Ideas are intangible - duplicate my idea and you have the same idea. EM isn't - it's real physical photons of a given frequency. Saying "you may'nt emit photons in the so-and-so hertz range in this area" is much more closely analogous to "you may'nt fill my petrol tank with sugar" than to "you may'nt spread my idea".
Just imagine - subliminal advertising. Now those irritating little popups can skitter around the screen, trying to stay in your vision's periphery and worm their way into your subconscious.
If you choose to operate a transmitter at 100 MHz and I choose to, as well, we do not get a "market battle" wherein people listen to whatever best meets their interests and desires. We get interference, wherein people do not listen at all.
This mutex property applies to most other property too. You can't eat the sandwich I've eaten, and you can't transport treacle in a tanker lorry I've filled with bleach.
The correct solution is: for the government to police EM usage but not control it. IOW people would own parts of it in given areas, could sell or buy, could split or merge, and could sue if someone "sets up shop on their property".
If he is trying to promote a free environment, why is he launching it from an idealogical point of view[?]
Simple enough: the project exists and has been designed specifically to meet a need, the need being the need for freedom. And the freedom in question being the freedom of thinkers and creators to think and create and live their own lives without being anyone's milch-cow, and without being bound by mindless regulations and prudery.
I had trouble telling what the technical goals of the project were - are they addressing traffic analysis, or only protecting content?
Partly protecting content, but that is mainly a side issue and a corollary of the primary purpose: to make a way to handle end to end the connection and data transfer between machines without anyone being able to physically locate (nad hence to censure) either the origin or the client.
1. The destination is unknown because it's only included within the very core of the route ball, and even then it's indistinguishable from any other hop, except to the intended recipient.
2. Fling is vulnerable to a "stuffed keyring" - where the bad guys own all the hosts in your keyring. In practise, this means you need to choose the point with care from which you start your key gathering, but from then on the inherent randomness of the key requests means that you should at most only get some, not all, bad guy hosts.
3. Yes, you can register many root domains. Your sevrer will then be carrying the bulk of the search traffic, and will likely slashdot instantly under the load. The NSP distributes load by usage.
4. If you or anyone else has holes in the Fling protocol I haven't thought of, please tell me and I'll fix them if poss.
I made it onto slashdot with Fling, and it's been less than a week...
Okay people, some cold hard facts.
One, fling is theoretical at the moment. I don't even have a byte complete protocol, although I expect to within days.
Two, I'm not throwing the doors open to developers until there's enough of a skeleton there for you to see where to put the flesh. Otherwise the project will mire into a mass committee blunderfest. Of course, once the protocol's up, you can make your own versions in parrallel, if you want. This may even be useful, if you're porting it to other OSes or languages.
That said, thanks for the attention, I intend to see this becomes big.
My current focus is on getting a the route ball as small as poss while staying secure. Experienced crypto designers would be welcome help right now.
That is the essence of the both of you. The freedom you seem to want is freedom from any business more popular and successful (yes, that's what "big" means) than a mom-and-pop coffee shop. Freedom to have their inconvenient freedoms (to own property, to seek mutual trade) taken away.
If you hate the bland conformism of "big business", then in a free society - which is what Independence Day is all about - you must do it by persuading people there is a market for good quality, not by mudslinging - nor worse by lobbying to have those you dislike banned or ran out of town.
But, I'm coming to suspect you don't care about these things at all. You're just angry with anyone who's successful, because they were the ones who kicked sand in your face as a kid.
Make no bones about this, it's war. The controller types want one thing and one thing only: absolute dominion, as slow or fast as they can grasp it. It's a power game, and the simple fact is that dominion will not co-exist with thought. A fact that they know well.
This is not a conspiracy, it's the only possible outcome when these people give up on their own mind and lean on "what people say". Their only trusted means of perception is the words in our mouths. They don't want truth from us, they want their whim to define truth. The voice they fear, because it destroys them, is the free mind that sees the Emperor naked, and says so unafraid. The internet is too free; they hear the echo of that voice.
This will get bloodier before it's over. They probably will try to push through all sorts of internet controlling laws - which will promptly be routed around. They'll lose, but they won't lose gracefully.
