It's actually a cheap way to do it, that would alleviate all this stupid "GPL is cancer" fud.
The GPL isn't meant to be invasive, if you write your own seperate program, it is allowed to coexist with GPL programs on the same machine. Otherwise, IE users wouldn't be allowed to access an Apache website, for instance...
"Not letting the users back out of the network" = "Not using the system to its fullest"
The internet is a broken network. I loved it, I still do. It may very well be one of the greatest technological marvels ever... but at some point, those responsible for it sold out. They let governments in, they let corporations in.
It will never be the same, it is unsalvagable.
Tor only hastens the inevitable crackdown. Even if 100% of the internet's users were protected by its anonymity, the premise is flawed... this only makes it that much easier to go after the publishers of the controversial material.
What Tor gets right that freenet doesn't (that it's largely, though not perfectly, an IPv4esque network), it also gets wrong what freenet gets right (that it is its own network, built from the ground up with the intention of being its own network not dependent on another for content).
"Not letting the users back out of the network" = "Not using the system to its fullest"
In the strictest sense, everyone is a potential spammer. But I don't feel like punishing them beforehand, nor do I feel like making the effort of hunting them down after and punishing them then.
Better to build a network where spam is worthless inside -- for instance, the network I propose... everyone is anonymous on it,their anonymity is important to them, and they're not stupid enough to buy penis pills from a spam and leave a money trail back to their identity. More so, this network isn't just a lameass proxy back to the internet where spammers can use it to hammer stooges who *do* buy penis pills -- so that we can use it to its fullest. Fullest being, what it was meant to do, that is, give us a mostly seperate IPv4/IPv6 network where we can do anything that IP allows you to do.
Its not an impractical solution, because its not even a solution. Your suggestion is that you can secure a proxy by making it not a proxy anymore. While that is strictly true, it suffers from missing the point.
It is a solution. You don't secure it by making it a non-proxy, you dispense with the boneheaded idea that proxies are a good thing. It's not missing the point, it's ignoring the flawed point that we should still be sucking on the internet's teat. Time to wean yourself, that milk is sour.
Help me build a new network, where we don't have to put up with the bullshit.
#1 Abuse != "using system to the fullest". #2 Preventing spam and stalkers does not make one the ethical equivalent of the MPAA. #3 That some might discover a hypothetical methods of abuse at an indeterminate point in the future does not mean that it becomes impractical as a solution today.
Wrong, actually. You just don't allow out-proxying back to the parent network (in this case, the internet).
Spammers can't spam in sucha situation, so they drop off. Asshats won't be able to stalk anyone... those on the internal network are anonymous, how can you stalk them? And they can't use this to reach those on the outside.
You just can't have an anonymous network that still lets you connect to the internet through it, it's a joke.
Oh, and if I were doing it, SOCKS tunnels are a dumb way of doing it. Why limit yourself to a single transport layer protocol?
Do what I do. Install the Greasemonkey plugin, and start fixing them. Our main web app now works in firefox... I've even added features. Too bad I'm a phone support monkey,eh?
Standards are supposed to standardize existing practice, not just make up some stupid names for things.
Except in europe, where standards are made up by aristocrats who have never needed to count anything themselves, having servants run around in dusted wigs and so forth. They are the inventors of (in no particular order) the metric system and the ten day week (I'm not making this up, you can't make this stuff up).
Yes, the consumer loses. Never mind that the consumer will have no $7 with which to buy his cheap widget. When all his jobs have been shipped to Bangalore, and the "service economy" that the Clinton nitwits promised us in the 90s is over there too, what's that leave for us? Maybe we should all become lawyers, or daytraders?
Why should the domestic worker be entitled to utilize the force of government to screw over the consumer and the foreign worker?
Because except for some minority cases (think ~1%) the consumer *is* the domestic worker.
Yeh, because we have a virtual epidemic of privacy... millions of people walk around every day, all day, and you poor control freaks have no idea who they are.
