Not to take anything away from Alan Cox, but this phrase:
...and widely accepted as second only to Linus Torvalds himself in the echelons of open source illuminati...
That's just silly. If they had said Linux kernel source illuminati instead, obviously I'd agree. But all of open source? I'm sorry, that just isn't so.
I'm not even sure Linus rates #1 here... RMS has a very beefy claim to this throne too. Certainly, if there's a #1 and a #2, it's these two guys who are duking it out. Not Alan Cox.
The file itself isn't pushed, but the information describing that file is. So while you may not be able to spam it with content, you can certainly spam the keyspace, and that will be an avenue of attack.
True, I haven't tried it, but I've read the spec. You should do the same before commenting further.
The privacy arises from the fact that the file you request isn't sent directly to you but through a chain of other systems running MUTE on the Net. This means that for every file delivered, more than one node is labored with the uploading of this file, and given that, for most people, upstream bandwidth is a rather limited resource, the ultimate consequence will be that the system will be slow as compared to one where the files are sent directly, e.g., FastTrack or gnutella.
I think the big difference is that Freenet lets you push content out into the net, whereas MUTE still works with the standard client/server model where the data must first be requested before being transmitted.
It's good to have the alternative. It's been awhile since I've checked out Freenet, but one of the fears I had for the system was that it would be susceptible to spam. If everybody took to trading their MP3's using it, for instance, the remedy on the part of the RIAA would be to simply publish terabytes of nonsensical data. MUTE doesn't seem to suffer from this weakness.
(although there still is the problem of the file you downloaded actually being the file you requested.)
They should've taken a page out of Bram's book, representing the software as a way to let businesses scale their upstream capacity by exploiting the unused capacity held by their customers, etc.
Or Freenet, which likes to talk about working to ensure the anonymity of a political dissident in a authoritarian state.
To just come right out and use downloading a Metallica MP3 as an example of how the software works is asking for grief I think.
...with the same strengths (privacy) and weaknesses (slow).
My asymmetrical DSL connection just won't work well with a system like this. I don't have the bandwidth to act as a node that relays data for the sake of maintaining your anonymity. If we all had T3 connections in our home this would be great, but we don't.
An A for effort though. Implementations on most of the major platforms, with source code, and a neat analogy to how ants work to make it all understandable to the lay audience. Nifty.
(interesting that this story gets posted the day the federal appeals court forbids exactly the tactic by the RIAA this software attempts to work around.)
(* the little dish that is. I once had a big dish, i.e., analog, back in the days when wild feeds were still the rage, and you could watch Tom Brokaw picking his nose on location. That was a lot of fun.)
As a Netflix subscriber I can make do without TV... most of the good shows eventually make it to DVD. Most everything else sucks.
A channel like this however could bring me back, however, especially if it were commercial-free, like C-SPAN.
When I had a TV I used to leave C-SPAN on all the time, and it was actually rather enjoyable, that is, until I figured out just how corrupt our government is. Then it became extremely aggravating.
I trust the same thing wouldn't happen here.
If I were the AI I'd say no
on
A.I. Helicopter?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I mean, you know nobody gives a shit whether you crash or not. If they did, they'd send a human up there.
If no wasn't an acceptible answer, then once aloft, I'd follow the pigeons. They seem to have it all worked out. Hang out on the rooftops where everybody is afraid to go. Nobody messes with you up there.
Over at Penny Arcade they are talking about little girls who make money renting their virtual asses out on Sims Online. And not play money either, real money.
Not the same thing... or is it?
(And here I was feeling guilty over being a karma whore.)
Also, if you're going to compare it to iTunes, mention the fact that you can't do a lot of things (like ripping to MP3) unless you pay for the Pro version.
Apparently people who were in a position to know disagree with you.
And given all the times Washington has lied to us about Iraq in the past (e.g., Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqis, Iraqi troops amassing on Saudi Arabia border) and in the present (yellow cake from Niger, Saddam link to 9/11), I am more inclined to believe those who say that the Kurds were in fact gassed by the Iranians.
Did you read the article linked to by parent? Is there any specific allegation within you are able to refute?
The flip side of this is that he uses the WMD's against U.S. forces while still amassed in Kuwait, inflicting severe casualties, and receiving no greater retaliation than the invasion, which was inevitable in any case.
