I haven't RTFA, but I'm assuming this fingerprinting would analyze the analog signature, not the digital one. If this is true, then any publicly playable format would be ID'able even if the digital format were obfuscated (damn I spelled that wrong in my earlier post). If you can hear it, you could ID it.
If you want to avoid being ID'ed, I think you would have to hide one of three things:
The source
The content
The distribution method
Most P2P relies on all three bits of info being readily available. Freenet Project hides the source and content. (Someone has to index and/or publish the public key somewhere for you to find the content. This is currently handled by well-known index pages as far as I know.)
An example of hiding the distribution method would be recording something off the radio or sharing music between friends.
An example of hiding the content would be the encrypted warez newsgroups. I'm not sure how people get the decryption keys, but apparently they do. (Or at least did; I haven't looked in those groups in quite a long time.)
A PGP distribution method would admittedly be very different from current P2P. It would probably be more akin to trusted friends trading music rather than a free-for-all like Napster and Kazaa. (Or nearly identical to the encrypted warez groups mentioned above.)
Freenet is interesting, but I have no compelling reasons to use it myself. Same with the new napster.
I'm not familiar with the new Napster. I'm a bit familiair with Freenet (as in the Freenet Project). It's a pain in the ass to use. Well, it's very slow (as in very high latency), at least. I haven't used it for music or warez, so I'm not quite sure how that works (I assume it's published by various people and indexed by others who recieve the keys [=links] via anonymous messaging; at least that's how the parts of Freenet I saw worked); I just browsed some porn and some weird people's sites. I find it disturbing that Freenet enables some of the things it does, like kiddie porn (which I have NOT looked at, btw) and hate groups and apparently a taunting murderer. On the other hand, it enables anonymous free speech that is becoming more and more restricted theses days. I'm not going to argue that copyright-infringing file sharing or kiddie porn are free speech, mind you. I briefly published a freesite about some things that aren't illegal in any way, but I wanted to share anonymously for privacy reasons. I published it in the wrong format; I would've had to update it daily to keep it alive. I should've published in either the "edition-based" or "one-shot" format, but that's part of the Freenet learning curve.
The kiddie porn was the one thing that kept me from running my own permanent Freenet node. There's no way to ensure your node can't be used to transmit that stuff because its all encrypted. However I'm just about convinced that enabling free speech overrides the concerns of enabling the distrubing stuff, and I'll likely run my own node as soon as I get over my tech burnout.
By the way, Freenet is not exactly completely anonymous. It is, but here's where it could get you if you, for example, published music for unauthorized distribution. If you use the same cryptographic key to publish everything, and someone can link you to one published file, then the key links you to all the other ones, too. So if one of the index page guys whose names are known uses his index page keys to publish something naughty it would be easy to infer that he was responsible. But if he used a different key then I don't think there would be a way to tie them together, but IANACryptographer.
I'd say most people have an intrinsic need to espouse their daily lives in a public setting.
Hmmm....
Today I slept 'till noon. I woke up, masturbated while thinking of two high school girls, then got out of bed and turned off the alarm. I ate 4 bowls of Lucky Charms and read Slashdot, posting a few things hoping I'd get modded up. I don't think I'll wash my hair today because it's only been 20 hours since I got stitches in my forehead, and they said to wait 24 hours before getting it wet.
No, I think you're wrong. I had no need to do that at all.
Diamonds cost practically nothing to produce, their value comes from their rarity.
Interesting comparison. Do some reading about DeBeers. They pretty much restrict diamond supply worldwide to keep the prices up. The music industry is trying to pull off the same thing, but it's much harder to restrict bytes than rocks.
For some reason, demand for real diamonds is high, too. Science is now able to create diamonds that are molecularly nearly identical to natural diamonds. I asked a lady friend if she would care if a diamond in her ring was natural or created, even if they were completely identical and she said she did care. No wonder I'm not married. I'm way too practical. I can't see why anyone would want several thousand dollars of nonintrinsic value on their hand when it could be spent much more practially or enjoyably.
I can't figure out if DeBeers engineered that in her head or society in general.