I'm not certain that it could be abused. Show me one of them within the past century that shouldn't be executed for treason, and it's the exception rather than the rule.
I was joking, but still.
Voting up trash like this because "it'd hurt my re-election chances when the other guy airs campaign commercials saying I voted against paying our troops" means you've betrayed the american people in the most fundamental way possible. For fuck's sake... if that's what it takes to fight this, is to be voted out, well, that's why you are there in the first place.
If making them fair game makes the job less desirable, that's a good thing. They shouldn't be rock stars or pro athletes or hollywood stars, and yet they end up being all three. Rich, famous, and can do what they want. They fight so hard to keep something that a sane person shouldn't want... there's something wrong there. The only explanation is that they abuse it for personal gain.
No, but it would still be less than a misdemeanor. A civil infraction, that wouldn't show up on a criminal background check when you apply for a job, is what I had in mind.
No. You'd be allowed to kill those you agree with, too.
Besides, the premise behind the joke is serious... I only want people in office that want to do anything *but* play power games like this. And if they acted a bit more like they didn't want to be there, I think the corollary is that we wouldn't have shit legislation like this steaming heap.
This is why there should be a constitutional ammendment that killing congressman should be a crime not punishable by more than $50 fine and/or 80 hours community service.
Don't want someone to be able to legally murder you? Don't run for public office.
Re:Extra stuff?
on
Homeless Wires?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'll add a $100 bounty on a feature roughly summarized as "building a goddamned anonymous network that doesn't require an entirely new layer 3 architecture".
Nice title. He feels the need to be so damn formulaic. He wants to subtitle ep4? Big deal, it wasn't even a bad one. But Attack of the Clones? So, so lame.
What would you have called ep5, if it had been your call? (And assuming you weren't so embarrassed that you wouldn't have anything to do with it)
Well, just what was stupid about episodes 1 and 2, you ask? I invite others to add to the list, or dispute my inclusion of the following:
1) Anakin grew up on the planet his son later hides on, yeh. So, maybe those Storm Troopers are retards and kill the people raising his son, but even turned to the dark side he feels so little that he doesn't shred the troopers who killed them into hamburger? They're his own relatives, for crying out loud. All GL had to do, was put this on another planet, it's a big universe.
2) Darth knows the droids, from his childhood? Yeh right. What does this add to the story? All the big story's in humanity's history have room for literally thousands of important people, important players. If they needed some droids (and yeh, they probably did), why not invent some new ones?
3) Yoda bounces around like a $10 toy from the bratstore? Yoda was supposed to be literally *awesome* if you did piss him off. Not comical. Yoda should have opened his robes, and anywhere from 6-20 lightsabers just levitate outward from him and activate. The bad guy (Darth Brooks? I forget his name) would have to do everything he can to not be mowed down by the cloud of spinning lightsabers biting at him from every side, even the distractions he might throw at Yoda would be smacked away. Let him escape, sure. But make it look like the guy beat the 100,000 to 1 odds in doing so.
4) Absolutely clueless intrigue. Even the bad guys in both shows would be amateurs when put up against the likes of my local city council. The good guys wouldn't stand a chance against the maternity ward at a hospital. The Jedi have magical powers, dammit, and you're telling me they never even notice a Sith Lord on the same planet as their headquarters? That once they know about him, it's all up to Ewan McGregor to find out what's going on? Aren't there dozens of Jedi, even hundreds (if not thousands). With influence at the highest levels of government?
5) The big Jedi battle against whatever those things were. They have to be rescued by storm troopers? Mace Windex runs around like a fat man, out of breath, sloppily hacking at things like one of the three stooges would swat at a bee. Some of these Jedi get nailed without ever even seeing it coming. It was so lame. If they can't squash an army that has less than 50 attackers per Jedi, then it's just plain dumb. You get the impression in the first 3 that if the Death Star coughs, Vader will go down to the surface and destroy the damn planet himself. With one arm tied around his back. He might be one of the most powerful ever, but the other Jedis should be with in a few orders of magnitude of that.
