Hmm, unless there is a mail client that is considered part of the OS that will automatically execute certain binary attachments if tricked by mime types. If you haven't heard of that vulnerability, which has been actively exploited, please read up...
Show me the link. And don't forget that there is a mail server that is considered part of the OS that once had an even more serious hole in it, which was actively exploited and affected most of the computers on the internet at the time.
Hell, if we're going to consider applications which are distributed with the OS but are not activated by default, 99% of non-Microsoft systems probably have current vulnerabilities which were once actively exploited.
and clearly, it has much to do with the lack of security and general shoddy design of Microsoft's software.
Which has much to do with the lack of security and general shoddy design of just about all software.
Example: You go to a hacker conference (at your own expense). You won't be able to deduct these expenses if you are just an employee.
If you are a contractor, these are deductible on your Schedule C. If you are an employee, they are deductible on your Schedule A (to the extent that these and other expenses exceed 2% of your AGI).
Do not start a C Corp! You will be taxed as a personal service corporation. That is taxed at a flat rate of 35%! Then you still have to pay taxes when you withdraw your profits, as dividends or compensation.
If I have to pay a tax just to buy a blank CD, then why not pirate music since I already have to pay for it whether I do it or not?
No reason. The audio home recording act also protects you from prosecution for any noncommercial copyright infringment (or even DMCA infringement) when you use the taxed devices.
I think that applies only to Audio CD-R and CD-RW discs, not data ones.
That is correct.
If they have there way I'm sure all blank discs will be taxed at some point.
They've already tried, but they lost that court case. The only way it's going to happen now is if they pass a law specifically taxing blank CDs. Unfortunately, that law would likely be constitutional, under the interstate commerce clause.
But of course, they want an excuse to tax all blank CDs so that they can get more money by not selling anything.
Blank audio CDs are already "taxed" under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Re:EULAs for console games are printed ON the box
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, after looking again at the definitions, I'm not so sure the DMCA would apply...
to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
For that part it would certainly apply, since you are bypassing a technological measure, but...
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
I'm not so sure you could call "reading" the application of information, or a process or a treatment. So, the copying machine I describe may or may not be illegal to distribute.
On the other hand, if you wrote something in invisible ink...
Re:EULAs for console games are printed ON the box
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 1
The DMCA applies only to software, and even this it's a product of bribery and won't last.
The DMCA says nothing about software. If I distribute copying machines which were created for the purpose of copying pages which are printed on that red "uncopyable" paper, I've just broken the DMCA.
The bigger the total number of packets, the closer we get to the theoretically possible 5 percent.
That is true, but the bigger the total number of packets, the longer the total transfer time, and therefore smaller the percentage of total transfer time the latency is. It only makes sense to use forward correction if you haven't received an ACK or NAK. This is only going to be true for a small number of packets at the end of the transmission, when we're talking about bidirectional one to one communication. With bidirectional one to many communication this might be useful, if the error rate is sufficiently high and randomly distributed. And with unidirectional communication it is of course necessary.
Even if only one in a billion random strings of bits compiled, one one billionth of infinity is still infinity.
But there aren't an infinite number of potentially compilable bit strings, since there is a limit on the maximum file size. Besides, as was said by the original poster, we could simply send the size of the file along with the bit string. If you assume that every file is a valid gzipped tar of a directory in which one must only type "./configure; make; make install", I bet that would work as a compression algorithm. Assuming of course that you had the processing power to attempt to compile all bit strings of length X with MD5 Y, that is:).
Well, if you re-read my posting, you'll see that yes, any 20 packets would be enough to reconstruct the information (as long as they are different, of course...duplicating a same packet 20 times won't work obviously).
If any 20 1MB packets are enough to reconstruct the information, then you're sending less than 20MB of information.
Even with a high latency return channel, you're still better off sending some information back. For instance, what if every minute you sent back a single packet with the checksum of all the packets you've received so far. That alone is going to greatly enhance your efficiency. If it's possible (and cost effective) to have two-way communication (if the latency is no greater than about half the total transfer time), that's always going to be more efficient (faster).
The number is indeed greater (due to standard deviation), but not substantially so.
