I'm sure he can afford to hire accountants to ensure that he uses the optional LIFO method of determining his basis. In other words, he's going to match all these shares he's selling with those purchased under his stock option plan during the bubble, and this is going to go down as a huge capital loss!
Is this a step towards some other interest group having a share of microsoft in exchange for a friendlier marketshare in some instances of power, foo example?
Sure, but be forewarned that power corrupts.
If everyone on Slashdot would just buy 20,000 shares of Microsoft...
Uh, I don't get it. You think hosting providers are buying 800 meg harddrives so they don't have to change their static IP addresses?
First off, 800 gigs. The point is, if they let people upgrade to say 8 gigs of space for such a low price, and 100 people on the same box did it, how are they supposed to accomadate such a space requirement?
And anyway, who cares about static IPs, I mean if your paying for a domainname what difference does it make what number it resolves to?
Absolutely. IP address changes almost surely means downtime.
I think you could make the argument that trying to host hundreds of multiple gig sites might be too much for our little server's processor(s), but this is a special case.
It wouldn't really affect the processors. It would affect the price per gig, and come to think of it, could the VM systems of all operating systems even handle it?
Yes, it's a special case. That's why special arrangements need to be made. The simplest one being just putting the website on its own server.
I think it's more than that. When you go on these plans, you're on a machine with literally hundreds of other websites. Sure, you can get an 80 gig hard drive for $1/gig, but how much does it cost to get an 800 gig hard drive? No one wants to have their static IP address change, so what happens when more than a few people are all asking for gigs of space?
C'mon, anyone who has to ask slashdot such easily solvable questions shouldn't be running his own server. Go with a dedicated server. Here's one for $250/month. They'll keep your OS up to date, do the backups for you, and you can continue with your webmonkey expertise.
One thing's for certain. If your website is important enough to pay over $100/month for it, you shouldn't be using shared hosting.
Knowing the IP address is only a few steps away from the RIAA, MPAA, etc finding out who you are. If you have your own konspire channel called "500 Gigs of mp3s", the RIAA would love to know who you are and where they can send their lawyers.
Surely it wouldn't be hard for them to subscribe to the channel from a bunch of different areas and get a good idea of who the biggest sharers are. Do it for a few weeks, and the culprit will be found.
In the mean time, you can get a bunch of other co-conspirators to scare, and send out a few thousand DMCA takedown notices.
If you share music, videos, or any copyrighted works, chances are you prefer to remain as anonymous as possible.
And if you run this software, then you will be sharing music, videos, and other copyrighted works.
I don't see how this is any better than any other P2P network. Unless you qualify for one of the DMCA safe-harbors, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to copyright law.
Re:Security in General Industry
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
snprintf() and asprintf()-like functions can be used securely with much less trouble.
Not really. The only difference in most cases is whether you check your inputs before or after you use the sn?printf(). As long as you allocate enough to handle the largest valid input from the beginning, you're fine. At some point you have to check if the input is valid. Usually this is done before calling sprintf(). snprintf() allows you to just assume the input is valid and bail out if it isn't. Not exactly the most secure solution.
Re:Security features in a language?
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
For example checking malloc() failures is useless in nearly all situations. Just write a mymalloc() function which kills the program with error message if it can't allocate the memory.
Even better, don't use malloc() at all. Allocate what you need at the beginning, and let the virtual memory system handle the rest.
The problem with bittorrent is that you know who sent the original files
You don't know who sent the files, you know the IP address of the person who sent the original files. In any case, why is that a problem?
Re:"potential for anonymity"
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
And by the way, according to this page, copyright is already a strict liability offense. You may have a defence under the DMCA, but only if you've registered as an ISP.
Copyright is a strict liability offense. Under the federal copyright statutes, neither intent nor knowledge of infringement is necessary to hold a person liable. In practical terms that means that you cannot plead ignorance to escape liability.
Re:"potential for anonymity"
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
Especially since in this network, whoever distributes a given file also requested it (at least that's what I am reading out of the documentation), in contrast to other networks, eg. freenet where the fact that you have data on your HD and distribute it to other people does not imply that you requested that data to be there yourself.
