I'd *love* to see a nice, step by step explination as to how to mod my PS2,
Web search for "thebroken", an amateur "TV" show devoted to hacking. The episodes are downloadable. On one show, they walk through installing a mod chip for each of the 3 videogame consoles.
Um, the whole point of lasers is that the beam-path is parellel: there is no specific point of focusing. The beam impacts as strongly to the aiming mirror as it does to the actual target. (Stronger really, because the target is protected by atmospheric attenuation)
The reason the ABL's aiming mirror survives is that it's small, flat, and protected. It's aerodynamically curved, it's not large enough to surround a whole missile, and it's not exposed to air blowing by at 700m/s.
Also, the aiming mirror needs to reflect only one particular wavelength of light that is exactly known. Whereas the builder of defenive mirrors on the target won't know precisely what kind of beam will hit it.
A key phrase is "all possible wavelength". The ABL laser uses one precise wavelength, which the designers took into account when selecting it's mirror.
To mirror-coat a missile for protection, you'd either need to know the exactly wavelength of the ABL (which might be top-secret), or create a multi-spectral mirror. And as was stated, one mirror cannot reflect all spectra equally.
So, will this technology make the fighter jet obsolete? I mean, you can't very well out-maneuver a laser.
No, for two reasons. The fighter goes further, faster. Even though the ABL has a long firing range, it can't match an F-15 running at Mach 2 for 30 minutes before engaging the target.
The second reason is a legal one: The US has signed a treaty forbidding targeting humans (or crewed vehicles) with a laser.
If that treaty were modified, then the ABL would compete with not fighters so much as ground attack craft like the AC-130 (or maybe even A-10). After all, the US currently has little need for fighter jets- it's exceedingly rare that they ever get an enemy plane to fight. Most "fighers" active today are actually playing a bomber role, ferrying JDAMS out over the target.
So while there are no enemy planes, the US military faces plenty of ground-based targets; individuals walking around with AK-47s and IEDs, for example. Incinerating those guys with a flying laser is quite a plausible idea.
Secondly, it's mounted in the nose, and so only has a forward firing arc.
If there's one thing you can say about lasers, it's that they're easy to bend.
If there was any desire to give the ABL a rear-facing turret, it would be a minor alteration. Just pop in two mirrors to angle the beam out to the rear, and there you go.
But, since the ABL is only meant for offense and not defense, it only needs to aim forward. There is no incentive to add weight to the airframe with another turret.
Has anyone even noticed the glaring mistake in the Slashdot reporting here?
First, it's not Slashdot reporting. The only mention of "Gates" in the summary is in a sentence lifted from Reuters.
Second, it doesn't claim Gates wrote anything- only that he recieved a message. The sentence in question: "'There is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system [as in not Windows],' he [a MS exec] wrote Gates.".
That simply says that a nameless MS exec wrote something TO Gates. Prehaps the use of the passive voice confused you, as it places the subject and object in the reverse order of active voice (which is why English teachers discourage it)
I admit I am not familiar with the details of this problem, so I may be wrong.
There's actually two separate approaches to DOSing a freenet-like system. One is to poison it with files that appear to be desirable, but are intentionally broken. The second is to simply overload it with worthless files that are both provided and requested by RIAA agents.
If someone wants to pump freenet full of space-wasting junk, there's little way to prevent that without breaking anonminity. And since freenet imposes such an overhead, the bandwidth costs for running the attack will be trivial compared with the burden placed on freenet node operators.
But can't be the "identity" of the file itself, eg. its SHA256 hash, used to authenticate it itself?
That just shifts the target. Now the FBI can pursue whoever is distributing those hashes. There must be a trusted, known-group to supply the hashes (or else they can be spoofed, and we're back to poisoning). But if he's trusted, then he's not really anonymous, and thus is vulnerable to arrest.
Maybe the way it could work is with public-key signing, so the trusted SHA256 distributor can't be spoofed by RIAA poisoners. The hashes themselves would have to go out over freenet, to protect him from detection via back-tracking. But I'm still not sure that the FBI couldn't gradually trace those messages back to the source (particularlly if they run their own instrumented freenet nodes)
The need could be the desire to help the Chinese.