Watch and enjoy; if nothing else, at least it will be pleasantly epic:-)
My only suggestion: please look again at copyright. What part of it could not be emulated with NDA contracts plus receiving-stolen-data laws? Because copyrights and patents both assert that I don't own my property where it has a certain form, or where I changed it with a certain process into that form. This even if I got it into that form without breaking any NDAs or accepting data derived from a broken NDA.
Dogs and pigs could probably be made a smart as apes and dolphins are now, but parrots? Why, because they seem to be able to talk? There's no way, their brains are waaaaay too small.
I've seen on a TV documentary a parrot able to make such abstract distinctions as "what color?", "which one is metal?", "how many blue?", "which one is square" - getting it right first time, from amongst many objects which differ along all these axes at once.
The small brain size is confusing, but perhaps running a parrot body doesn't take much processing power, so there's more left over for smarts.
How long, I wonder, until we can "uplift" a few other species? Apes, dolphins, dogs, pigs, parrots all seem good candidates. Myself I'd love that; the variety would truly make things interesting.
What's really ironic is that financial transactions will probably be safer with Chinese financial institutions because they're actually putting in place an Internet infrastructure that they can police. Rather than security being site-centric like it is in Western countries, security is being country-centric in China, meaning that while you may have less anonymity, so do the bad guys.
Uh, not so. Sure, they can catch crooks easier - but if you take a second glance at China you'll see the authorities there ARE the crooks. They won't use this to safeguard innocent traders, they'll use it to guard their little fiefdoms and protection rackets - essentially, to crack down on the competition. Politically, AND financially.
RMS and the GPL advocates would I'm sure love a world where copyright - even on GPL programs - was a non-issue. So long as it's consistent and copyright can't be ignored on GPL and then asserted on the plagiarized proprietary version.
Libertarian ideas aren't altruism, they're pure self serving desire for freedom - and the right to prosper. If they want to make staggeringly huge amounts of money from this, all the better.
What motivates you to set up a data haven? Are you motivated primarily by libertarian principle, or do you intend it mostly as a way to make money from sealand's sovereign status? Or both?
Will you allow data that does any of the following:
- evades taxes or excise?
- breaks local morality and legislated morality (including where oppressive eg: Iran)?
- belongs to political dissidents?
- belongs to terrorists, organised-crime, etc?
- is uploaded and maintained completely anonymously?
- is maintained with absolutely no access granted to anyone trying to prosecute on grounds of its content?
Do you percieve what you're doing as moral? If so why?
"The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" is actually just the law of competition, recast. The internet isn't a thing, it's the concretization of a set of ideas (protocols). The protocols compete on the basis of usefulness, constantly jostling for developer and user mindshare. Any censorship, partitioning, line-cutting, whatever will just reduce usefulness and push a freer protocol up ahead.
Nowadays the internet and globalization are applying market forces to legal systems. Business will move to follow the money, people to follow freedom, developers to follow technological momentum. Over the next few decades, you'll observe this forcing all the major governments kicking and screaming into a much more libertarian position, and you'll see the unfree remainder becoming more and more third world. Eventually, they'll come cap in hand to the IMF or whoever, and be told that the price of rescue is to strip their laws back to "no force, no fraud".
Or in other words: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Because if it is, I expect the film industry will do its level best to see it made inaccessible to open source, since it might result in a "filmapster" at some potential future time. Besides with digital video tech becoming cheap, they're likely worried about the people they see as "mere consumers" usurping their industry.
If any of you techies out there are good at video codecs, perhaps you could look into helping the Ogg project's video compression design, so we can have a really good patent proof and free-to-use film codec.
As a linux partisan, I want to beat your company into the dust - by fair competition. A rigged game is no fun, and no fair either. I totally support the position that you should be able to do as you wish with your own OS. Move, and show those pesky USA antitrust people exactly what "globalization" means:-)
Slashdot Mirror
(no text, see the title)
Ideas are intangible - duplicate my idea and you have the same idea. EM isn't - it's real physical photons of a given frequency. Saying "you may'nt emit photons in the so-and-so hertz range in this area" is much more closely analogous to "you may'nt fill my petrol tank with sugar" than to "you may'nt spread my idea".