We disagree then only about how substantially so. If the file is 20 megs, we have 1 meg packets, and the loss rate is exactly 5% (one packet), we need to send at least 25 packets. That's an overhead of 20%. I find it hard to come up with a situation where bidirectional communication is possible with a latency less than 50% of the total transfer time, in a full duplex system (or at least full duplex end-to-end but not hop to hop, such as in internet communication), in which it doesn't make sense to not utilize bidirectional communication. The simple information of which packets were dropped is going to drastically increase efficiency. In the above example even with a latency of 50% of the transfer time we'd get a NAK 47.5% of the time and only have to transfer 1 extra packet instead of 5. 47.5% of the time we'd get an ACK and could send 4 packets instead of 5. And 5% of the time the ACK/NAK would be lost and we send all 5 FEC packets.
This is a fine idea for multicasting (although it's probably not the most efficient). For unicasting, unless you have virutally no return connection, it's pretty stupid.
Considering that, turning 20MB into 100MB will only be necessary if you expect to loose 4 packets out of 5...
If you expect to lose 4 packets out of 5, you need to turn 20MB into a lot more than 100MB. consider 1MB packets. If you transmit 100 packets, and expect to receive 20 of them, the chances that you transmitted the right 20 is very very slim. And you absolutely cannot produce a scheme where any 20 will give you the right answer. We are assuming your 20MB is already optimally compressed. Therefore there are 2^20MB possible messages. The amount of information that must be transferred reliably is 2^20MB. This information must be transferred reliably and in order. You simply cannot have two different sets of 20MB be equivalent, because if you do, you lose information (pidgeon-hole principle). So given 19 packets that are received, there is exactly one 1 MB packet which can be received.
It's been a while since I've calculated hamming distances, so I'm not going to get into the exact number of packets that need to be sent, but I hope that my discussion above showed that the number is greater than simply multiplying by the inverse of the expected reliability.
Conclusion: Only sales & marketing would try to sell a product that turns 20MB into 100MB, sends it via UDP, only in order to have the results XOR'd together.
Absolutely. The only usefulness for this would be in a situation where two-way communication is simply not possible. There are improvements which can be made to TCP for file transfers, but dropping all feedback mechanisms is simply stupid.
As far as only a certain number of packets being required to be received on the other end, that is either completely false, or the overhead is astronomical. More likely it is just plain wrong, or this product is complete vaporware to begin with.
Major anti-virus vendors this week said they would not voluntarily cooperate with the FBI and said their products would continue to be updated to detect and prevent viruses, regardless of their origin, unless there was a legal order otherwise.
I thought that the antivirus companies had AGREED to NOT make their programs detect "Magic Latern"???
You know, both could be true if there was a top-secret executive order signed by GWB.:)
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
As far as state law is concerned (and this was the NY State Supreme Court), the First Ammendment does not apply. Freedom of the press with respect to state law is given by the 14th ammendment.
After all, it doesn't harm you if Johnny copies your essay
It doesn't harm the writer of the original essay, but it does harm the other students in the class, by either lowering the curve or lowering the reputation of the class's grading system. That's why you're not allowed (class rules and/or contract law, not criminal or civil law) to buy an essay off the internet and turn it in as your own, even with the permission of the essay's author.
or Bill takes a peek at your medical records
Here we're generally talking about contract law. Free markets certainly can have enforcible contract law, one might even argue that this is necessary.
The US beef industry, the US agro industry, the US steel industry, the US auto industry, and many others. All heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.
You missed the latest one. The US airline industry. The government is willing to pay the victims of the 9/11 incidents possibly a billion dollars just to get them to agree not to sue the airlines.
Back a couple years ago Howard Stern was talking about switching to satellite radio, to get around the FCC decency rules. I'm not sure if the rules have changed, but I would guess that since it's a subscription-only service that the FCC decency rules would not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, unless there is a mail client that is considered part of the OS that will automatically execute certain binary attachments if tricked by mime types. If you haven't heard of that vulnerability, which has been actively exploited, please read up...
Show me the link. And don't forget that there is a mail server that is considered part of the OS that once had an even more serious hole in it, which was actively exploited and affected most of the computers on the internet at the time.