He would have been seen as the man who bloodied the nose of the imperialist monsters from the west. He would have become the mother of all martyrs.
And he *still* could've hidden.
People say he wouldn't do that, that we would've responded with nukes or something like that, but we wouldn't have. The fallout, political and otherwise, would have been too great. We'd have gone in, just like we did, and endured very much the same campaign we are now, only it would be so much more treacherous since Saddam's forces really would have WMD's at their disposal, i.e., the U.S. could forget about using a palace or anything else as a base of operations.
Saddam would have been way ahead had he used WMD's. He had everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?
Nobody ever invaded Russia.
Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them.
If so, and Saddam really had WMD's, then why did they bother using any of the other weapons they had?
There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.
How do you know this? Based on information from the same people who lied about the yellow cake from Niger? Who lied about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda?
If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?
Excuse me, but he did let the inspectors do their job for many years. And nothing was found during this time.
British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.
It's not all the fault of the Brits. The whole business about his relationship with bin Laden and the connection to 9/11 was fabricated on our end.
Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.
You know, all this talk about Saddam being a coward, but if I recall correctly, Saddam saw a lot more combat than President Bush ever did.
For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.
I think he's even worse than that. I think he's so bad, he might actually be our last President.
Apparently you don't get it. If Hussein really did have WMD's he would've used them. If not when our troops were amassed in Kuwait before the invasion, then when finally cornered by them during the occupation.
The fact that he didn't use them, the fact that we find him hiding in a hole in the ground certifies once and for all that there never were WMD's in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just silly. If they had said Linux kernel source illuminati instead, obviously I'd agree. But all of open source? I'm sorry, that just isn't so.
I'm not even sure Linus rates #1 here... RMS has a very beefy claim to this throne too. Certainly, if there's a #1 and a #2, it's these two guys who are duking it out. Not Alan Cox.
http://waste.sourceforge.net/
The file itself isn't pushed, but the information describing that file is. So while you may not be able to spam it with content, you can certainly spam the keyspace, and that will be an avenue of attack.
True, I haven't tried it, but I've read the spec. You should do the same before commenting further.
The privacy arises from the fact that the file you request isn't sent directly to you but through a chain of other systems running MUTE on the Net. This means that for every file delivered, more than one node is labored with the uploading of this file, and given that, for most people, upstream bandwidth is a rather limited resource, the ultimate consequence will be that the system will be slow as compared to one where the files are sent directly, e.g., FastTrack or gnutella.
I think the big difference is that Freenet lets you push content out into the net, whereas MUTE still works with the standard client/server model where the data must first be requested before being transmitted.
It's good to have the alternative. It's been awhile since I've checked out Freenet, but one of the fears I had for the system was that it would be susceptible to spam. If everybody took to trading their MP3's using it, for instance, the remedy on the part of the RIAA would be to simply publish terabytes of nonsensical data. MUTE doesn't seem to suffer from this weakness.
(although there still is the problem of the file you downloaded actually being the file you requested.)
Yeah, I was struck by that too.
They should've taken a page out of Bram's book, representing the software as a way to let businesses scale their upstream capacity by exploiting the unused capacity held by their customers, etc.
Or Freenet, which likes to talk about working to ensure the anonymity of a political dissident in a authoritarian state.
To just come right out and use downloading a Metallica MP3 as an example of how the software works is asking for grief I think.
...with the same strengths (privacy) and weaknesses (slow).
My asymmetrical DSL connection just won't work well with a system like this. I don't have the bandwidth to act as a node that relays data for the sake of maintaining your anonymity. If we all had T3 connections in our home this would be great, but we don't.
An A for effort though. Implementations on most of the major platforms, with source code, and a neat analogy to how ants work to make it all understandable to the lay audience. Nifty.
(interesting that this story gets posted the day the federal appeals court forbids exactly the tactic by the RIAA this software attempts to work around.)
A tuner card, that tunes to what?
Over-the-air broadcasting? It's shit.
Cable? It's shit.
Satellite? It's shit too*.
(* the little dish that is. I once had a big dish, i.e., analog, back in the days when wild feeds were still the rage, and you could watch Tom Brokaw picking his nose on location. That was a lot of fun.)
