At this point it is the "copyright holders" who have the gold, and it is they who are making the rules.
Fortunately not. When a license says you can't copy stuff, or a storage medium is copy-protected, more people may pay up for an original. But at the same time, other people may get annoyed, and copy stuff precisely because it's forbidden. So you put something out, and it will be copied. Period.
Funny: the reverse is also true. You grant some rights that people otherwise wouldn't have (I'm talking GPL or Creative Commons here), on the condition that they obey some rules, and guess what: those rules get ignored too. For software, the BusyBox Hall of Shame is just one example.
The only thing licenses, copy-protections etc. do, is keep lawyers busy, and (somewhat) influence the economics involved. But no matter what rules copyright holders come up with, most people don't care, and these rules are ignored. Just check how few people actually read licenses.
With a gun you can break far greater laws than with emule.
Yes, one would expect a view like that from reasonable people. But you know, in the US, if you walk around pointing guns at people: business as usual. But if somebody drops his pants in the middle of the street, or worse, shares a movie over P2P, then everybody goes crazy.
Our energy requirements, as well as those of the rest of the world, are growing, and we should be leading the fucking way on the front of nuclear power, INCLUDING fusion, building new plants, and making a lot of investments in this area.
It's funny how often the energy production appears the sole focus of a discussion like this. There are 2 sides you know: the production side, and the consumption side.
IMHO The USA could do better by looking closer at the consumption side. Why? Because SAVING 1% of energy consumption has the same or better effect than adding 1% on the supply side. It also may be EASIER to do, and reduces pressure on the power grid. Just look at the economics: to get one 1% improvement, what costs you more: save 1%, or produce 1% extra? With oil prices going through the roof, I suspect that saving energy makes more economical sense than beefing up the supply side. If you factor in hidden costs of pollution and global warming, saving energy makes even more sense.
Many energy savings can be both significant and easy: isolate your home, use energy efficient lighting, replace that stupid SUV with a hybrid car, drive with 2 people from A to B instead of on your own, use public transport where possible, use natural gas instead of electricity for cooking and heating, use a water-saving (=heat-saving) shower head, etc. etc. All measures that don't affect your lifestyle much, but your energy consumption a lot.
Then there's the investment side. Suppose a power company can improve the efficiency/environmentals of a plant with an X money investment, while at the same time you have a very poor performing/polluting plant in another country. Why not make that X investment there? Same financial effort, much bigger gain. Politics can do a lot here in terms of worldwide technology and 'pollution quota' exchange programs.
Anyway, I think it's stupid that we're still operating scores of nuclear power plants around the world that AREN'T walk-away safe. Maybe these Chinese plants use new tech, but it's been known for a long time how you can build a nuclear plant that doesn't blow up if you walk out.
If you ask me (and i think you did) the power rating on power supplys useless. I have seen 300W power supplies (good ones) with better power output then cheap 400W.
In general, the best power suppy is one that matches the equipment it powers.
Take my own rig for example: The Athlon XP CPU's current is derived from the +5V line. Together with peripherals, that makes a big requirement on this line, but +12V supply isn't too critical. If CPU draws current from +12V line, things would the other way round. My PS is only 200 Watt, powering XP1800+ system. Way too small? Nope: CPU is lower-voltage type, ~50W peak rating, only 1 HDD, 1 optical drive, 1 memory module, passively cooled videocard. PS is good quality, and matches this setup well. