The name Case Western Reserve University, which is certainly a mouthful for those of us who work/play there, comes from the 1967 merger of Case Institute of Technology (formerly Case School of Applied Science, founded in 1880 due to a generous land grant by prominent Clevelander Leonard Case, Jr., whose bust periodically peers out a window in the lobby of the building where I work) and Western Reserve University (formerly Western Reserve College, founded in 1826 and named after the Western Reserve of New Connecticut, which was a colonial reference to land in northeast Ohio claimed by interests of Connecticut since before the American Revolution).
Combined, the name Case Western Reserve University has for decades presented the unknowledgeable with the opportunity to ask questions such as "Case what?" and "Is that a military school?" when in actuality, CWRU is one of the most underrated universities in the nation, making it heartily worthy of positive moderation and perhaps even an Insightful flag.
Except that RFC 2001 doesn't actually supercede RFC 0793, and RFC 2001 specifically indicates that delayed ACK, while present in most TCP stacks at the time (1997), was not an officially documented part of TCP.
Yes, it was a braindead way to implement delayed ACK. However, that actually isn't the same as the issue in the original article, which was that MS was taking a shortcut around the established protocol described in RFC 0793.
It could also be a potential security risk, because if this is true, then it makes it very easy to IP-spoof a HTTP request against IIS (since the request is a self-contained packet instead of a long connection sequence).
What's more, if IIS responds immediately with a MTU-sized piece of data, using a reflection-based attack - reflecting off of IIS hosts - would result in a linear magnification of the size of a request packet to an MTU-sized piece of data (at minimum - it is possible that the IIS host would have sent multiple packets in the time it takes for the victim to send a RST, and thus multiple RSTs would be generated by the victim in that amount of time).
So, a large amount of data could be generated through the sending of a small amount of data, and you don't even have to root the IIS hosts to make it work;)
Using UDP for HTTP would move error correction up a level in the protocol hierarchy, which means a zillion new methods for error correction would be created. Not a good thing, since they'd all be proprietary and unlikely to follow each others' standards since you'd have web servers written by some people communicating with clients written by other people. On the other hand, TCP includes error correction, and TCP is generally implemented at the kernel/system level rather than the application level. That means no matter which client-server combination is talking, as long as they are riding on a kernel which supports the RFCs for TCP/IP, they are guaranteed to be able to communicate, leaving only HTTP and HTML compatibility up to the application.
I noticed that the Mercury News article was very optimistic about the future of consumers' rights in the 108th Congress. Is this a realistic forecast, or is it still going to be an uphill battle against the ??AA to ensure that consumers' rights remain unabridged by the legislature?
Re:This must be difficult for some to accept.
on
Schlafly on Copyright
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree with you wholeheartedly
I'd like to point out that the fact that freedom of information, and associated DRM/copyright/fair use issues, doesn't fall along the regular political axes, makes it incredibly difficult to know where our politicians stand on these issues.
For example, is Senator John McCain in favor of consumer rights, or is he in the pocket of the ??AA/? Nobody knows, because this issue doesn't follow political boundaries. What about your congressman? With the exceptions of Hollings and Berman, on one side; Boucher, Doolittle, and Lofgren on the other, and perhaps a few others, nobody has any idea. Keep in mind that the DMCA passed via voice vote in both houses of Congress - though the Senate passed a version different than that of the House - and so there is no real record beyond remarks entered into the Congressional Record of Congress's support for consumer rights.
What we really need is a way to gather information about our Congresspeople's opinions on this issue - to bring it to the forefront - so that we can be better informed in 2004 when we head to the polls, and so that we can better inform the general public (whose rights this will affect when the nation goes digital in 2007) rather than/.'ers and other people with specific interest in this issue.
From the article on Salon: "Lawyers for the association told the Supreme Court that the stay was needed to keep Pavlovich from reposting the decryption program on the Internet."
Some of the most important qualities that children need to learn from the social structure in school - respect for other people, respect for authority, the idea that consequences arise for one's actions, and obedience of the law - cannot be taught through the use of computers. These are also some of the qualities that are most seriously lacking in today's (at least, American) education.
Besides, many kids will always find learning boring, at least until they grow up. The ones who enjoy learning don't need computers to help them learn, and the ones who don't enjoy learning are obviously not learning anything if they're having fun. Teach the value of computers as a research tool, but never center education around the computer (certain business-centric or computer science high school courses excepted, of course).
Download is when data is sent from a server to a client.
Upload is when data is sent from a client to a server.
When programming things like EPROMs, etc., you may be operating the computer sitting next to the EPROM programmer, and you may be sending data from the computer to the programmer, but you are still downloading the data to the device.
This begs the question, however: did the original text use the term "download" because the plane would be up in the sky, and the data would be sent "down" to a hospital?...
"...a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth bridge the disturbing global divides in information, technology and understanding."
How about a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth eat and avoid dying from preventable diseases?
Well, Microsoft has been forcing people to make that "choice" for years, now. And the problem is that people (in general) are unknowledgeable enough that they don't realize there's something wrong.
The fact that, for most people, the only communication they get on issues like this federal rule are from the relevant service provider (some real honesty there), rather than from the feds, ensures that the profit loss from service cancellation from a few slashdotters won't even scratch the surface of the piles they're raking in from the mooing masses.
What a lot of slashdotters want to defend is not just the explicitly-outlined concept of "fair use", but the Supreme Court-outlined concept of time-shifting and space-shifting for private use which also falls under the "fair use" provision.
I'd also like to point out the following quote (Majority opinion in Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)):
"The Court of Appeals' holding that respondents are entitled to enjoin the distribution of VTR's, to collect royalties on the sale of such equipment, or to obtain other relief, if affirmed, would enlarge the scope of respondents' statutory monopolies to encompass control over an article of commerce that is not the subject of copyright protection. Such an expansion of the copyright privilege is beyond the limits of the grants authorized by Congress."
It appears to me that the DMCA goes against already-established legal precedent in terms of Constitutional interpretation. It's a shame that we even need new legislation to protect these rights, but it's going to have to be grassroots efforts like this which end up making things change for the better.
I think your local mom and pop have an excellent opportunity to provide entertainment to their customers, while at the same time supporting musicians who are not under the thumb of an RIAA member's oppressive contract scheme.
Tell the people who run Geraldi's - as well as the owners of other local stores - to get into the local music scene in your city, and to buy the CDs of unsigned local musicians. Tell them to talk with the musicians and get their approval and blessing to play their music in those local stores and restaurants.
It's free publicity for the musicians, especially if the merchants put up a sign indicating what CDs they are playing that day (and how to get your own/where to go to listen to a live show), and the merchants provide an interesting feature to attract more customers.
Then, when Hilary Rosen shows up at Geraldi's and says, I thought I told you to stop playing music here or pay our licensing fees, he can tell her to go fsck herself.;)
Except they won't give you refunds, even with DRM.
Just remember that DRM isn't about the consumer at all. In fact, it's barely even about people. It's about large corporations demanding too much money for shitty music.
This sounds remarkably similar to the recent Pavlovich juris-my-diction case where the California Supreme Court declined to give the movie industry the right of venue shopping (as Slashdot reported not too long ago.
I hope this is part of a larger legal trend toward stopping venue shopping by plaintiffs. It'd go a long way toward reducing the sheer vast bulk of frivolous lawsuits burdening the US court system these days.
As long as the terms of use don't attempt to abridge my law/constitution-given rights in any way, and don't surreptitiously cost me money, I don't see what the problem is. E-mailgids provided a service, and in order to use that service, they require that you comply with certain provisions. NTS failed to comply with those provisions in the process of using the service.
Of course, the end result of this *should be* that service by E-mailgids to NTS would be terminated; court action should focus on two things: whether NTS is enjoined by the court from making use of that service in the future, and whether NTS incurred any damages to E-mailgids (which, in this case, I would say they have, regardless of the terms of service, as the intent of the service was obviously not meant to be a repository for spammer-searchable e-mail, unsecure though it may be).
Re:What about internet2?
on
Web Zeitgeist
·
· Score: 1
But they filtered out "sex" already, so there's really no reason to include the AOL searches.
Slashdot Mirror
What, doesn't anybody block referers these days while surfing the web?
The name Case Western Reserve University, which is certainly a mouthful for those of us who work/play there, comes from the 1967 merger of Case Institute of Technology (formerly Case School of Applied Science, founded in 1880 due to a generous land grant by prominent Clevelander Leonard Case, Jr., whose bust periodically peers out a window in the lobby of the building where I work) and Western Reserve University (formerly Western Reserve College, founded in 1826 and named after the Western Reserve of New Connecticut, which was a colonial reference to land in northeast Ohio claimed by interests of Connecticut since before the American Revolution).
Combined, the name Case Western Reserve University has for decades presented the unknowledgeable with the opportunity to ask questions such as "Case what?" and "Is that a military school?" when in actuality, CWRU is one of the most underrated universities in the nation, making it heartily worthy of positive moderation and perhaps even an Insightful flag.
Not to mention that Lawrence Krauss has written several books on physics and cosmology.
Except that RFC 2001 doesn't actually supercede RFC 0793, and RFC 2001 specifically indicates that delayed ACK, while present in most TCP stacks at the time (1997), was not an officially documented part of TCP.
Yes, it was a braindead way to implement delayed ACK. However, that actually isn't the same as the issue in the original article, which was that MS was taking a shortcut around the established protocol described in RFC 0793.
It could also be a potential security risk, because if this is true, then it makes it very easy to IP-spoof a HTTP request against IIS (since the request is a self-contained packet instead of a long connection sequence).
;)
What's more, if IIS responds immediately with a MTU-sized piece of data, using a reflection-based attack - reflecting off of IIS hosts - would result in a linear magnification of the size of a request packet to an MTU-sized piece of data (at minimum - it is possible that the IIS host would have sent multiple packets in the time it takes for the victim to send a RST, and thus multiple RSTs would be generated by the victim in that amount of time).
So, a large amount of data could be generated through the sending of a small amount of data, and you don't even have to root the IIS hosts to make it work
Using UDP for HTTP would move error correction up a level in the protocol hierarchy, which means a zillion new methods for error correction would be created. Not a good thing, since they'd all be proprietary and unlikely to follow each others' standards since you'd have web servers written by some people communicating with clients written by other people. On the other hand, TCP includes error correction, and TCP is generally implemented at the kernel/system level rather than the application level. That means no matter which client-server combination is talking, as long as they are riding on a kernel which supports the RFCs for TCP/IP, they are guaranteed to be able to communicate, leaving only HTTP and HTML compatibility up to the application.
I noticed that the Mercury News article was very optimistic about the future of consumers' rights in the 108th Congress. Is this a realistic forecast, or is it still going to be an uphill battle against the ??AA to ensure that consumers' rights remain unabridged by the legislature?
I agree with you wholeheartedly
/.'ers and other people with specific interest in this issue.
I'd like to point out that the fact that freedom of information, and associated DRM/copyright/fair use issues, doesn't fall along the regular political axes, makes it incredibly difficult to know where our politicians stand on these issues.
For example, is Senator John McCain in favor of consumer rights, or is he in the pocket of the ??AA/? Nobody knows, because this issue doesn't follow political boundaries. What about your congressman? With the exceptions of Hollings and Berman, on one side; Boucher, Doolittle, and Lofgren on the other, and perhaps a few others, nobody has any idea. Keep in mind that the DMCA passed via voice vote in both houses of Congress - though the Senate passed a version different than that of the House - and so there is no real record beyond remarks entered into the Congressional Record of Congress's support for consumer rights.
What we really need is a way to gather information about our Congresspeople's opinions on this issue - to bring it to the forefront - so that we can be better informed in 2004 when we head to the polls, and so that we can better inform the general public (whose rights this will affect when the nation goes digital in 2007) rather than
I think the link you're looking for is
http://yro.slashdot.org/
From the article on Salon: "Lawyers for the association told the Supreme Court that the stay was needed to keep Pavlovich from reposting the decryption program on the Internet."
Even in haiku form?
...that society has been a bigger threat to EverQuest rather than the other way around.
Some of the most important qualities that children need to learn from the social structure in school - respect for other people, respect for authority, the idea that consequences arise for one's actions, and obedience of the law - cannot be taught through the use of computers. These are also some of the qualities that are most seriously lacking in today's (at least, American) education.
Besides, many kids will always find learning boring, at least until they grow up. The ones who enjoy learning don't need computers to help them learn, and the ones who don't enjoy learning are obviously not learning anything if they're having fun. Teach the value of computers as a research tool, but never center education around the computer (certain business-centric or computer science high school courses excepted, of course).