As a Netflix subscriber I can make do without TV... most of the good shows eventually make it to DVD. Most everything else sucks.
A channel like this however could bring me back, however, especially if it were commercial-free, like C-SPAN.
When I had a TV I used to leave C-SPAN on all the time, and it was actually rather enjoyable, that is, until I figured out just how corrupt our government is. Then it became extremely aggravating.
I trust the same thing wouldn't happen here.
Like the digital soldiers used to create the epic battle scene in RotK who decided to flee instead of fight.
I mean, you know nobody gives a shit whether you crash or not. If they did, they'd send a human up there.
If no wasn't an acceptible answer, then once aloft, I'd follow the pigeons. They seem to have it all worked out. Hang out on the rooftops where everybody is afraid to go. Nobody messes with you up there.
I mean, once upon a time you could throw a rock from a moving car and not expect to hit an Apple ][ emulator.
It'd be an easy 83.
What's the big deal?
...that's attached to the product.
You know, normally this would be a big thing, but given their ties with AOL...
Over at Penny Arcade they are talking about little girls who make money renting their virtual asses out on Sims Online. And not play money either, real money.
Not the same thing... or is it?
(And here I was feeling guilty over being a karma whore.)
See?
Also, if you're going to compare it to iTunes, mention the fact that you can't do a lot of things (like ripping to MP3) unless you pay for the Pro version.
iTunes is free, right?
So maybe somebody should mention this.
You're forgetting the part where we're invaders.
Is it your estimation that Russia would not use their WMD's were we to invade?
Do you honestly think we wouldn't use our WMD's if we were invaded?
No, right?
So why is it you feel Saddam Hussein wouldn't use WMD's when we invaded Iraq?
Apparently people who were in a position to know disagree with you.
And given all the times Washington has lied to us about Iraq in the past (e.g., Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqis, Iraqi troops amassing on Saudi Arabia border) and in the present (yellow cake from Niger, Saddam link to 9/11), I am more inclined to believe those who say that the Kurds were in fact gassed by the Iranians.
Did you read the article linked to by parent? Is there any specific allegation within you are able to refute?
The flip side of this is that he uses the WMD's against U.S. forces while still amassed in Kuwait, inflicting severe casualties, and receiving no greater retaliation than the invasion, which was inevitable in any case.
He would have been seen as the man who bloodied the nose of the imperialist monsters from the west. He would have become the mother of all martyrs.
And he *still* could've hidden.
People say he wouldn't do that, that we would've responded with nukes or something like that, but we wouldn't have. The fallout, political and otherwise, would have been too great. We'd have gone in, just like we did, and endured very much the same campaign we are now, only it would be so much more treacherous since Saddam's forces really would have WMD's at their disposal, i.e., the U.S. could forget about using a palace or anything else as a base of operations.
Saddam would have been way ahead had he used WMD's. He had everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?
Nobody ever invaded Russia.
Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them.
If so, and Saddam really had WMD's, then why did they bother using any of the other weapons they had?
There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.
How do you know this? Based on information from the same people who lied about the yellow cake from Niger? Who lied about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda?
If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?
Excuse me, but he did let the inspectors do their job for many years. And nothing was found during this time.
British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.
It's not all the fault of the Brits. The whole business about his relationship with bin Laden and the connection to 9/11 was fabricated on our end.
Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.
You know, all this talk about Saddam being a coward, but if I recall correctly, Saddam saw a lot more combat than President Bush ever did.
For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.
I think he's even worse than that. I think he's so bad, he might actually be our last President.
If none of *you* want a WMD detector for Xmas, then how about getting me one???
How is this a troll?
Can any one of you honestly say that you wouldn't want a WMD detector for Christmas?
nt
So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?
HMMMM???
Especially when you're back is against the wall and there's no other way out. Saddam Hussein is a madman, right?
So WHY DIDN'T HE USE THE WMD's?!?!?
ANSWER: He never had them.
Bush lied, and that's a fact.
Apparently you don't get it. If Hussein really did have WMD's he would've used them. If not when our troops were amassed in Kuwait before the invasion, then when finally cornered by them during the occupation.
The fact that he didn't use them, the fact that we find him hiding in a hole in the ground certifies once and for all that there never were WMD's in Iraq.
It was all a great big lie.
Go sell your shit somewhere else.
nt