Actually, we're primates. That means our instinct is treat those in our own tribe nominally like brothers, but to not pass up an opportunity to backstab them and become alpha male.
And, if you ever wonder what primates think of those from another tribe... well, it's not all that brotherly.
Some do use this as an explanation of man's behaviors throughout the world, and most of the time I wouldn't even dispute it. If someone is racist without being raised by parents that are demonstrably racist, might it not be such primate instinct? I'm not sure.
The greatest strides in civil freedoms in the United States have come during the most secular periods in it's history.
A better example than one I could have hoped to come up with myself.
A black man in the US is no longer institutionally mistreated as he once was, and arguably is as free as any white man. And look at the good that that has accomplished. What percentage are in prison, what percentage are convicted criminals?
How many can't bring it upon themselves to speak proper english, if for no other reason than just so they can think clearly about complex subjects?
No less than 50 people will read this, and believe that I am a racist.
We didn't need laws that punish people if they discriminate against a black man. We needed morals made people look at him and think to themselves, this is a man as any other, and I shall do the best by him that I can. That's still missing from the equation.
Then maybe I was too wordy. I was pointing out that science can't do this, and religion refuses to do this though perhaps it could, should it ever decide that it wants to.
That's the whole point, I wasn't claiming religion already did those things, and wow, see, science gave us the microwave oven but religion gave us world peace proving it to be better.
Religion continues to ignore the role which maybe only it can perform, and that's the tragedy in all of this.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually a cheap way to do it, that would alleviate all this stupid "GPL is cancer" fud.
The GPL isn't meant to be invasive, if you write your own seperate program, it is allowed to coexist with GPL programs on the same machine. Otherwise, IE users wouldn't be allowed to access an Apache website, for instance...
"Not letting the users back out of the network" = "Not using the system to its fullest"
The internet is a broken network. I loved it, I still do. It may very well be one of the greatest technological marvels ever... but at some point, those responsible for it sold out. They let governments in, they let corporations in.
It will never be the same, it is unsalvagable.
Tor only hastens the inevitable crackdown. Even if 100% of the internet's users were protected by its anonymity, the premise is flawed... this only makes it that much easier to go after the publishers of the controversial material.
What Tor gets right that freenet doesn't (that it's largely, though not perfectly, an IPv4esque network), it also gets wrong what freenet gets right (that it is its own network, built from the ground up with the intention of being its own network not dependent on another for content).
"Not letting the users back out of the network" = "Not using the system to its fullest"
In the strictest sense, everyone is a potential spammer. But I don't feel like punishing them beforehand, nor do I feel like making the effort of hunting them down after and punishing them then.
Better to build a network where spam is worthless inside -- for instance, the network I propose... everyone is anonymous on it,their anonymity is important to them, and they're not stupid enough to buy penis pills from a spam and leave a money trail back to their identity. More so, this network isn't just a lameass proxy back to the internet where spammers can use it to hammer stooges who *do* buy penis pills -- so that we can use it to its fullest. Fullest being, what it was meant to do, that is, give us a mostly seperate IPv4/IPv6 network where we can do anything that IP allows you to do.
Its not an impractical solution, because its not even a solution. Your suggestion is that you can secure a proxy by making it not a proxy anymore. While that is strictly true, it suffers from missing the point.
It is a solution. You don't secure it by making it a non-proxy, you dispense with the boneheaded idea that proxies are a good thing. It's not missing the point, it's ignoring the flawed point that we should still be sucking on the internet's teat. Time to wean yourself, that milk is sour.
Help me build a new network, where we don't have to put up with the bullshit.
#1 Abuse != "using system to the fullest".
#2 Preventing spam and stalkers does not make one the ethical equivalent of the MPAA.
