Perhaps he's not asking what's "legal" but is more interested in what's "moral".
Maybe he's someone who thinks he has a moral obligation to violate unjust laws.
Brings up a great point -- why not have the Library of Congress manage it.
The LoC is very good at managing digital content -- and making it searchable/available through partnerships with open source projects like the Univ of Michigan's Hathi Trust project:
Really? Small projects often struggle to get the momentum in a community for open source to start showing benefits.
IMHO, in contrast it's large projects (OS's, database technologies (both sql and non-traditional), compiler chains, Gnu CoreUtils) that benefit most from F/OSS -- since those are the ones with enough components that need to bring to getter skills from across industries to benefit from large distributed groups of contributors.
The other big thing that I would love to have in a database is ability to scale the database to multiple machines, so have a logical database span multiple disks on multiple machines, have multiple postgres processes running against those multiple disk
HadoopDB is comprised of Postgres on each node (database layer), Hadoop/MapReduce as a communication layer that coordinates the multiple nodes each running Postgres, and Hive as the translation layer. The result is a shared-nothing parallel database, that business analysts can interact with using a SQL-like language. [Technical details can be found in the following paper.]
as well as for commercial forks of Postgres such as EMC's GreenPlum.
But it seems like there is an entire market of consultants whose entire job description is planning this sort of thing?
Which seems absurd as well. Why is there an entire market of consultants whose entire job it is to plan wireless access points and routers? Seems like the kind of project that you could figure out by googling and reading the docs from the wireless network equipment companies; and then checking technology websites (like slashdot) online to see if people had any feedback/reviews they wanted to give for such systems.
So what if my cell phone can access voicemail without a 15 character minimum password.
So what if my Wii or Xbox can let people chat with me.
So what if my GPS could theoretically be told to trick me into turning into a lake.
For 99% of of devices I buy, security "features" are an annoyance end user's don't want.
When I buy a post card - it's OK someone who theoretically intercepts the mail can read it. I understand that and won't write my credit card number on the back of it. The last thing I want is some legislation saying that postcards must be wrapped in tinfoil with a tamper-proof seal.
so if you have an article written by 50 people, then 50 different people own the copyright. you have to figure out who is responsible for which bits...
So when you attribute someone, do you need to list all 50 people and wikipedia?
And what happens in a long chain of derived works; where, say, work A is a derived work of Wikipedia, work B is derived form work A, and work C derived from B.
If I make work D derived from C, do I need to attribute all the people in A, B, and C?
Most of us don't compete in some way against Skype.
Many more software companies do compete with Microsoft.
I wonder what safeguards are in place to prevent Microsoft from abusing the power of having such wiretaps.
Used computers for cash probably will not be a problem, internet connection has always been and always will be traceable.
Internet connection seems less traceable recently, with Starbucks, McDonalds, and Panera Bread being pretty large ISPs these days.
OTOH, soon their video systems will be linked to internet use. Already linking video to cash-register-transactions to catch people doing check fraud. The technology can probably already link it to internet use too.
> So Microsoft starts using standards compliant HTML5 instead of Silverlight on their sites and you bash them for it? Seriously?
No, we bash them for pushing one technology on their customers for the sake of getting them locked in, while internally they know those technologies suck and they use better stuff for themselves. The way Bing uses Hadoop is another example. And the way they're soon to be a big postgres shop (skype) yet another.
They know what the right technologies are. But they keep selling their developers on other stuff.
> why is Intel continuing to beat the obviously VERY dead horse that is Itanic? Its a giant flop,
When you look at it from a Marketing point of view, Itanium was perhaps the most successful chip in history -- not because it sold well, but because it bought time for x86 to move into 64-bit computing.
Recall that a few years back there were a number of promising 64-bit architectures that were a lot cleaner than Itanium. HP's PA-RISC and SGI's MIPS were two of them. Yet even before production Itanium chips launched, the CEO of SGI and the Executive VP of computers at HP made the decisions to move away from HPUX-on-PA-RISC and IRIX-on-MIPS in favor of NT on Itanium, pretty much killing their entire computing product lines, and killing R&D on the server versions of both chip families.
Seems the guy (yeah, same guy) who made those decisions was rewarded with a President and COO job at Microsoft a bit later.
Intel may not have won with actual sales of Itanium hardware (and I wonder if it even wanted to - from it's point of view X86 was even better because HP had some joint-ownership-rights in Itanium). But it sure won by killing the competitions 64-bit computing roadmaps from the PR of Itanium alone.
