: have one image (or a series of images) on the web site take on unique expiration dates for each user. When the user connects to the web server, the client sends "Please give me this image if it hasn't been updated since (unique date that can be tied to client)." The server says "Ah, you're Mr. Smith! The image hasn't been modified." Basically, it acts as a cookie. So, to get around that, you either need to disable caching (which is perfectly reasonable with today's broadband) or delete your cache frequently.
keystroke logging is much worse than wiretapping! not only can private communication between people (email, IM) be recorded, but even more personal privacy (journal, diary) can be recorded via keystroke! your own private diary can now be snooped on by the FBI. how does that make you feel?!?
8% isn't so bad, especially when you consider how long machines are up before they are rebooted. Company machines are often up for several days at a time (sometimes a few weeks) before a reboot. Sure, 1 out of 12 times I might have to reboot due to one issue or another, but 1 out of 12 (8%) is really pretty good, all things considered. That 1 time comes maybe once a month.
Howard Stern would have a field day with this puppy!
some bored geek designed the microdrones to spy on the hot chics in those apartment complexes and then had to give it up to the military when he was caught.
Why buy an iPod when you can buy a PocketPC, equip it with as much memory as you want (it's cheap these days), and do infinitely more things with it beyond just listening to mp3's, such as watch movies or play games?
You claim that you would have never bought the song anyway, so downloading it does not result in a loss of revenue.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't scale well at all.
For example, suppose a new hapless record store decides to open up shop in your town and you have a device that instantly copies a CD without having to ever open the case. (They're not far off in the future, btw.) You figure, you're not going to buy the CD anyway, so it's not costing the record store any revenue if you use your device on their CDs. Furthermore, suppose that everyone in your town felt the same way as you do: nobody in your town feels as though they were going to buy a CD, so copying CD's isn't costing any revenue. Thus, you and everyone else in your town go to the new shop, never buy a CD, copy every single CD in the store, and then leave. Is the record store going to make any money? No- they've lost all of their venues for revenue to those who feel as though they weren't causing the record store to lose any revenue.
That's pretty much what's happening, except we're talkin millions of people compared to the few thousands that might live in your town. Naturally, there are the exceptions. Some people download songs and then decide to buy an entire album, thus actually generating more revenue, but those are pretty rare.
When you illegally downloaded the catchy little tune instead of purchasing it from a legal means or listening to it via a medium that has paid for or otherwise rightfully obtained the rights to broadcast that catchy little tune, you have obtained the catchy little tune through venues that weren't approved of by the copyright holder, which is illegal and unethical.
It is semantics.
True, illegally downloading music is not a criminal offense. As I mentioned, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
True, illegally downloading content is not stealing for the very reason that you have mentioned- illegally downloading content is not depriving anyone of physical property.
However, it's along the same lines of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.
When you illegally download content, you are in effect illegally obtaining something that wasn't yours to obtain, which is pretty much the spirit of stealing; the only difference is that stealing results in the change of possession whereas illegally downloading results in loss of revenue.
I definitely agree that illegally downloading music falls under the category of stealing, although some will play the semantics game. Part of the problem, though, is the lack of anonymity. It's pretty scary when a coorperation or a big organization such as the RIAA can demand the identities of users given a non-criminal reason. (Illegally downloading music a civil matter, not a criminal matter, although I believe it should be a criminal matter).
Again, the chances of the RIAA owning all connections between the source and the sink would be infinitely small as the number of users increases.
Close, but not exactly. MUTE relies on a ACO-like (ant colony optimization) routing system, which is pretty inefficient and relies too much on randomness and luck. ACO is fantastic for some domains, such as TSP and shortest path, but it's not ideal for a p2p communication setup. My proposed method can be thought of more as like electricity rather than ants. An electron shares its excitement with the neighboring electron, who shares its excitement with the next electron, etc. until the flow is reversed.
I am an recording artist myself with a few (very small-time and very local) cd's out. The point isn't about music or movies.. it's about all content and privacy. Imagine 10 years from now when the government suddenly takes an interest in those people scouring p2p networks for certain text articles or specific words. They can't come knocking on your door because they won't know who you are.