#3 That some might discover a hypothetical methods of abuse at an indeterminate point in the future does not mean that it becomes impractical as a solution today.
So, the abusers get to stay, but they don't get to abuse? That sounds like a solution to me.
Wrong, actually. You just don't allow out-proxying back to the parent network (in this case, the internet).
Spammers can't spam in sucha situation, so they drop off. Asshats won't be able to stalk anyone... those on the internal network are anonymous, how can you stalk them? And they can't use this to reach those on the outside.
You just can't have an anonymous network that still lets you connect to the internet through it, it's a joke.
Oh, and if I were doing it, SOCKS tunnels are a dumb way of doing it. Why limit yourself to a single transport layer protocol?
Do what I do. Install the Greasemonkey plugin, and start fixing them. Our main web app now works in firefox... I've even added features. Too bad I'm a phone support monkey,eh?
Standards are supposed to standardize existing practice, not just make up some stupid names for things.
Except in europe, where standards are made up by aristocrats who have never needed to count anything themselves, having servants run around in dusted wigs and so forth. They are the inventors of (in no particular order) the metric system and the ten day week (I'm not making this up, you can't make this stuff up).
Yes, the consumer loses. Never mind that the consumer will have no $7 with which to buy his cheap widget. When all his jobs have been shipped to Bangalore, and the "service economy" that the Clinton nitwits promised us in the 90s is over there too, what's that leave for us? Maybe we should all become lawyers, or daytraders?
Why should the domestic worker be entitled to utilize the force of government to screw over the consumer and the foreign worker?
Because except for some minority cases (think ~1%) the consumer *is* the domestic worker.
Yeh, because we have a virtual epidemic of privacy... millions of people walk around every day, all day, and you poor control freaks have no idea who they are.
You misunderstood the title.
This is more like the killer "revisiting the scene of his crime".
I'm not certain that it could be abused. Show me one of them within the past century that shouldn't be executed for treason, and it's the exception rather than the rule.
I was joking, but still.
Voting up trash like this because "it'd hurt my re-election chances when the other guy airs campaign commercials saying I voted against paying our troops" means you've betrayed the american people in the most fundamental way possible. For fuck's sake... if that's what it takes to fight this, is to be voted out, well, that's why you are there in the first place.
If making them fair game makes the job less desirable, that's a good thing. They shouldn't be rock stars or pro athletes or hollywood stars, and yet they end up being all three. Rich, famous, and can do what they want. They fight so hard to keep something that a sane person shouldn't want... there's something wrong there. The only explanation is that they abuse it for personal gain.
No, but it would still be less than a misdemeanor. A civil infraction, that wouldn't show up on a criminal background check when you apply for a job, is what I had in mind.
No. You'd be allowed to kill those you agree with, too.
Besides, the premise behind the joke is serious... I only want people in office that want to do anything *but* play power games like this. And if they acted a bit more like they didn't want to be there, I think the corollary is that we wouldn't have shit legislation like this steaming heap.
This is why there should be a constitutional ammendment that killing congressman should be a crime not punishable by more than $50 fine and/or 80 hours community service.
Don't want someone to be able to legally murder you? Don't run for public office.
Join freecycle and offer to give it away.
I'll add a $100 bounty on a feature roughly summarized as "building a goddamned anonymous network that doesn't require an entirely new layer 3 architecture".
Guess it never occurred to them to make the servo control chip socketable?
Nice title. He feels the need to be so damn formulaic. He wants to subtitle ep4? Big deal, it wasn't even a bad one. But Attack of the Clones? So, so lame.
What would you have called ep5, if it had been your call? (And assuming you weren't so embarrassed that you wouldn't have anything to do with it)
Well, just what was stupid about episodes 1 and 2, you ask? I invite others to add to the list, or dispute my inclusion of the following:
1) Anakin grew up on the planet his son later hides on, yeh. So, maybe those Storm Troopers are retards and kill the people raising his son, but even turned to the dark side he feels so little that he doesn't shred the troopers who killed them into hamburger? They're his own relatives, for crying out loud. All GL had to do, was put this on another planet, it's a big universe.