Perhaps he got in early and either mined bitcoins while they were easy, or bought some while they were cheap.
Perhaps his $1000 investment went up to $500K ; and (like many in the dotcom bubble did with.com stocks) let the money ride rather than cashing some out.
IMHO the most promising would have been if it had become the leading micro-payment system for telephone calls -- which I thought was the plan when the same company bought both them and skype. Yet strangely it seems you could only buy skype credits with credit cards, and had a separate skype balance instead of being able to pay-per-call using paypal.
TL/TR. Sure, it could; but for that to happen the paypal guys would actually have to make it happen.
...you really need to bring someone with experience onto the team.
That's the actual *problem* with security on the internet.
If people want a more secure internet it needs to get dumbed down to where the people who build and install such systems can do it without needing a PhD in applied math.
It's like when you buy a lock for your front door - you don't really need to study how many pins are in the lock; and your locksmith who installs it doesn't need to do research in what kind of metal the springs pushing the pins are made out of.
Rather than carrying an internal combustion engine or batteries, or connecting to overhead powerlines, a gyrobus carries a large flywheel that is spun at up to 3,000 RPM by a "squirrel cage" motor........ Fully charged, a gyrobus could typically travel as far as 6km on a level route at speeds of up to 50 to 60 km/h,... Charging a flywheel took between 30 seconds and 3 minutes;
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps he's not asking what's "legal" but is more interested in what's "moral". Maybe he's someone who thinks he has a moral obligation to violate unjust laws.
Does that mean you can call the (real) cops on them if they try to detain you?
What rights are being violated exactly?
We can start with the 4th Amendment and go from there.
2nd as well.
Brings up a great point -- why not have the Library of Congress manage it.
The LoC is very good at managing digital content -- and making it searchable/available through partnerships with open source projects like the Univ of Michigan's Hathi Trust project:
http://www.implu.com/federal_contracts/listing/LC-HathiTrust
Could the National Archives and Records Administration outsource this project to the LoC?
Open source is great for small projects
Really? Small projects often struggle to get the momentum in a community for open source to start showing benefits.
IMHO, in contrast it's large projects (OS's, database technologies (both sql and non-traditional), compiler chains, Gnu CoreUtils) that benefit most from F/OSS -- since those are the ones with enough components that need to bring to getter skills from across industries to benefit from large distributed groups of contributors.
TL/DR: Open Source is great for *large* projects.
EC2's not the cheapest place to rent servers.
If you're going to rent for a whole month or more, it seems you get a lot more bang for the buck by renting dedicated servers like these:
http://www.server4you.com/root-server/ecoserver.php
The other big thing that I would love to have in a database is ability to scale the database to multiple machines, so have a logical database span multiple disks on multiple machines, have multiple postgres processes running against those multiple disk
This exists for Postgres in the form of Yale's HadoopDB project: http://db.cs.yale.edu/hadoopdb/hadoopdb.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/07/hadoopdb-an-open-source-parallel-database.html
as well as for commercial forks of Postgres such as EMC's GreenPlum.
But it seems like there is an entire market of consultants whose entire job description is planning this sort of thing?
Which seems absurd as well. Why is there an entire market of consultants whose entire job it is to plan wireless access points and routers? Seems like the kind of project that you could figure out by googling and reading the docs from the wireless network equipment companies; and then checking technology websites (like slashdot) online to see if people had any feedback/reviews they wanted to give for such systems.
So what if my cell phone can access voicemail without a 15 character minimum password.
So what if my Wii or Xbox can let people chat with me.
So what if my GPS could theoretically be told to trick me into turning into a lake.
For 99% of of devices I buy, security "features" are an annoyance end user's don't want.
When I buy a post card - it's OK someone who theoretically intercepts the mail can read it. I understand that and won't write my credit card number on the back of it. The last thing I want is some legislation saying that postcards must be wrapped in tinfoil with a tamper-proof seal.
Same should be true for hardware.
Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7.
Yet you keep doing it?!? Why?
so if you have an article written by 50 people, then 50 different people own the copyright. you have to figure out who is responsible for which bits...
So when you attribute someone, do you need to list all 50 people and wikipedia? And what happens in a long chain of derived works; where, say, work A is a derived work of Wikipedia, work B is derived form work A, and work C derived from B. If I make work D derived from C, do I need to attribute all the people in A, B, and C?
Most of us don't compete in some way against Skype. Many more software companies do compete with Microsoft. I wonder what safeguards are in place to prevent Microsoft from abusing the power of having such wiretaps.