Then again, I've never much understood the "Chinese dissident" justification for freenet. It's not as if freenet traffic is invisible; the ISP can easily recognize freenet, even if the contents can't be read. So I don't see why China wouldn't just arrest anyone running freenet on suspicion of insurrection. (Or for a more gentle approach, simply drop freenet-messages at the ISP)
(Yes, I know that many Chinese citizens connect to dial-up over international telephone, which means no government-controlled ISP can inspect their traffic. But if you're doing that, you don't need freenet too much- a simple encrypted http is enough)
but no spare change left over to pick up a few Stinger missiles.
Stingers are ineffective against a 747. Primarily because they can't reach high enough, and are easily distracted by flares. Additionally, a single Stinger hit won't even bring down a 747! It'll only take out one engine (although that's enough to make the laser inaccurate).
The preferred munition to take out a 747 would be the SA-2, from the 1960s USSR. The only problem there is that the laser might actually be able to take down the SAM in self-defense (depending on how the field-of-fire extends)
It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far.
Yes, it is versatile. If there are no missiles to shoot, the laser can work even better for destroying occupied aircraft or enemy ground targets.
That's the secret motivation to develop the system- to have an instant-response pinpoint killer soaring over a battlefield. However, due to a treaty prohibiting the use of lasers against people, the US can't acknowledge these alternative uses yet.
A few tens of millions of dollars could allow the installation of radiation detectors for every point of entry for Manhattan (it's sometimes good to be an island) and most of New York City.
That's already underway. Even now, random New Yorkers are interrogated by agents whose radiation detectors were triggers by the afterglow of a cardiac stress test.
However, I'm pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of such systems.
Manhattan is an island, but Washington DC isn't.
Prospective terrorists can ship innocent radioactive materials and observe the police response, so they can rehearse their attack to evade it.
Lead is inexpensive. Knowing that the detectors exist, the bomb can be encased in a nice thick box for transport. The terrorists can get their own radiation detectors and practice on the package until it's sure that nothing is leaking out.
From New Jersey, you can launch bombs into Manhattan with a simple mortar. The weapon can be constructed in-place from ordinary steel pipe. (The launch shock might damage an atomic detonator, but firing 20+ "dirty" bombs would still make an effective assault, and require less technical expertise too)
I'd say that's reasonable grounds to assume that it has their official sanction and has been pretty thoroughly reviewed.
I won't believe it until it's at least internally consistent. And as I've already shown, its example doesn't even make sense according to its own rule. "Members of an organization can use it, but contractors can't"- but what if the contractors are members?
Both of these support the concept of a contractor as an outside entity hired for a specific job, usually for a limited time frame.
Wrong. You're making up words. Nowhere in those listed definitions was there anything like "limited time" or "outside entity". As you specifically quoted, it said "one of the parties to a bargain". That definition is so broad that it applies to the ordinary long-term employees of any normal corporation! Even active-duty military meet that definition (the oath of service is a "covenant")
However, you could only use the software for purposes related to the organization.
Again, you're pulling words out of thin air. Nothing in the license (or even the no-legal-standing FAQ) suggests that. You apparently invented that idea because it sounds like a reasonable restriction. It's wrong, of course; even for commericial software. There's nothing illegal about an employee at lunch-break using a corporate-licensed Microsoft Office to write a personal letter.
But if for the sake of argument that were true, the giant loophole still exists. Simply define the organization as a "Software of the year club" (analogous to "book of the month") and then any use of the software is covered.
That, however, will soon cease as control and maintenance of our network is being turned over to EDS via the vaunted NMCI contract.
Oh really? But NMCI will change everything to Microsoft Windows, where Perl will do no good. You should get over to ONR or NRL, where retaining a mediorce C/C++ programmer from a defense contractor runs to nearly $250,000 per year.
Poisoning attacks should have a technical solution.
I don't see how. The only poisoning-prevention techniques I've heard of will also remove anonyminity.
runs a Freenet node aimed solely for injecting "banned" information for Chinese dissidents.
The effectiveness of Freenet depends upon intermediate nodes voluntarily redistributing other people's data without any knowledge of what's inside (or even the ability to know). So no Freenet user can convincingly claim that his node serves only one purpose- because by design, he can't see all the traffic.
Furthermore, dissident propaganda is only illegal inside China, so he'd have no real need to run such a node inside FBI jurisdiction.
At least I read it! You give no indication of having read GPL section 6, which clearly states that if you copy programs under the GPL, you cannot forbid the recipient from redistribution:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
That paragraph directly refutes your claim that an employer can prohibit his staff from redistributing GPL software.