There is only one requirement for such a market, and that is the market place. All the rest follows from the natural laws of supply and demand.
You know, you could've saved me a lot of reading and just posted that.:-)
I agree. It's that simple. There's a value the consumers are willing to pay for and a value producers are willing to produce. When all the dust settles, the meeting point of those two lines will be the price(s) and product(s).
...you start to see why the asumptions of the underlying system (begins with a c and ends with -ism) little by little will fail.
I was going to argue with you, but I can't figure out what you're talking about. Capitalism? Communism? Consumerism?
My first assumption was that you meant capitalism. You seem to say that the capitalist system is failing, but the example you provide is a perfect illustration of capitalism at work. Music isn't worth US$20 per CD to consumers, so that model is failing and will adapt or die. Their current tactic is to legislate their continued exisitence, but they will fail in that venue. They always have.
Some people think that the artists will quit creating. Some might. But there are quite a few that already do it for free or at very low cost. It's supply & demand working itself out through ongoing changes in distribution methods (& costs) and popularity (high demand for Bon Jovi versus your nieghbor who plays guitar, for example).
I'm sure someone will come up with some software that, say, rearranges the MP3 frames of a song, foiling the fingerprinting but allowing the song to be restored on the other end..
PGP
Yeah, there are issues re: p2p, but the tech is there.
Also there's Freenet Project which obfusicates the source. You can ID it, but you can't get rid of it.
Lasers, microwaves...something like that. They're probably not sure yet exactly what it's going to be.
Before the Iraq invasion the news media talked a lot about helicopters with directed-energy weapons that would disable enemy electronics. They also said railguns may make an appearance. But since the bullets & bombs started flying I haven't heard of any accounts of them being used.
This could be the beginning of some polarisation, where all important IP is within the US. This could have serious repercussions for firms like Fujitsu, Siemens etc. who aren't based in the US.
I keep worrying about this type of thing, too (if I understood you right), but I worry about it the other way around. If these companies succeed in their manner of "protecting IP" in the U.S. I think the U.S. will quickly fall behind in computer/software tech innovations. The rest of the world will laugh at us and standardize on Linux, GNU and *BSD (as they have in the cellphone world with GSM), and we in the U.S. will be stuck paying each other way too much money for substandard buggy (but pretty) software.
More and more, there seems to be some Coke-Pepsi posturing, with MS and Windows pitted against Sun& Unix. Linux is too well entrenched for such a thing to work.
That's an interesting way of putting it. At first I agreed with you, but now I wonder if Linux/GNU/*BSD is tea in this analogy. Coke and Pepsi battle for the king of pop, but I suspect tea is far more prevalent, even in the U.S..
And what's neat about tea is you can buy many different brands and blends; you can drink it hot or iced; you can take it weak or strong; you can add any flavoring you want at any time. But people still buy a lot of Coke and Pepsi, and others are trying to bottle and pre-flavor tea and sell it at the same inflated prices of C&P.
But to get a bit back to reality, even if Linux "takes over the world" then maybe MS & Sun will still be fighting their Coke & Pepsi battle.
Is it that obvious I'm an MCSE? Oh the shame. MSCE's (the certification) suck so far, by the way. If I had to do it over again I'd take some credit courses or masturbate instead. Either is more beneficial and longer-lived than my MCSE.
To answer your question (I think), many Windows apps use Control-H as a shortcut for "Search & Replace", usually under Edit->Search & Replace. For most of the rest of the computing world, Control-H is backspace, but whatever.
The s/// command is of un*x origin, of course, and it was turning into a recursive joke until I made it not funny anymore.
Re:Wouldn't this be a single geeks dream come true
on
Real-World Hyperlinks
·
· Score: 1
Oh, come on. Like women are going to advertise this. They'll all say "looking for a platonic life partner who also has Herpes" just to keep guys like us away.
I don't think capitalism is the problem here. The problem is that big and/or unscrupulous companies are ganging up on consumers, and consumers aren't pissed off enough yet to hurt them financially. (Then again, maybe we are hurting them and that's why we're in a recession...I know I've drastically cut my spending in the past three years.) In some cases the big companies lobby government for protection, too, but that is also controllable once enough people want to do something about it.