Hell, if we're going to consider applications which are distributed with the OS but are not activated by default, 99% of non-Microsoft systems probably have current vulnerabilities which were once actively exploited.
and clearly, it has much to do with the lack of security and general shoddy design of Microsoft's software.
Which has much to do with the lack of security and general shoddy design of just about all software.
Idiocy of the person opening the mail likewise has NOTHING to do with the security of the Windows O/S.
Not that there's a problem with windows security.
That's why no one has collected this $10,000 reward.
Example: You go to a hacker conference (at your own expense). You won't be able to deduct these expenses if you are just an employee.
If you are a contractor, these are deductible on your Schedule C. If you are an employee, they are deductible on your Schedule A (to the extent that these and other expenses exceed 2% of your AGI).
Do not start a C Corp! You will be taxed as a personal service corporation. That is taxed at a flat rate of 35%! Then you still have to pay taxes when you withdraw your profits, as dividends or compensation.
If I have to pay a tax just to buy a blank CD, then why not pirate music since I already have to pay for it whether I do it or not?
No reason. The audio home recording act also protects you from prosecution for any noncommercial copyright infringment (or even DMCA infringement) when you use the taxed devices.
I think that applies only to Audio CD-R and CD-RW discs, not data ones.
That is correct.
If they have there way I'm sure all blank discs will be taxed at some point.
They've already tried, but they lost that court case. The only way it's going to happen now is if they pass a law specifically taxing blank CDs. Unfortunately, that law would likely be constitutional, under the interstate commerce clause.
But of course, they want an excuse to tax all blank CDs so that they can get more money by not selling anything.
Blank audio CDs are already "taxed" under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Hmm, after looking again at the definitions, I'm not so sure the DMCA would apply...
For that part it would certainly apply, since you are bypassing a technological measure, but...
I'm not so sure you could call "reading" the application of information, or a process or a treatment. So, the copying machine I describe may or may not be illegal to distribute.
On the other hand, if you wrote something in invisible ink...
The DMCA applies only to software, and even this it's a product of bribery and won't last.
The DMCA says nothing about software. If I distribute copying machines which were created for the purpose of copying pages which are printed on that red "uncopyable" paper, I've just broken the DMCA.
The DMCA forbids the use of devices that break copy control and copy control only. It says absolutely nothing about region encoding.
Region encoding is copy control.
I'll do it for you. $10/year. Or $15/year if you want me to pay for the domain name too.
But would you use words like "drubbing" (twice, even), "titillate", "ungainly", and "faux"?
You're thinking of the shortest path algorithm, which is O(n log n).
The bigger the total number of packets, the closer we get to the theoretically possible 5 percent.
That is true, but the bigger the total number of packets, the longer the total transfer time, and therefore smaller the percentage of total transfer time the latency is. It only makes sense to use forward correction if you haven't received an ACK or NAK. This is only going to be true for a small number of packets at the end of the transmission, when we're talking about bidirectional one to one communication. With bidirectional one to many communication this might be useful, if the error rate is sufficiently high and randomly distributed. And with unidirectional communication it is of course necessary.
Even if only one in a billion random strings of bits compiled, one one billionth of infinity is still infinity.
But there aren't an infinite number of potentially compilable bit strings, since there is a limit on the maximum file size. Besides, as was said by the original poster, we could simply send the size of the file along with the bit string. If you assume that every file is a valid gzipped tar of a directory in which one must only type "./configure; make; make install", I bet that would work as a compression algorithm. Assuming of course that you had the processing power to attempt to compile all bit strings of length X with MD5 Y, that is :).
Well, if you re-read my posting, you'll see that yes, any 20 packets would be enough to reconstruct the information (as long as they are different, of course...duplicating a same packet 20 times won't work obviously).
If any 20 1MB packets are enough to reconstruct the information, then you're sending less than 20MB of information.
Even with a high latency return channel, you're still better off sending some information back. For instance, what if every minute you sent back a single packet with the checksum of all the packets you've received so far. That alone is going to greatly enhance your efficiency. If it's possible (and cost effective) to have two-way communication (if the latency is no greater than about half the total transfer time), that's always going to be more efficient (faster).