I would think this would be on the same footing as freenet. Sure, your computer requested the file, but there's zero proof that your computer doesn't request every file, and there's zero proof that you know what data was contained in the file. You were reckless perhaps, negligent probably, but you can't prove that you had any direct intent. And if whatever you are doing is something for which congress has decided to enact strict liability, you're certainly guilty regardless of whether or not you know what you're doing.
You can be sure that if freenet ever becomes popular (and it's likely it never will), Congress will enact strict liability crimes for using it.
Has the RIAA actually sued anyone simply for receiving mp3s? It seems like that excuse could always be used. After all, the RIAA only owns the copyright to the particular recording. The receiver could just say he was expecting a legally recorded live version.
Sounds like the internet...
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
Looks like the internet. Why not just use IPv6 tunnels? This would be a good way to get unsuspecting file thieves to help us propagate the 6bone.
Well, I was talking about any location in the US, but considering an average city-sized roof, and average (or low average) power consumption. Let's even assume orientation is pretty much exactly where you want it, although that's a bad assumption, really.
I have no doubts that it can be done if you build a house from scratch. But that's not really a viable option for most people.
Not exactly. This provision prohibits individual states from undermining the treaties made by the federal government. It says nothing about the federal courts (and definitely not the Supreme Court) making Constitutional rulings on treaty provisions.
But that's the whole point. If the Constitution does not give the power to the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, then it's up to the Legislature to give that power to the Supreme Court. The basis of judicial review is Marbury v. Madison, and that specifically dealt with the language that only laws which were made in persuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. That language is not present with regard to treaties however. Quoting the entire sentence:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You need to look at Missouri v. Holland. There is was ruled that a law which was unconstitutional for congress to pass by itself became constitutional when made part of a treaty. Now it could be argued that there is still some judicial review available with regard to treaties, if a treaty were made completely repugnant to the Constitution. But as for any enumerated powers arguments, those are going to certainly be thrown out by the court.
Treaties can, however, make an otherwise unconstitutional law constitutional. Take a look a Missouri vs. Holland. "Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure he can afford to hire accountants to ensure that he uses the optional LIFO method of determining his basis. In other words, he's going to match all these shares he's selling with those purchased under his stock option plan during the bubble, and this is going to go down as a huge capital loss!
Capital gains taxes are already pretty much flat.
Is this a step towards some other interest group having a share of microsoft in exchange for a friendlier marketshare in some instances of power, foo example?
Sure, but be forewarned that power corrupts.
If everyone on Slashdot would just buy 20,000 shares of Microsoft...
Uh, I don't get it. You think hosting providers are buying 800 meg harddrives so they don't have to change their static IP addresses?
First off, 800 gigs. The point is, if they let people upgrade to say 8 gigs of space for such a low price, and 100 people on the same box did it, how are they supposed to accomadate such a space requirement?
And anyway, who cares about static IPs, I mean if your paying for a domainname what difference does it make what number it resolves to?
Absolutely. IP address changes almost surely means downtime.
I think you could make the argument that trying to host hundreds of multiple gig sites might be too much for our little server's processor(s), but this is a special case.
It wouldn't really affect the processors. It would affect the price per gig, and come to think of it, could the VM systems of all operating systems even handle it?
Yes, it's a special case. That's why special arrangements need to be made. The simplest one being just putting the website on its own server.
I think it's more than that. When you go on these plans, you're on a machine with literally hundreds of other websites. Sure, you can get an 80 gig hard drive for $1/gig, but how much does it cost to get an 800 gig hard drive? No one wants to have their static IP address change, so what happens when more than a few people are all asking for gigs of space?
C'mon, anyone who has to ask slashdot such easily solvable questions shouldn't be running his own server. Go with a dedicated server. Here's one for $250/month. They'll keep your OS up to date, do the backups for you, and you can continue with your webmonkey expertise.
One thing's for certain. If your website is important enough to pay over $100/month for it, you shouldn't be using shared hosting.
Just go with one of those places with unlimited space.
Fiber it's self has no bandwidth limit.
Not true. The bandwidth is limited by h-bar.
You can use any data structure you use with dynamic memory with static memory.