98% of Internet users report that they prefer to ask their tech support questions on message boards instead of Reading The Fucking Manual.
Was it a nuke test? Naaah. ...But it might have been aliens.
Where's a mod point when you need one :p
Sorry, but it's as follows:
Download is when data is sent from a server to a client.
Upload is when data is sent from a client to a server.
When programming things like EPROMs, etc., you may be operating the computer sitting next to the EPROM programmer, and you may be sending data from the computer to the programmer, but you are still downloading the data to the device.
This begs the question, however: did the original text use the term "download" because the plane would be up in the sky, and the data would be sent "down" to a hospital?...
"...a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth bridge the disturbing global divides in information, technology and understanding."
How about a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth eat and avoid dying from preventable diseases?
Yes, but at least now they can keep their coffee tables free of nasty beverage container damage.
Well, Microsoft has been forcing people to make that "choice" for years, now. And the problem is that people (in general) are unknowledgeable enough that they don't realize there's something wrong.
The fact that, for most people, the only communication they get on issues like this federal rule are from the relevant service provider (some real honesty there), rather than from the feds, ensures that the profit loss from service cancellation from a few slashdotters won't even scratch the surface of the piles they're raking in from the mooing masses.
What a lot of slashdotters want to defend is not just the explicitly-outlined concept of "fair use", but the Supreme Court-outlined concept of time-shifting and space-shifting for private use which also falls under the "fair use" provision.
I'd also like to point out the following quote (Majority opinion in Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)):
"The Court of Appeals' holding that respondents are entitled to enjoin the distribution of VTR's, to collect royalties on the sale of such equipment, or to obtain other relief, if affirmed, would enlarge the scope of respondents' statutory monopolies to encompass control over an article of commerce that is not the subject of copyright protection. Such an expansion of the copyright privilege is beyond the limits of the grants authorized by Congress."
It appears to me that the DMCA goes against already-established legal precedent in terms of Constitutional interpretation. It's a shame that we even need new legislation to protect these rights, but it's going to have to be grassroots efforts like this which end up making things change for the better.
(Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here)
I think your local mom and pop have an excellent opportunity to provide entertainment to their customers, while at the same time supporting musicians who are not under the thumb of an RIAA member's oppressive contract scheme.
;)
Tell the people who run Geraldi's - as well as the owners of other local stores - to get into the local music scene in your city, and to buy the CDs of unsigned local musicians. Tell them to talk with the musicians and get their approval and blessing to play their music in those local stores and restaurants.
It's free publicity for the musicians, especially if the merchants put up a sign indicating what CDs they are playing that day (and how to get your own/where to go to listen to a live show), and the merchants provide an interesting feature to attract more customers.
Then, when Hilary Rosen shows up at Geraldi's and says, I thought I told you to stop playing music here or pay our licensing fees, he can tell her to go fsck herself.
Except they won't give you refunds, even with DRM.
Just remember that DRM isn't about the consumer at all. In fact, it's barely even about people. It's about large corporations demanding too much money for shitty music.
This sounds remarkably similar to the recent Pavlovich juris-my-diction case where the California Supreme Court declined to give the movie industry the right of venue shopping (as Slashdot reported not too long ago.
I hope this is part of a larger legal trend toward stopping venue shopping by plaintiffs. It'd go a long way toward reducing the sheer vast bulk of frivolous lawsuits burdening the US court system these days.
As long as the terms of use don't attempt to abridge my law/constitution-given rights in any way, and don't surreptitiously cost me money, I don't see what the problem is. E-mailgids provided a service, and in order to use that service, they require that you comply with certain provisions. NTS failed to comply with those provisions in the process of using the service.
Of course, the end result of this *should be* that service by E-mailgids to NTS would be terminated; court action should focus on two things: whether NTS is enjoined by the court from making use of that service in the future, and whether NTS incurred any damages to E-mailgids (which, in this case, I would say they have, regardless of the terms of service, as the intent of the service was obviously not meant to be a repository for spammer-searchable e-mail, unsecure though it may be).
But they filtered out "sex" already, so there's really no reason to include the AOL searches.
Or 40 1-ounce Slurpees....