The number is indeed greater (due to standard deviation), but not substantially so.
We disagree then only about how substantially so. If the file is 20 megs, we have 1 meg packets, and the loss rate is exactly 5% (one packet), we need to send at least 25 packets. That's an overhead of 20%. I find it hard to come up with a situation where bidirectional communication is possible with a latency less than 50% of the total transfer time, in a full duplex system (or at least full duplex end-to-end but not hop to hop, such as in internet communication), in which it doesn't make sense to not utilize bidirectional communication. The simple information of which packets were dropped is going to drastically increase efficiency. In the above example even with a latency of 50% of the transfer time we'd get a NAK 47.5% of the time and only have to transfer 1 extra packet instead of 5. 47.5% of the time we'd get an ACK and could send 4 packets instead of 5. And 5% of the time the ACK/NAK would be lost and we send all 5 FEC packets.
This is a fine idea for multicasting (although it's probably not the most efficient). For unicasting, unless you have virutally no return connection, it's pretty stupid.
No, they won't, because given any MD5 hash there are an infinitude of files that hash to it.
But how many of those files will actually compile?
Considering that, turning 20MB into 100MB will only be necessary if you expect to loose 4 packets out of 5...
If you expect to lose 4 packets out of 5, you need to turn 20MB into a lot more than 100MB. consider 1MB packets. If you transmit 100 packets, and expect to receive 20 of them, the chances that you transmitted the right 20 is very very slim. And you absolutely cannot produce a scheme where any 20 will give you the right answer. We are assuming your 20MB is already optimally compressed. Therefore there are 2^20MB possible messages. The amount of information that must be transferred reliably is 2^20MB. This information must be transferred reliably and in order. You simply cannot have two different sets of 20MB be equivalent, because if you do, you lose information (pidgeon-hole principle). So given 19 packets that are received, there is exactly one 1 MB packet which can be received.
It's been a while since I've calculated hamming distances, so I'm not going to get into the exact number of packets that need to be sent, but I hope that my discussion above showed that the number is greater than simply multiplying by the inverse of the expected reliability.
Conclusion: Only sales & marketing would try to sell a product that turns 20MB into 100MB, sends it via UDP, only in order to have the results XOR'd together.
Absolutely. The only usefulness for this would be in a situation where two-way communication is simply not possible. There are improvements which can be made to TCP for file transfers, but dropping all feedback mechanisms is simply stupid.
As far as only a certain number of packets being required to be received on the other end, that is either completely false, or the overhead is astronomical. More likely it is just plain wrong, or this product is complete vaporware to begin with.
Major anti-virus vendors this week said they would not voluntarily cooperate with the FBI and said their products would continue to be updated to detect and prevent viruses, regardless of their origin, unless there was a legal order otherwise.
I thought that the antivirus companies had AGREED to NOT make their programs detect "Magic Latern"???
You know, both could be true if there was a top-secret executive order signed by GWB. :)
No, NYT v. Sullivan did not "give freedom of the press." That was acknowledged (NOT granted! just acknowledged) by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
As far as state law is concerned (and this was the NY State Supreme Court), the First Ammendment does not apply. Freedom of the press with respect to state law is given by the 14th ammendment.
After all, it doesn't harm you if Johnny copies your essay
It doesn't harm the writer of the original essay, but it does harm the other students in the class, by either lowering the curve or lowering the reputation of the class's grading system. That's why you're not allowed (class rules and/or contract law, not criminal or civil law) to buy an essay off the internet and turn it in as your own, even with the permission of the essay's author.
or Bill takes a peek at your medical records
Here we're generally talking about contract law. Free markets certainly can have enforcible contract law, one might even argue that this is necessary.
The US beef industry, the US agro industry, the US steel industry, the US auto industry, and many others. All heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.
You missed the latest one. The US airline industry. The government is willing to pay the victims of the 9/11 incidents possibly a billion dollars just to get them to agree not to sue the airlines.
Back a couple years ago Howard Stern was talking about switching to satellite radio, to get around the FCC decency rules. I'm not sure if the rules have changed, but I would guess that since it's a subscription-only service that the FCC decency rules would not apply.
As for your Opie & Anthony comment. Ugh.