Except that civil disobedience is not ever anonymous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)
Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine. It was first published anonymously on January 10, 1776,
Used computers for cash probably will not be a problem, internet connection has always been and always will be traceable.
Internet connection seems less traceable recently, with Starbucks, McDonalds, and Panera Bread being pretty large ISPs these days.
OTOH, soon their video systems will be linked to internet use. Already linking video to cash-register-transactions to catch people doing check fraud. The technology can probably already link it to internet use too.
Wonder what would happen if one published an anonymous pamphlet like they used to do in the past ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet) ).
> So Microsoft starts using standards compliant HTML5 instead of Silverlight on their sites and you bash them for it? Seriously?
No, we bash them for pushing one technology on their customers for the sake of getting them locked in, while internally they know those technologies suck and they use better stuff for themselves. The way Bing uses Hadoop is another example. And the way they're soon to be a big postgres shop (skype) yet another.
They know what the right technologies are. But they keep selling their developers on other stuff.
And the business world uses Microsoft because that's what the CEO and CFO is familiar with.
And they're familiar with Windows because that's what their kid uses to play games.
The technical departments in the business world have been heavy unix users for a very long time.
> why is Intel continuing to beat the obviously VERY dead horse that is Itanic? Its a giant flop,
When you look at it from a Marketing point of view, Itanium was perhaps the most successful chip in history -- not because it sold well, but because it bought time for x86 to move into 64-bit computing.
Recall that a few years back there were a number of promising 64-bit architectures that were a lot cleaner than Itanium. HP's PA-RISC and SGI's MIPS were two of them. Yet even before production Itanium chips launched, the CEO of SGI and the Executive VP of computers at HP made the decisions to move away from HPUX-on-PA-RISC and IRIX-on-MIPS in favor of NT on Itanium, pretty much killing their entire computing product lines, and killing R&D on the server versions of both chip families.
Seems the guy (yeah, same guy) who made those decisions was rewarded with a President and COO job at Microsoft a bit later.
Intel may not have won with actual sales of Itanium hardware (and I wonder if it even wanted to - from it's point of view X86 was even better because HP had some joint-ownership-rights in Itanium). But it sure won by killing the competitions 64-bit computing roadmaps from the PR of Itanium alone.
http://quiller8771.blog.com/2011/05/26/double-s-fall-it-technology-in-the-market/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/13/sgi_belluzzo/
Perhaps he got in early and either mined bitcoins while they were easy, or bought some while they were cheap.
Perhaps his $1000 investment went up to $500K ; and (like many in the dotcom bubble did with .com stocks) let the money ride rather than cashing some out.
For some of their previous attacks - like exposing when companies left their users passwords relatively unprotected - I might agree.
A DDOS is pretty lame, though, since anyone with large resources can DOS sites targeting small audiences just by exceeding their server capacity.
That said, I have to wonder about the kind of people who would be paying for porn.
Perhaps they pay to support the actresses?
Kinda like the same way people donate to Wikipedia or the Mozilla Foundation, or buy Red Hat?
IMHO the most promising would have been if it had become the leading micro-payment system for telephone calls -- which I thought was the plan when the same company bought both them and skype. Yet strangely it seems you could only buy skype credits with credit cards, and had a separate skype balance instead of being able to pay-per-call using paypal.
TL/TR. Sure, it could; but for that to happen the paypal guys would actually have to make it happen.
If you add up all the agencies from all the countries, you can pretty much extrapolate that almost every hacker is a double or triple agent.
Makes you wonder how much of the hacking is really just Pentagon vs DHS; or FBI vs CIA; or US vs UK; etc.
...you really need to bring someone with experience onto the team.
That's the actual *problem* with security on the internet.
If people want a more secure internet it needs to get dumbed down to where the people who build and install such systems can do it without needing a PhD in applied math.
It's like when you buy a lock for your front door - you don't really need to study how many pins are in the lock; and your locksmith who installs it doesn't need to do research in what kind of metal the springs pushing the pins are made out of.
Also in use in vehicles since the 50's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus
Rather than carrying an internal combustion engine or batteries, or connecting to overhead powerlines, a gyrobus carries a large flywheel that is spun at up to 3,000 RPM by a "squirrel cage" motor. .... ... ...
Fully charged, a gyrobus could typically travel as far as 6km on a level route at speeds of up to 50 to 60 km/h,
Charging a flywheel took between 30 seconds and 3 minutes;
Sounds nicer than most electric cars.