Really? You know it was a voiceprint, compared against the voiceprints of everyone on the planet?
Not everyone on the planet, just thousands or millions of cell phone users.
You don't know how it works. I don't know it works. (And anyone who does know how it works, ain't talking!)
Fair enough. But I think my guess is a good one.
But supposing you were right - did you know that cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk.
Forcing me to have a license plate should be illegal. All the rest of the things aren't those that you should expect privacy about. Phone communications, you should.
If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
I don't know, I just don't think it would be easy to prove that slashdot knows that linking to a particular site would cause it to lose money, etc, as they don't KNOW what kind of line the site is on.
Well clearly they don't have to KNOW that they are going to cause harm, only have reason to believe that they might. Take the case where McDonalds was sued for serving coffee which was too hot. They didn't know that coffee was going to burn the person they were serving, but a jury found that they had reason to believe it could happen, and didn't exercise due care to warn the person.
I could be completely wrong though, and I doubt that's the sort of trial that would go to a jury...it wouldnt be a criminal charge, it would be a civil suit of sorts.
You're right that it would almost certainly be a civil suit. But many states have jury trials for civil suits, and federal civil cases are required to by the 7th Amendment.
But anyway, I don't really know either. And it would depend on the exact facts, so I'm just speculating.
In order to win a lawsuit against another person or company for negligently causing you, your loved one, or your property harm, your attorney must be able to prove all of the following: 1. That the person you are suing, the Defendant, had a responsibility to act in a certain manner. Lawyers refer to this responsibility as a duty. Your attorney must show that it was the Defendant''s duty to act in a certain manner. For example, while driving a car, a defendant has a duty to pay attention to the road.
This would be perhaps the hardest part to prove. Does slashdot have a "duty" to warn someone before linking to them? Do DSL users have a duty to apply patches to keep their computers from spreading viruses? Surely these concepts will become more clear in the coming years, as these things start to get litigated.
2. That the Defendant in fact failed to act in the manner required.
3. That as a result of this failure by the Defendant to act responsibly (i.e., breaching his duty), you, a loved one, or your property was indeed injured or harmed in some way.
4. That you, a loved one or your property was actually hurt in some way.
If your lawyer can prove each of the above four elements, then you may win the lawsuit and the Defendant may be ordered to pay you money. However, even if your attorney can prove all four of the elements, the Defendant may have what attorneys call an affirmative defense. The bottom line is that your attorney must prove all four elements and the Defendant must fail in his attempt to show that he has an affirmative defense.
unfortunately, there would have to be proof of malicious intent, or at LEAST a reasonable knowledge taht linking to the page would cause the business to lose money.
In the case of a small little website, I'd say they have that reasonable knowledge.
If you're only sending a single UDP packet, sure. But if you're exceeding the end to end bandwidth of the network, then clearly packets need to either be queued or dropped. If you're exceeding the maximum bandwidth by more than just a little, then you're going to fill up the buffers, and packets will get dropped.
Without seeing the quote I'd only be speculating on what the textbook was talking about. Could be LANs, but it could be that they were talking about single UDP packets, rather than pounding a few megs of HTML and images all at once. Or maybe the quote was that UDP packets rarely get dropped for reasons other than congestion. Perhaps they could have been talking about packets that are mangled en route? That is something which could happen in theory but in reality rarely (if ever) happens.
Of course, maybe I'm just wrong. It does happen from time to time:).
Yes, but it wouldn't be much of a speedup, now would it?
Depends on the situation. If you have more bandwidth to your next hop then you have across the whole internet, because of competing traffic, and that additional bandwidth more than compensates for the high overhead, then, yes. I'd think that's a likely scenario, at least for those of us with broadband.
If UDP is reliable enough for NFS, it should be reliable enough for web pages, right?
NFS is designed for local area networks, which drop packets much more rarely.
Once you start having to do both rerequesting dropped packets and reordering those that arrive out of sequence it does start to look as though TCP is a better bet, since it does these things for you. Nonetheless, since dropped UDP packets are fairly uncommon in practice it might be quicker most of the time to save on the overhead of setting up a TCP connection and just send a single UDP packet instead.
Dropped UDP packets are not uncommon at all when sending files over the internet. There is a certain optimal bandwidth available between the webserver and the client. Send too fast, and you'll start losing packets. Send too slowly, and you're not utilizing your bandwidth. TCP does a (fairly) good job discovering that optimal bandwidth. One problem occurs when the link is asynchronous. Acknowledgement packets get dropped, and bandwidth is underutilized. Prioritizing ACKs largely solves that problem.
So if the network is congested and an ACK SHOULD time out but doesn't, TCP will keep on flooding the network, ruining the pool for everyone.
No. If the downstream is flooded, the packets won't be received, and no ACK will be sent. ACKs have higher priority, but even that can't make them appear out of thin air.
This is a cut if misspelling "it's" puts you on, at best, equal ground with someone on welfare and thus implies that you are not in a position to criticize a person on welfare.
The poster was making fun of the intelligence of those on welfare. Welfare is not based on lack of intelligence. Poor grammar is (at least somewhat). I was making no statement about the importance of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You know it was a voiceprint, compared against the voiceprints of everyone on the planet?
Not everyone on the planet, just thousands or millions of cell phone users.
You don't know how it works. I don't know it works. (And anyone who does know how it works, ain't talking!)
Fair enough. But I think my guess is a good one.
But supposing you were right - did you know that cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk.
Forcing me to have a license plate should be illegal. All the rest of the things aren't those that you should expect privacy about. Phone communications, you should.