There are networks with anonymization of endpoints. Freenet is one of them.
And it's painfully slow and inefficient (because anonymity creates overhead). You'll notice that warez groups don't use Freenet much today, even though they have a need for secrecy- because it's too inconvenient.
Freenet is also hugely vulnerable to "poisoning" attacks, where a hacker (employed by the RIAA prehaps) can DOS the system... anonymously and unstoppably.
However, if there WERE some technical improvements so that freenet was a practical tool for warez groups, then the likely result would be an RIAA/MPAA/BSA/FBI/DHS combined lawsuit to get freenet declared as a "protection circumvention device", illegal under the DMCA.
Then they could start arresting anyone who ran freenet, without needing to decrypt anything.
But, they did authorize you. The text of the GPL (which by law accompanies each copy they make) allows you (and in fact any 3rd party) to freely redistribute it.
Copying a GPLed program for someone constitutes specific permission to redistribute! If the copier attempts to rescind that permission by specific directions to the contary, then he has broken the GPL and no longer is allowed to provide you a copy at all.
First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.
They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours.
I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.
I also might grant that answer some credibility if it actually tried to explain the reasoning behind its position, instead of just tossing it out there unsupported.
If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."
No it isn't. But the definition of "organization" is the one that actually matters here. And the word "organization" has a very broad meaning. Almost any group of people qualifies as an organization. For example, can you deny that the previously mentioned Unitied Space Alliance is an organization? They sure act organized! But look at the membership: all contractors, who keep wandering off-site and back.
I should note that corporations are just one kind of organization. The legal boundary to becoming a corporation is higher than for forming an organization, but it's easily met with a few $100 in fees. Other kinds of organizations include schools, clubs, associations, and even countries.
However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.
If you give them a copy at all, for any reason, and they carry it 2 meters away, that's distribution.
But let's suppose for a minute that you were right; that one programmer in an organization can modify a GPL program for use by all the other members, and that the leader of the group can order them not to share it with outsiders.
If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.
"Distribution for internal use only" would be a fatal loophole in the GPL- if it actually worked.
Check my profile.
C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.
First off, you are misreading most of what I've said. My attacks are primarily against the claim that XML is an open file format, which is not necessarily the case.
Yes, it is possible for an XML format to be opened, if specifications for the data is published. But that's no different from how the author of any pure binary format could choose to publish a spec. Ergo, XML does nothing to either increase or decrease the openness of the format- it all hinges on the availability of external documentation.
PNG: binary and open. SVG: XML and open. DOC: binary and closed MS XML DOC: XML and closed until the spec is finally published.
No, you are either purposefully misunderstanding the definition of "parse" or you're just too ignorant to understand.
I don't obsessively follow Microsoft's every little move, so I could potentially be ignorant of one of their actions. However one place where I can't POSSIBLY be wrong is the definition of "parse". It has a specific meaning that many other posters have supported me on. Since you didn't believe the definition printed in your own dictionary, I doubt I can convince you of the truth. The best I can suggest is to hunt down a linguist or Computer Science professor and ask for an explanation. A textbook on XML might also help you: try looking up "DOM Parser" in the index.
Again, the specifications for Office documents saved in XML format are open to everyone.
This brings us back to an error in your original post, which I didn't point out at that time. (So everything you said since then comes crashing down, house-of-cards la-de-da)
Microsoft did adopt an open file format: XML. However, it is not available in any Office suite except the uber-expensive Professional version.
They "adopted" it, but only in some special versions? If it's just a nonstandard option, it means they didn't really adopt it at all, any more than StarOffice has adopted the Microsoft Word 95 format.
Microsoft's reason for doing this is to allow third-party document management applications to seamlessly integrate with Office documents.
That's completely impossible if the average version of MS Office can't even use the XML formats.
If you have such an XML document, and you have the specifications for what each tag means and how the data is arranged, you can correctly interpret the file
Ok, you got me. I don't re-read Microsoft.com each week, so I was unaware that those specifications had been published FOUR DAYS AGO. And yet, that still doesn't damage my central point: that XML is not an open format.
Microsoft could've just as easily published the specifications for their binary files. Whether or not they're using XML is technically irrelevant to openness.
What you're missing here is this "trade-secret book" is, in fact, available to anyone.
The book isn't a trade-secret. Instead, it's a patent. So although anyone might be able to read it, you can only make use of that information with Microsoft's permission (which they can withdraw at will). To do otherwise is to break the law.
john law needs a supercomputer and a lot of time to break even 128-bit encryption.