2) Darth knows the droids, from his childhood? Yeh right. What does this add to the story? All the big story's in humanity's history have room for literally thousands of important people, important players. If they needed some droids (and yeh, they probably did), why not invent some new ones?
3) Yoda bounces around like a $10 toy from the bratstore? Yoda was supposed to be literally *awesome* if you did piss him off. Not comical. Yoda should have opened his robes, and anywhere from 6-20 lightsabers just levitate outward from him and activate. The bad guy (Darth Brooks? I forget his name) would have to do everything he can to not be mowed down by the cloud of spinning lightsabers biting at him from every side, even the distractions he might throw at Yoda would be smacked away. Let him escape, sure. But make it look like the guy beat the 100,000 to 1 odds in doing so.
4) Absolutely clueless intrigue. Even the bad guys in both shows would be amateurs when put up against the likes of my local city council. The good guys wouldn't stand a chance against the maternity ward at a hospital. The Jedi have magical powers, dammit, and you're telling me they never even notice a Sith Lord on the same planet as their headquarters? That once they know about him, it's all up to Ewan McGregor to find out what's going on? Aren't there dozens of Jedi, even hundreds (if not thousands). With influence at the highest levels of government?
5) The big Jedi battle against whatever those things were. They have to be rescued by storm troopers? Mace Windex runs around like a fat man, out of breath, sloppily hacking at things like one of the three stooges would swat at a bee. Some of these Jedi get nailed without ever even seeing it coming. It was so lame. If they can't squash an army that has less than 50 attackers per Jedi, then it's just plain dumb. You get the impression in the first 3 that if the Death Star coughs, Vader will go down to the surface and destroy the damn planet himself. With one arm tied around his back. He might be one of the most powerful ever, but the other Jedis should be with in a few orders of magnitude of that.
Actually, we're primates. That means our instinct is treat those in our own tribe nominally like brothers, but to not pass up an opportunity to backstab them and become alpha male.
And, if you ever wonder what primates think of those from another tribe... well, it's not all that brotherly.
Some do use this as an explanation of man's behaviors throughout the world, and most of the time I wouldn't even dispute it. If someone is racist without being raised by parents that are demonstrably racist, might it not be such primate instinct? I'm not sure.
The greatest strides in civil freedoms in the United States have come during the most secular periods in it's history.
A better example than one I could have hoped to come up with myself.
A black man in the US is no longer institutionally mistreated as he once was, and arguably is as free as any white man. And look at the good that that has accomplished. What percentage are in prison, what percentage are convicted criminals?
How many can't bring it upon themselves to speak proper english, if for no other reason than just so they can think clearly about complex subjects?
No less than 50 people will read this, and believe that I am a racist.
We didn't need laws that punish people if they discriminate against a black man. We needed morals made people look at him and think to themselves, this is a man as any other, and I shall do the best by him that I can. That's still missing from the equation.
Then maybe I was too wordy. I was pointing out that science can't do this, and religion refuses to do this though perhaps it could, should it ever decide that it wants to.
That's the whole point, I wasn't claiming religion already did those things, and wow, see, science gave us the microwave oven but religion gave us world peace proving it to be better.
Religion continues to ignore the role which maybe only it can perform, and that's the tragedy in all of this.
A good question that I'm not wise enough to answer. I doubt that it's because Magical Cloud Man will punish you for eternity if you don't.
Yet, even not knowing the answer, is it not obviously true to you, that you should do so, all the same?
Well, first it might be wise to ask why there can't be morality with religion, even though all known real examples tend to show otherwise.
economics does show us that there is a lot to be gained by eliminating hunger.
It shows some numbers that are woefully underestimated, that even if figured correctly, would still not adequately describe such a wonderful scenario.