This is irrelevant in an international (national security) matter.
Nope, the constitution still applies to matters of national security. See New York Times Co. v. United States.
Is the principle of what it can do new to the world? No, it is just more electronic now than its manpower intensive perdecessors.
Which predecessors? Wiretapping? Breaking and entering? Both of these I thought were illegal without a warrant.
If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
I don't know, I just don't think it would be easy to prove that slashdot knows that linking to a particular site would cause it to lose money, etc, as they don't KNOW what kind of line the site is on.
Well clearly they don't have to KNOW that they are going to cause harm, only have reason to believe that they might. Take the case where McDonalds was sued for serving coffee which was too hot. They didn't know that coffee was going to burn the person they were serving, but a jury found that they had reason to believe it could happen, and didn't exercise due care to warn the person.
I could be completely wrong though, and I doubt that's the sort of trial that would go to a jury...it wouldnt be a criminal charge, it would be a civil suit of sorts.
You're right that it would almost certainly be a civil suit. But many states have jury trials for civil suits, and federal civil cases are required to by the 7th Amendment.
But anyway, I don't really know either. And it would depend on the exact facts, so I'm just speculating.
But the law requires at LEAST a reasonable knowledge, which legally is far different from common sense.
How so? If common sense says that something is likely to happen, wouldn't you have a reasonable knowledge that it's likely to happen?
I think it should be up to a jury to decide whether Slashdot had that reasonable knowledge.
I don't know but after looking at the site I doubt it could survive a slashdotting.
Actually, how do they know that the small little website isn't being hosted by netscape.com or something?
Common sense.
The copyright on Mickey Mouse.
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/ID=22
This would be perhaps the hardest part to prove. Does slashdot have a "duty" to warn someone before linking to them? Do DSL users have a duty to apply patches to keep their computers from spreading viruses? Surely these concepts will become more clear in the coming years, as these things start to get litigated.
unfortunately, there would have to be proof of malicious intent, or at LEAST a reasonable knowledge taht linking to the page would cause the business to lose money.
In the case of a small little website, I'd say they have that reasonable knowledge.
Where can I get the source code to these automated inspection tools?
If you're only sending a single UDP packet, sure. But if you're exceeding the end to end bandwidth of the network, then clearly packets need to either be queued or dropped. If you're exceeding the maximum bandwidth by more than just a little, then you're going to fill up the buffers, and packets will get dropped.
Without seeing the quote I'd only be speculating on what the textbook was talking about. Could be LANs, but it could be that they were talking about single UDP packets, rather than pounding a few megs of HTML and images all at once. Or maybe the quote was that UDP packets rarely get dropped for reasons other than congestion. Perhaps they could have been talking about packets that are mangled en route? That is something which could happen in theory but in reality rarely (if ever) happens.
Of course, maybe I'm just wrong. It does happen from time to time :).
Yes, but it wouldn't be much of a speedup, now would it?
Depends on the situation. If you have more bandwidth to your next hop then you have across the whole internet, because of competing traffic, and that additional bandwidth more than compensates for the high overhead, then, yes. I'd think that's a likely scenario, at least for those of us with broadband.
If UDP is reliable enough for NFS, it should be reliable enough for web pages, right?
NFS is designed for local area networks, which drop packets much more rarely.
Once you start having to do both rerequesting dropped packets and reordering those that arrive out of sequence it does start to look as though TCP is a better bet, since it does these things for you. Nonetheless, since dropped UDP packets are fairly uncommon in practice it might be quicker most of the time to save on the overhead of setting up a TCP connection and just send a single UDP packet instead.
Dropped UDP packets are not uncommon at all when sending files over the internet. There is a certain optimal bandwidth available between the webserver and the client. Send too fast, and you'll start losing packets. Send too slowly, and you're not utilizing your bandwidth. TCP does a (fairly) good job discovering that optimal bandwidth. One problem occurs when the link is asynchronous. Acknowledgement packets get dropped, and bandwidth is underutilized. Prioritizing ACKs largely solves that problem.
Or you can just check "Collapse Stories" here. Then you can show all stories except ones by Timothy, like I do.
Or you can just check "Collapse Stories" here. Then you can show all stories except ones by Timothy, like I do.
So if the network is congested and an ACK SHOULD time out but doesn't, TCP will keep on flooding the network, ruining the pool for everyone.
No. If the downstream is flooded, the packets won't be received, and no ACK will be sent. ACKs have higher priority, but even that can't make them appear out of thin air.
If you *really* want to speed things up, send pre-emptive ACKs before you get the data, right about when they would be expected.
Actually, even that wouldn't work without prioritizing the ACKs, since some of those pre-emptive ACKs would still be dropped.
Why design a stateless protocol and then put it on top of TCP, requiring a connection to be set up and torn down for each HTTP request?
Because you want reliability. Unfortunately, reliable UDP (or transactional TCP) is not widely supported.
Also, because many HTTP responses don't fit in a single UDP packet.
You can send data through TCP ACKs that have no payload.
The problem is that he wants to build a product from scratch.
some P2P software will start distributing a "P2P accelerator" which marks all packets as ACKs.
This is a cut if misspelling "it's" puts you on, at best, equal ground with someone on welfare and thus implies that you are not in a position to criticize a person on welfare.
The poster was making fun of the intelligence of those on welfare. Welfare is not based on lack of intelligence. Poor grammar is (at least somewhat). I was making no statement about the importance of the problem.
Exactly.