Nope. He just needs a $32 keystroke-logger. Encryption is only as good as the weakest link. From the FBI's perspective, the physical hardware at each end is the weak spot. Planting bugs in apartments while the suspect is at school is what they live for!
Sure...but how are they going to get a warrant to walk into your house if all your connections are encrypted?
Because an undercover agent downloaded a program from you?
The argument that "pirates" (software copyright infringment networks) can just turn to encryption to protect themselves from the police doesn't hold up.
The whole effectiveness of those groups comes from the fact that millions of random, anonymous people wind up downloading the cracked programs.
If the warez groups become marginalized into clumps of 10-50 people who totally trust each other, then they're effectively defeated. Because if they're not releasing to the public at large, then software publishers don't really mind. And if they are releasing to the public, then encryption can't save them.
If I can't access my money, I consider that terrorism. If a bank can't contact its servers, it may as well have been blown up, in this day and age.
You must scare easily! Do truely experience overwhelming dread every night when the banks close?
I don't recall any terrorism in the US last year
But as you argued above, every single financial crime- theft, fraud, vandalism- is terrorism. After all, each of them stops someone from accessing his money!
What else costs people more than grade 11 students passing around $4000 copies of 3D Studio in hallways over and over again, let alone on the internet? The fact is that this is serious, hardcore, organized crime.
Oh yes he can. The USA has a "virtual" complusory licensing rule for "covering" songs. Due to the oligopoly on music publishing, there is one company controlling rights to basically any song.
Essentially, he doesn't need your permission, but he does need to pay you. (And no, you can't set the price)
In autoracing, they call this drafting. You hang out behind the race leader, letting him burn up his fuel from wind resistance.
Um, no, that's not how drafting works. The following car isn't getting a free ride: he's actually boosting the speed of the leader!
Drafting helps both cars drive faster. Sure, the chasing car has better mileage, but races aren't decided by who runs out of fuel 200 yards earlier. The follower pays for it with the penalty that he's not in front, which is obviously rather important.
Deciding when to start and stop drafting is one of the crucial skills of a top driver.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd *love* to see a nice, step by step explination as to how to mod my PS2,
Web search for "thebroken", an amateur "TV" show devoted to hacking. The episodes are downloadable. On one show, they walk through installing a mod chip for each of the 3 videogame consoles.
I guess, because the beam is not focused there ?
Um, the whole point of lasers is that the beam-path is parellel: there is no specific point of focusing. The beam impacts as strongly to the aiming mirror as it does to the actual target. (Stronger really, because the target is protected by atmospheric attenuation)
The reason the ABL's aiming mirror survives is that it's small, flat, and protected. It's aerodynamically curved, it's not large enough to surround a whole missile, and it's not exposed to air blowing by at 700m/s.
Also, the aiming mirror needs to reflect only one particular wavelength of light that is exactly known. Whereas the builder of defenive mirrors on the target won't know precisely what kind of beam will hit it.
why don't the aiming mirrors in the 747 overheat?
A key phrase is "all possible wavelength". The ABL laser uses one precise wavelength, which the designers took into account when selecting it's mirror.
To mirror-coat a missile for protection, you'd either need to know the exactly wavelength of the ABL (which might be top-secret), or create a multi-spectral mirror. And as was stated, one mirror cannot reflect all spectra equally.
So, will this technology make the fighter jet obsolete? I mean, you can't very well out-maneuver a laser.
No, for two reasons. The fighter goes further, faster. Even though the ABL has a long firing range, it can't match an F-15 running at Mach 2 for 30 minutes before engaging the target.
The second reason is a legal one: The US has signed a treaty forbidding targeting humans (or crewed vehicles) with a laser.
If that treaty were modified, then the ABL would compete with not fighters so much as ground attack craft like the AC-130 (or maybe even A-10). After all, the US currently has little need for fighter jets- it's exceedingly rare that they ever get an enemy plane to fight. Most "fighers" active today are actually playing a bomber role, ferrying JDAMS out over the target.
So while there are no enemy planes, the US military faces plenty of ground-based targets; individuals walking around with AK-47s and IEDs, for example. Incinerating those guys with a flying laser is quite a plausible idea.
Secondly, it's mounted in the nose, and so only has a forward firing arc.
If there's one thing you can say about lasers, it's that they're easy to bend.