This strikes me as being more like DivX. Not the video codec, but the pay-to-watch DVD system Circuit City tried to push when DVD video was just making it to stores.
To refresh those who don't know/remember: It was a lot like DSS pay-per-view. The DivX player connected to a phone line, and you would buy a movie disc and be authorized to view it for a certain period of time. Afterward you could buy more time or throw the disc away.
Thankfully it flopped big-time. Mainly because you could buy a DVD and own your own damn videos. I see a similar problem with Phantom versus the existing consoles.
Yeah, it's like XBox too, but it has the pay-to-play feel of DivX.
How do EITHER of these mindless organizations think they will succeed?
It seems to me that they realized they've already failed. Apparently they don't have better jobs available, so they're putting on a big show to distract everyone from they fact that they have no viable product and no useful services.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but those Gideons Bibles found in motels are supposed to stay in the motels, right?
I've wondered that myself. I just looked up their web page but haven't figured out yet if it's okay or encouraged to take them. The FAQ says they don't get enough money from donations to cover everything they want, so I'm still confused.
I don't want any web browser remembering my passwords or form data, so I turn that off. But when you turn it off for the browser it won't remember your email passwords, either, and I want it to remember my pop3 email password. (I used to be able to work around this by enabling/remembering/disabling, but I don't seem to be able to anymore.)
I can't make Mozilla mail use my default browser Phoenix. (I mean Firebird.) It insists on using its own browser.
There were some other annoyances. I haven't switched to Minotaur/Thunderbird yet, but I probably will soon.
The most visible advantage of this is that the pilot cannot 'stall' the airplane. The airplane will not put itself in a situation where it would stop flying.
There was an incident a few years ago at DFW where one plane was on its takeoff roll when another crossed the runway in front of it. It wasn't a fly-by-wire plane, and the pilot of the taking-off plane yanked back the yoke and 'hopped' over the intruding plane. (Slightly more complicated than that, but that's basically what happened; he got enough air to get over the other plane before stalling and landing hard again; he didn't have enough speed to really get airborne.) An Airbus wouldn't have allowed the pilot to make that drastic a control change and would have plowed right into the other airliner no matter what the pilot did.
I heard about this incident from some insiders. I don't know if there's a reference on the web, but if someone else has a link, please provide it. IIRC correctly the intruding aircraft was a Delta plane and the taking off aircraft was a 737, but I'm not sure of that info.
Most crashes are due to pilot error, but I'm not quite ready to hand the controls over to a computer. I think it would be a disaster.
I'm missing your point. The title piqued my interest, but I can't tell what you think is attacking capitalism. (Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA)
I think this is capitalism at work. Technology has progressed and made print media (somewhat) obsolete. Business and government are still trying to make heads or tails of the situation, but capitalism supply and demand will shape the future of distributed media.
Xerox wasn't the end of book and magazine publishing, and we don't get all our printed media Xerographically, but I'm fairly sure it influenced the cost/benefit ratio of many publications. It also allowed much smaller publishers to distribute newsletters and other small media at a cost effective rate.
People won't pay for what they don't value, and ultamatly, as technology progresses and if control of that technology stays in the hands of people, we'll begin to see new kinds of media such as people throwing up e-newspapers and instead of asking for payment, ask for donations.
Slashdot, for example? See, I'm not sure if you're saying this is bad or good. I see it as good capitalism. If the product isn't valuable, then it falls by the wayside. Information is valuable, entertainment is valuable, but in the past we paid for the creation and distribution costs, but technology is making possible nearly negligible distribution costs, but the publishing companies aren't using the technology and passing the savings on to us. So we're revolting a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to avoid being ID'ed, I think you would have to hide one of three things:
Most P2P relies on all three bits of info being readily available. Freenet Project hides the source and content. (Someone has to index and/or publish the public key somewhere for you to find the content. This is currently handled by well-known index pages as far as I know.)