Just imagine - subliminal advertising. Now those irritating little popups can skitter around the screen, trying to stay in your vision's periphery and worm their way into your subconscious.
If you choose to operate a transmitter at 100 MHz and I choose to, as well, we do not get a "market battle" wherein people listen to whatever best meets their interests and desires. We get interference, wherein people do not listen at all.
This mutex property applies to most other property too. You can't eat the sandwich I've eaten, and you can't transport treacle in a tanker lorry I've filled with bleach.
The correct solution is: for the government to police EM usage but not control it. IOW people would own parts of it in given areas, could sell or buy, could split or merge, and could sue if someone "sets up shop on their property".
(I'd like to get the above up where it can be seen and can answer some of folks' questions)
If he is trying to promote a free environment, why is he launching it from an idealogical point of view[?]
Simple enough: the project exists and has been designed specifically to meet a need, the need being the need for freedom. And the freedom in question being the freedom of thinkers and creators to think and create and live their own lives without being anyone's milch-cow, and without being bound by mindless regulations and prudery.
I had trouble telling what the technical goals of the project were - are they addressing traffic analysis, or only protecting content?
Partly protecting content, but that is mainly a side issue and a corollary of the primary purpose: to make a way to handle end to end the connection and data transfer between machines without anyone being able to physically locate (nad hence to censure) either the origin or the client.
1. The destination is unknown because it's only included within the very core of the route ball, and even then it's indistinguishable from any other hop, except to the intended recipient.
2. Fling is vulnerable to a "stuffed keyring" - where the bad guys own all the hosts in your keyring. In practise, this means you need to choose the point with care from which you start your key gathering, but from then on the inherent randomness of the key requests means that you should at most only get some, not all, bad guy hosts.
3. Yes, you can register many root domains. Your sevrer will then be carrying the bulk of the search traffic, and will likely slashdot instantly under the load. The NSP distributes load by usage.
4. If you or anyone else has holes in the Fling protocol I haven't thought of, please tell me and I'll fix them if poss.
I made it onto slashdot with Fling, and it's been less than a week...
Okay people, some cold hard facts.
One, fling is theoretical at the moment. I don't even have a byte complete protocol, although I expect to within days.
Two, I'm not throwing the doors open to developers until there's enough of a skeleton there for you to see where to put the flesh. Otherwise the project will mire into a mass committee blunderfest. Of course, once the protocol's up, you can make your own versions in parrallel, if you want. This may even be useful, if you're porting it to other OSes or languages.
That said, thanks for the attention, I intend to see this becomes big.
My current focus is on getting a the route ball as small as poss while staying secure. Experienced crypto designers would be welcome help right now.
That is the essence of the both of you. The freedom you seem to want is freedom from any business more popular and successful (yes, that's what "big" means) than a mom-and-pop coffee shop. Freedom to have their inconvenient freedoms (to own property, to seek mutual trade) taken away.
If you hate the bland conformism of "big business", then in a free society - which is what Independence Day is all about - you must do it by persuading people there is a market for good quality, not by mudslinging - nor worse by lobbying to have those you dislike banned or ran out of town.
But, I'm coming to suspect you don't care about these things at all. You're just angry with anyone who's successful, because they were the ones who kicked sand in your face as a kid.
...that if they GPL it, it will be ported to everything from palm-pilot to PDP11, and every OS from VMS to EPOC?
Make no bones about this, it's war. The controller types want one thing and one thing only: absolute dominion, as slow or fast as they can grasp it. It's a power game, and the simple fact is that dominion will not co-exist with thought. A fact that they know well.
:-)
This is not a conspiracy, it's the only possible outcome when these people give up on their own mind and lean on "what people say". Their only trusted means of perception is the words in our mouths. They don't want truth from us, they want their whim to define truth. The voice they fear, because it destroys them, is the free mind that sees the Emperor naked, and says so unafraid. The internet is too free; they hear the echo of that voice.
This will get bloodier before it's over. They probably will try to push through all sorts of internet controlling laws - which will promptly be routed around. They'll lose, but they won't lose gracefully.