If there was any desire to give the ABL a rear-facing turret, it would be a minor alteration. Just pop in two mirrors to angle the beam out to the rear, and there you go.
But, since the ABL is only meant for offense and not defense, it only needs to aim forward. There is no incentive to add weight to the airframe with another turret.
I am one (although I find the term "Brit" offensive, so please stop using it - the word is Briton, plural British)
It's an abbreviation, live with it. Dropping off the end of a word is a sign of laziness, not hate.
Has anyone even noticed the glaring mistake in the Slashdot reporting here?
First, it's not Slashdot reporting. The only mention of "Gates" in the summary is in a sentence lifted from Reuters.
Second, it doesn't claim Gates wrote anything- only that he recieved a message. The sentence in question: "'There is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system [as in not Windows],' he [a MS exec] wrote Gates.".
That simply says that a nameless MS exec wrote something TO Gates. Prehaps the use of the passive voice confused you, as it places the subject and object in the reverse order of active voice (which is why English teachers discourage it)
I admit I am not familiar with the details of this problem, so I may be wrong.
There's actually two separate approaches to DOSing a freenet-like system. One is to poison it with files that appear to be desirable, but are intentionally broken. The second is to simply overload it with worthless files that are both provided and requested by RIAA agents.
If someone wants to pump freenet full of space-wasting junk, there's little way to prevent that without breaking anonminity. And since freenet imposes such an overhead, the bandwidth costs for running the attack will be trivial compared with the burden placed on freenet node operators.
But can't be the "identity" of the file itself, eg. its SHA256 hash, used to authenticate it itself?
That just shifts the target. Now the FBI can pursue whoever is distributing those hashes. There must be a trusted, known-group to supply the hashes (or else they can be spoofed, and we're back to poisoning). But if he's trusted, then he's not really anonymous, and thus is vulnerable to arrest.
Maybe the way it could work is with public-key signing, so the trusted SHA256 distributor can't be spoofed by RIAA poisoners. The hashes themselves would have to go out over freenet, to protect him from detection via back-tracking. But I'm still not sure that the FBI couldn't gradually trace those messages back to the source (particularlly if they run their own instrumented freenet nodes)
The need could be the desire to help the Chinese.
Then again, I've never much understood the "Chinese dissident" justification for freenet. It's not as if freenet traffic is invisible; the ISP can easily recognize freenet, even if the contents can't be read. So I don't see why China wouldn't just arrest anyone running freenet on suspicion of insurrection. (Or for a more gentle approach, simply drop freenet-messages at the ISP)
(Yes, I know that many Chinese citizens connect to dial-up over international telephone, which means no government-controlled ISP can inspect their traffic. But if you're doing that, you don't need freenet too much- a simple encrypted http is enough)
but no spare change left over to pick up a few Stinger missiles.
Stingers are ineffective against a 747. Primarily because they can't reach high enough, and are easily distracted by flares. Additionally, a single Stinger hit won't even bring down a 747! It'll only take out one engine (although that's enough to make the laser inaccurate).
The preferred munition to take out a 747 would be the SA-2, from the 1960s USSR. The only problem there is that the laser might actually be able to take down the SAM in self-defense (depending on how the field-of-fire extends)
It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far.
Yes, it is versatile. If there are no missiles to shoot, the laser can work even better for destroying occupied aircraft or enemy ground targets.
That's the secret motivation to develop the system- to have an instant-response pinpoint killer soaring over a battlefield. However, due to a treaty prohibiting the use of lasers against people, the US can't acknowledge these alternative uses yet.
That's already underway. Even now, random New Yorkers are interrogated by agents whose radiation detectors were triggers by the afterglow of a cardiac stress test.
However, I'm pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of such systems.
I'd say that's reasonable grounds to assume that it has their official sanction and has been pretty thoroughly reviewed.
I won't believe it until it's at least internally consistent. And as I've already shown, its example doesn't even make sense according to its own rule. "Members of an organization can use it, but contractors can't"- but what if the contractors are members?
Both of these support the concept of a contractor as an outside entity hired for a specific job, usually for a limited time frame.
Wrong. You're making up words. Nowhere in those listed definitions was there anything like "limited time" or "outside entity". As you specifically quoted, it said "one of the parties to a bargain". That definition is so broad that it applies to the ordinary long-term employees of any normal corporation! Even active-duty military meet that definition (the oath of service is a "covenant")
However, you could only use the software for purposes related to the organization.