Knowing the IP address is only a few steps away from the RIAA, MPAA, etc finding out who you are. If you have your own konspire channel called "500 Gigs of mp3s", the RIAA would love to know who you are and where they can send their lawyers.
Surely it wouldn't be hard for them to subscribe to the channel from a bunch of different areas and get a good idea of who the biggest sharers are. Do it for a few weeks, and the culprit will be found.
In the mean time, you can get a bunch of other co-conspirators to scare, and send out a few thousand DMCA takedown notices.
If you share music, videos, or any copyrighted works, chances are you prefer to remain as anonymous as possible.
And if you run this software, then you will be sharing music, videos, and other copyrighted works.
I don't see how this is any better than any other P2P network. Unless you qualify for one of the DMCA safe-harbors, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to copyright law.
snprintf() and asprintf()-like functions can be used securely with much less trouble.
Not really. The only difference in most cases is whether you check your inputs before or after you use the sn?printf(). As long as you allocate enough to handle the largest valid input from the beginning, you're fine. At some point you have to check if the input is valid. Usually this is done before calling sprintf(). snprintf() allows you to just assume the input is valid and bail out if it isn't. Not exactly the most secure solution.
For example checking malloc() failures is useless in nearly all situations. Just write a mymalloc() function which kills the program with error message if it can't allocate the memory.
Even better, don't use malloc() at all. Allocate what you need at the beginning, and let the virtual memory system handle the rest.
The problem with bittorrent is that you know who sent the original files
You don't know who sent the files, you know the IP address of the person who sent the original files. In any case, why is that a problem?
And by the way, according to this page, copyright is already a strict liability offense. You may have a defence under the DMCA, but only if you've registered as an ISP.
Especially since in this network, whoever distributes a given file also requested it (at least that's what I am reading out of the documentation), in contrast to other networks, eg. freenet where the fact that you have data on your HD and distribute it to other people does not imply that you requested that data to be there yourself.
I would think this would be on the same footing as freenet. Sure, your computer requested the file, but there's zero proof that your computer doesn't request every file, and there's zero proof that you know what data was contained in the file. You were reckless perhaps, negligent probably, but you can't prove that you had any direct intent. And if whatever you are doing is something for which congress has decided to enact strict liability, you're certainly guilty regardless of whether or not you know what you're doing.
You can be sure that if freenet ever becomes popular (and it's likely it never will), Congress will enact strict liability crimes for using it.
Agreed. If you're writing a server, you should be using C, not C++.
That's probably more common than reading slashdot would make you think.
Has the RIAA actually sued anyone simply for receiving mp3s? It seems like that excuse could always be used. After all, the RIAA only owns the copyright to the particular recording. The receiver could just say he was expecting a legally recorded live version.
Looks like the internet. Why not just use IPv6 tunnels? This would be a good way to get unsuspecting file thieves to help us propagate the 6bone.
This sure would make job interviews a lot easier.
They already have this technology. It's called "wires." There are other versions too, called "gasoline" and "batteries."
Well, I was talking about any location in the US, but considering an average city-sized roof, and average (or low average) power consumption. Let's even assume orientation is pretty much exactly where you want it, although that's a bad assumption, really.
I have no doubts that it can be done if you build a house from scratch. But that's not really a viable option for most people.
Not exactly. This provision prohibits individual states from undermining the treaties made by the federal government. It says nothing about the federal courts (and definitely not the Supreme Court) making Constitutional rulings on treaty provisions.
But that's the whole point. If the Constitution does not give the power to the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, then it's up to the Legislature to give that power to the Supreme Court. The basis of judicial review is Marbury v. Madison, and that specifically dealt with the language that only laws which were made in persuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. That language is not present with regard to treaties however. Quoting the entire sentence:
You need to look at Missouri v. Holland. There is was ruled that a law which was unconstitutional for congress to pass by itself became constitutional when made part of a treaty. Now it could be argued that there is still some judicial review available with regard to treaties, if a treaty were made completely repugnant to the Constitution. But as for any enumerated powers arguments, those are going to certainly be thrown out by the court.
They probably won't knock your door down.
Treaties can, however, make an otherwise unconstitutional law constitutional. Take a look a Missouri vs. Holland. "Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States."