Watch and enjoy; if nothing else, at least it will be pleasantly epic
My only suggestion: please look again at copyright. What part of it could not be emulated with NDA contracts plus receiving-stolen-data laws? Because copyrights and patents both assert that I don't own my property where it has a certain form, or where I changed it with a certain process into that form. This even if I got it into that form without breaking any NDAs or accepting data derived from a broken NDA.
Dogs and pigs could probably be made a smart as apes and dolphins are now, but parrots? Why, because they seem to be able to talk? There's no way, their brains are waaaaay too small.
I've seen on a TV documentary a parrot able to make such abstract distinctions as "what color?", "which one is metal?", "how many blue?", "which one is square" - getting it right first time, from amongst many objects which differ along all these axes at once.
The small brain size is confusing, but perhaps running a parrot body doesn't take much processing power, so there's more left over for smarts.
How long, I wonder, until we can "uplift" a few other species? Apes, dolphins, dogs, pigs, parrots all seem good candidates. Myself I'd love that; the variety would truly make things interesting.
What's really ironic is that financial transactions will probably be safer with Chinese financial institutions because they're actually putting in place an Internet infrastructure that they can police. Rather than security being site-centric like it is in Western countries, security is being country-centric in China, meaning that while you may have less anonymity, so do the bad guys.
Uh, not so. Sure, they can catch crooks easier - but if you take a second glance at China you'll see the authorities there ARE the crooks. They won't use this to safeguard innocent traders, they'll use it to guard their little fiefdoms and protection rackets - essentially, to crack down on the competition. Politically, AND financially.
RMS and the GPL advocates would I'm sure love a world where copyright - even on GPL programs - was a non-issue. So long as it's consistent and copyright can't be ignored on GPL and then asserted on the plagiarized proprietary version.
Libertarian ideas aren't altruism, they're pure self serving desire for freedom - and the right to prosper. If they want to make staggeringly huge amounts of money from this, all the better.
What motivates you to set up a data haven? Are you motivated primarily by libertarian principle, or do you intend it mostly as a way to make money from sealand's sovereign status? Or both?
Will you allow data that does any of the following:
- evades taxes or excise?
- breaks local morality and legislated morality (including where oppressive eg: Iran)?
- belongs to political dissidents?
- belongs to terrorists, organised-crime, etc?
- is uploaded and maintained completely anonymously?
- is maintained with absolutely no access granted to anyone trying to prosecute on grounds of its content?
Do you percieve what you're doing as moral? If so why?
"The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" is actually just the law of competition, recast. The internet isn't a thing, it's the concretization of a set of ideas (protocols). The protocols compete on the basis of usefulness, constantly jostling for developer and user mindshare. Any censorship, partitioning, line-cutting, whatever will just reduce usefulness and push a freer protocol up ahead.
Nowadays the internet and globalization are applying market forces to legal systems. Business will move to follow the money, people to follow freedom, developers to follow technological momentum. Over the next few decades, you'll observe this forcing all the major governments kicking and screaming into a much more libertarian position, and you'll see the unfree remainder becoming more and more third world. Eventually, they'll come cap in hand to the IMF or whoever, and be told that the price of rescue is to strip their laws back to "no force, no fraud".
Or in other words: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Because if it is, I expect the film industry will do its level best to see it made inaccessible to open source, since it might result in a "filmapster" at some potential future time. Besides with digital video tech becoming cheap, they're likely worried about the people they see as "mere consumers" usurping their industry.
If any of you techies out there are good at video codecs, perhaps you could look into helping the Ogg project's video compression design, so we can have a really good patent proof and free-to-use film codec.
... so you can expect they'll give them all the help they want with relocating, visas, loans to set up buildings, etc. etc.
The only hassle really would be the tax - but their taxes are a drop in the ocean to MS.
Just use Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3.
As a linux partisan, I want to beat your company into the dust - by fair competition. A rigged game is no fun, and no fair either. I totally support the position that you should be able to do as you wish with your own OS. Move, and show those pesky USA antitrust people exactly what "globalization" means :-)
Isn't the weak link in Gnutella, Freenet and the like the fact that most average people [...] access the Internet through AOL?
... through AOL's Mozilla, which is bound to get freenet URL support built in?