Again, you're pulling words out of thin air. Nothing in the license (or even the no-legal-standing FAQ) suggests that. You apparently invented that idea because it sounds like a reasonable restriction. It's wrong, of course; even for commericial software. There's nothing illegal about an employee at lunch-break using a corporate-licensed Microsoft Office to write a personal letter.
But if for the sake of argument that were true, the giant loophole still exists. Simply define the organization as a "Software of the year club" (analogous to "book of the month") and then any use of the software is covered.
That, however, will soon cease as control and maintenance of our network is being turned over to EDS via the vaunted NMCI contract.
Oh really? But NMCI will change everything to Microsoft Windows, where Perl will do no good. You should get over to ONR or NRL, where retaining a mediorce C/C++ programmer from a defense contractor runs to nearly $250,000 per year.
The last time they chose appeasement, in 1938, it didn't work out so well.
"Last time they chose appeasement"... are you really sure about that? How do you know?
Appeasement is the sort of thing that only really gets noticed when it fails.
Any lottery winners out there wanna have some fun with that money?
Of all the stupid ways you could waste a lottery...
Poisoning attacks should have a technical solution.
I don't see how. The only poisoning-prevention techniques I've heard of will also remove anonyminity.
runs a Freenet node aimed solely for injecting "banned" information for Chinese dissidents.
The effectiveness of Freenet depends upon intermediate nodes voluntarily redistributing other people's data without any knowledge of what's inside (or even the ability to know). So no Freenet user can convincingly claim that his node serves only one purpose- because by design, he can't see all the traffic.
Furthermore, dissident propaganda is only illegal inside China, so he'd have no real need to run such a node inside FBI jurisdiction.
At least I read it! You give no indication of having read GPL section 6, which clearly states that if you copy programs under the GPL, you cannot forbid the recipient from redistribution:
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
That paragraph directly refutes your claim that an employer can prohibit his staff from redistributing GPL software.
There are networks with anonymization of endpoints. Freenet is one of them.
And it's painfully slow and inefficient (because anonymity creates overhead). You'll notice that warez groups don't use Freenet much today, even though they have a need for secrecy- because it's too inconvenient.
Freenet is also hugely vulnerable to "poisoning" attacks, where a hacker (employed by the RIAA prehaps) can DOS the system... anonymously and unstoppably.
However, if there WERE some technical improvements so that freenet was a practical tool for warez groups, then the likely result would be an RIAA/MPAA/BSA/FBI/DHS combined lawsuit to get freenet declared as a "protection circumvention device", illegal under the DMCA.
Then they could start arresting anyone who ran freenet, without needing to decrypt anything.
if my company had not authorized me to do so.
But, they did authorize you. The text of the GPL (which by law accompanies each copy they make) allows you (and in fact any 3rd party) to freely redistribute it.
Copying a GPLed program for someone constitutes specific permission to redistribute! If the copier attempts to rescind that permission by specific directions to the contary, then he has broken the GPL and no longer is allowed to provide you a copy at all.
First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.
They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours.
I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.
I also might grant that answer some credibility if it actually tried to explain the reasoning behind its position, instead of just tossing it out there unsupported.
If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."
No it isn't. But the definition of "organization" is the one that actually matters here. And the word "organization" has a very broad meaning. Almost any group of people qualifies as an organization. For example, can you deny that the previously mentioned
Unitied Space Alliance is an organization? They sure act organized! But look at the membership: all contractors, who keep wandering off-site and back.
I should note that corporations are just one kind of organization. The legal boundary to becoming a corporation is higher than for forming an organization, but it's easily met with a few $100 in fees. Other kinds of organizations include schools, clubs, associations, and even countries.
However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.
If you give them a copy at all, for any reason, and they carry it 2 meters away, that's distribution.
But let's suppose for a minute that you were right; that one programmer in an organization can modify a GPL program for use by all the other members, and that the leader of the group can order them not to share it with outsiders.
If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.
"Distribution for internal use only" would be a fatal loophole in the GPL- if it actually worked.
Check my profile.
C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.
First off, you are misreading most of what I've said. My attacks are primarily against the claim that XML is an open file format, which is not necessarily the case.
Yes, it is possible for an XML format to be opened, if specifications for the data is published. But that's no different from how the author of any pure binary format could choose to publish a spec. Ergo, XML does nothing to either increase or decrease the openness of the format- it all hinges on the availability of external documentation.