An example of hiding the distribution method would be recording something off the radio or sharing music between friends.
An example of hiding the content would be the encrypted warez newsgroups. I'm not sure how people get the decryption keys, but apparently they do. (Or at least did; I haven't looked in those groups in quite a long time.)
A PGP distribution method would admittedly be very different from current P2P. It would probably be more akin to trusted friends trading music rather than a free-for-all like Napster and Kazaa. (Or nearly identical to the encrypted warez groups mentioned above.)
Freenet is interesting, but I have no compelling reasons to use it myself. Same with the new napster.
I'm not familiar with the new Napster. I'm a bit familiair with Freenet (as in the Freenet Project). It's a pain in the ass to use. Well, it's very slow (as in very high latency), at least. I haven't used it for music or warez, so I'm not quite sure how that works (I assume it's published by various people and indexed by others who recieve the keys [=links] via anonymous messaging; at least that's how the parts of Freenet I saw worked); I just browsed some porn and some weird people's sites. I find it disturbing that Freenet enables some of the things it does, like kiddie porn (which I have NOT looked at, btw) and hate groups and apparently a taunting murderer. On the other hand, it enables anonymous free speech that is becoming more and more restricted theses days. I'm not going to argue that copyright-infringing file sharing or kiddie porn are free speech, mind you. I briefly published a freesite about some things that aren't illegal in any way, but I wanted to share anonymously for privacy reasons. I published it in the wrong format; I would've had to update it daily to keep it alive. I should've published in either the "edition-based" or "one-shot" format, but that's part of the Freenet learning curve.
The kiddie porn was the one thing that kept me from running my own permanent Freenet node. There's no way to ensure your node can't be used to transmit that stuff because its all encrypted. However I'm just about convinced that enabling free speech overrides the concerns of enabling the distrubing stuff, and I'll likely run my own node as soon as I get over my tech burnout.
By the way, Freenet is not exactly completely anonymous. It is, but here's where it could get you if you, for example, published music for unauthorized distribution. If you use the same cryptographic key to publish everything, and someone can link you to one published file, then the key links you to all the other ones, too. So if one of the index page guys whose names are known uses his index page keys to publish something naughty it would be easy to infer that he was responsible. But if he used a different key then I don't think there would be a way to tie them together, but IANACryptographer.
I'd say most people have an intrinsic need to espouse their daily lives in a public setting.
Hmmm....
Today I slept 'till noon. I woke up, masturbated while thinking of two high school girls, then got out of bed and turned off the alarm. I ate 4 bowls of Lucky Charms and read Slashdot, posting a few things hoping I'd get modded up. I don't think I'll wash my hair today because it's only been 20 hours since I got stitches in my forehead, and they said to wait 24 hours before getting it wet.
No, I think you're wrong. I had no need to do that at all.
Me too!
Nothing is worse than somebody who is too stupid to realize that their 15 minutes are up.
;-)
You're forgetting about those who think their 15 minutes have started but they haven't.
Diamonds cost practically nothing to produce, their value comes from their rarity.
:-)
Interesting comparison. Do some reading about DeBeers. They pretty much restrict diamond supply worldwide to keep the prices up. The music industry is trying to pull off the same thing, but it's much harder to restrict bytes than rocks.
For some reason, demand for real diamonds is high, too. Science is now able to create diamonds that are molecularly nearly identical to natural diamonds. I asked a lady friend if she would care if a diamond in her ring was natural or created, even if they were completely identical and she said she did care. No wonder I'm not married. I'm way too practical. I can't see why anyone would want several thousand dollars of nonintrinsic value on their hand when it could be spent much more practially or enjoyably.
I can't figure out if DeBeers engineered that in her head or society in general.
There is only one requirement for such a market, and that is the market place. All the rest follows from the natural laws of supply and demand.
You know, you could've saved me a lot of reading and just posted that.
I agree. It's that simple. There's a value the consumers are willing to pay for and a value producers are willing to produce. When all the dust settles, the meeting point of those two lines will be the price(s) and product(s).
That reminds me of the glass company that put ads on bricks and threw them through windows. Maybe Fanning saw that show, too.
...you start to see why the asumptions of the underlying system (begins with a c and ends with -ism) little by little will fail.
I was going to argue with you, but I can't figure out what you're talking about. Capitalism? Communism? Consumerism?
My first assumption was that you meant capitalism. You seem to say that the capitalist system is failing, but the example you provide is a perfect illustration of capitalism at work. Music isn't worth US$20 per CD to consumers, so that model is failing and will adapt or die. Their current tactic is to legislate their continued exisitence, but they will fail in that venue. They always have.
Some people think that the artists will quit creating. Some might. But there are quite a few that already do it for free or at very low cost. It's supply & demand working itself out through ongoing changes in distribution methods (& costs) and popularity (high demand for Bon Jovi versus your nieghbor who plays guitar, for example).
I'm sure someone will come up with some software that, say, rearranges the MP3 frames of a song, foiling the fingerprinting but allowing the song to be restored on the other end..
PGP
Yeah, there are issues re: p2p, but the tech is there.
Also there's Freenet Project which obfusicates the source. You can ID it, but you can't get rid of it.
Lasers, microwaves...something like that. They're probably not sure yet exactly what it's going to be.
Before the Iraq invasion the news media talked a lot about helicopters with directed-energy weapons that would disable enemy electronics. They also said railguns may make an appearance. But since the bullets & bombs started flying I haven't heard of any accounts of them being used.
This could be the beginning of some polarisation, where all important IP is within the US. This could have serious repercussions for firms like Fujitsu, Siemens etc. who aren't based in the US.
I keep worrying about this type of thing, too (if I understood you right), but I worry about it the other way around. If these companies succeed in their manner of "protecting IP" in the U.S. I think the U.S. will quickly fall behind in computer/software tech innovations. The rest of the world will laugh at us and standardize on Linux, GNU and *BSD (as they have in the cellphone world with GSM), and we in the U.S. will be stuck paying each other way too much money for substandard buggy (but pretty) software.
More and more, there seems to be some Coke-Pepsi posturing, with MS and Windows pitted against Sun& Unix. Linux is too well entrenched for such a thing to work.
That's an interesting way of putting it. At first I agreed with you, but now I wonder if Linux/GNU/*BSD is tea in this analogy. Coke and Pepsi battle for the king of pop, but I suspect tea is far more prevalent, even in the U.S..
And what's neat about tea is you can buy many different brands and blends; you can drink it hot or iced; you can take it weak or strong; you can add any flavoring you want at any time. But people still buy a lot of Coke and Pepsi, and others are trying to bottle and pre-flavor tea and sell it at the same inflated prices of C&P.
But to get a bit back to reality, even if Linux "takes over the world" then maybe MS & Sun will still be fighting their Coke & Pepsi battle.
Just try to play Quake3 that way. Actually it starts to help. Play for a while and you start getting kills from rockets you fired 3 maps earlier.
Is it that obvious I'm an MCSE? Oh the shame. MSCE's (the certification) suck so far, by the way. If I had to do it over again I'd take some credit courses or masturbate instead. Either is more beneficial and longer-lived than my MCSE.
To answer your question (I think), many Windows apps use Control-H as a shortcut for "Search & Replace", usually under Edit->Search & Replace. For most of the rest of the computing world, Control-H is backspace, but whatever.
The s/// command is of un*x origin, of course, and it was turning into a recursive joke until I made it not funny anymore.
Oh, come on. Like women are going to advertise this. They'll all say "looking for a platonic life partner who also has Herpes" just to keep guys like us away.
This strikes me as being more like DivX. Not the video codec, but the pay-to-watch DVD system Circuit City tried to push when DVD video was just making it to stores.
To refresh those who don't know/remember: It was a lot like DSS pay-per-view. The DivX player connected to a phone line, and you would buy a movie disc and be authorized to view it for a certain period of time. Afterward you could buy more time or throw the disc away.