PNG: binary and open.
SVG: XML and open.
DOC: binary and closed
MS XML DOC: XML and closed until the spec is finally published.
No, you are either purposefully misunderstanding the definition of "parse" or you're just too ignorant to understand.
I don't obsessively follow Microsoft's every little move, so I could potentially be ignorant of one of their actions. However one place where I can't POSSIBLY be wrong is the definition of "parse". It has a specific meaning that many other posters have supported me on. Since you didn't believe the definition printed in your own dictionary, I doubt I can convince you of the truth. The best I can suggest is to hunt down a linguist or Computer Science professor and ask for an explanation. A textbook on XML might also help you: try looking up "DOM Parser" in the index.
Again, the specifications for Office documents saved in XML format are open to everyone.
This brings us back to an error in your original post, which I didn't point out at that time. (So everything you said since then comes crashing down, house-of-cards la-de-da)
Microsoft did adopt an open file format: XML. However, it is not available in any Office suite except the uber-expensive Professional version.
They "adopted" it, but only in some special versions? If it's just a nonstandard option, it means they didn't really adopt it at all, any more than StarOffice has adopted the Microsoft Word 95 format.
Microsoft's reason for doing this is to allow third-party document management applications to seamlessly integrate with Office documents.
That's completely impossible if the average version of MS Office can't even use the XML formats.
If you have such an XML document, and you have the specifications for what each tag means and how the data is arranged, you can correctly interpret the file
Ok, you got me. I don't re-read Microsoft.com each week, so I was unaware that those specifications had been published FOUR DAYS AGO. And yet, that still doesn't damage my central point: that XML is not an open format.
Microsoft could've just as easily published the specifications for their binary files. Whether or not they're using XML is technically irrelevant to openness.
What you're missing here is this "trade-secret book" is, in fact, available to anyone.
The book isn't a trade-secret. Instead, it's a patent. So although anyone might be able to read it, you can only make use of that information with Microsoft's permission (which they can withdraw at will). To do otherwise is to break the law.
It's ridiculous NOT rediculous !!
Bzzt! Sorry, you loose. Welcome to teh internet... spelling is a little different around here!
john law needs a supercomputer and a lot of time to break even 128-bit encryption.
Nope. He just needs a $32 keystroke-logger. Encryption is only as good as the weakest link. From the FBI's perspective, the physical hardware at each end is the weak spot. Planting bugs in apartments while the suspect is at school is what they live for!
Sure...but how are they going to get a warrant to walk into your house if all your connections are encrypted?
Because an undercover agent downloaded a program from you?
The argument that "pirates" (software copyright infringment networks) can just turn to encryption to protect themselves from the police doesn't hold up.
The whole effectiveness of those groups comes from the fact that millions of random, anonymous people wind up downloading the cracked programs.
If the warez groups become marginalized into clumps of 10-50 people who totally trust each other, then they're effectively defeated. Because if they're not releasing to the public at large, then software publishers don't really mind. And if they are releasing to the public, then encryption can't save them.
If I can't access my money, I consider that terrorism. If a bank can't contact its servers, it may as well have been blown up, in this day and age.
You must scare easily! Do truely experience overwhelming dread every night when the banks close?
I don't recall any terrorism in the US last year
But as you argued above, every single financial crime- theft, fraud, vandalism- is terrorism. After all, each of them stops someone from accessing his money!
What else costs people more than grade 11 students passing around $4000 copies of 3D Studio in hallways over and over again, let alone on the internet? The fact is that this is serious, hardcore, organized crime.
Oops, I guess I was trolled.
He can't copy it without your permission.
Oh yes he can. The USA has a "virtual" complusory licensing rule for "covering" songs. Due to the oligopoly on music publishing, there is one company controlling rights to basically any song.
Essentially, he doesn't need your permission, but he does need to pay you. (And no, you can't set the price)
In autoracing, they call this drafting. You hang out behind the race leader, letting him burn up his fuel from wind resistance.
Um, no, that's not how drafting works. The following car isn't getting a free ride: he's actually boosting the speed of the leader!
Drafting helps both cars drive faster. Sure, the chasing car has better mileage, but races aren't decided by who runs out of fuel 200 yards earlier. The follower pays for it with the penalty that he's not in front, which is obviously rather important.
Deciding when to start and stop drafting is one of the crucial skills of a top driver.