Thankfully it flopped big-time. Mainly because you could buy a DVD and own your own damn videos. I see a similar problem with Phantom versus the existing consoles.
Yeah, it's like XBox too, but it has the pay-to-play feel of DivX.
Okay, then how about an OpenMosix cluster of these with clusterKNOPPIX? Maybe we can PXE boot them....
(In answer to your question, about 15 minutes.)
How do EITHER of these mindless organizations think they will succeed?
It seems to me that they realized they've already failed. Apparently they don't have better jobs available, so they're putting on a big show to distract everyone from they fact that they have no viable product and no useful services.
I was told to make sure to bring a PCMCIA token-ring card for my laptop ... the token-ring network was so slow ...
Apparently you should've brought your own token, too.
(Wishing I knew how to find a link to that Dilbert strip where PHB is searching his office for the token.)
s/Menu Bar -> Edit -> Search & Replace/Control-H/
.
.
.
Oh shit...
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but those Gideons Bibles found in motels are supposed to stay in the motels, right?
I've wondered that myself. I just looked up their web page but haven't figured out yet if it's okay or encouraged to take them. The FAQ says they don't get enough money from donations to cover everything they want, so I'm still confused.
Can you list some bugs please?
I'll throw in some annoyances.
I don't want any web browser remembering my passwords or form data, so I turn that off. But when you turn it off for the browser it won't remember your email passwords, either, and I want it to remember my pop3 email password. (I used to be able to work around this by enabling/remembering/disabling, but I don't seem to be able to anymore.)
I can't make Mozilla mail use my default browser Phoenix. (I mean Firebird.) It insists on using its own browser.
There were some other annoyances. I haven't switched to Minotaur/Thunderbird yet, but I probably will soon.
The most visible advantage of this is that the pilot cannot 'stall' the airplane. The airplane will not put itself in a situation where it would stop flying.
There was an incident a few years ago at DFW where one plane was on its takeoff roll when another crossed the runway in front of it. It wasn't a fly-by-wire plane, and the pilot of the taking-off plane yanked back the yoke and 'hopped' over the intruding plane. (Slightly more complicated than that, but that's basically what happened; he got enough air to get over the other plane before stalling and landing hard again; he didn't have enough speed to really get airborne.) An Airbus wouldn't have allowed the pilot to make that drastic a control change and would have plowed right into the other airliner no matter what the pilot did.
I heard about this incident from some insiders. I don't know if there's a reference on the web, but if someone else has a link, please provide it. IIRC correctly the intruding aircraft was a Delta plane and the taking off aircraft was a 737, but I'm not sure of that info.
Most crashes are due to pilot error, but I'm not quite ready to hand the controls over to a computer. I think it would be a disaster.
Things like this attack the heart of capitalism
I'm missing your point. The title piqued my interest, but I can't tell what you think is attacking capitalism. (Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA)
I think this is capitalism at work. Technology has progressed and made print media (somewhat) obsolete. Business and government are still trying to make heads or tails of the situation, but capitalism supply and demand will shape the future of distributed media.
Xerox wasn't the end of book and magazine publishing, and we don't get all our printed media Xerographically, but I'm fairly sure it influenced the cost/benefit ratio of many publications. It also allowed much smaller publishers to distribute newsletters and other small media at a cost effective rate.
People won't pay for what they don't value, and ultamatly, as technology progresses and if control of that technology stays in the hands of people, we'll begin to see new kinds of media such as people throwing up e-newspapers and instead of asking for payment, ask for donations.
Slashdot, for example? See, I'm not sure if you're saying this is bad or good. I see it as good capitalism. If the product isn't valuable, then it falls by the wayside. Information is valuable, entertainment is valuable, but in the past we paid for the creation and distribution costs, but technology is making possible nearly negligible distribution costs, but the publishing companies aren't using the technology and passing the savings on to us. So we're revolting a bit.
I usually hate "mod parent up" posts, but mod parent up.
No, I still hate them. Mod me down.
In other words, "me too".
So Sad he couldn't live a little longer to see it. Are Douglas Adams and Scott Adams the new Da Vinci's?
RIP DA.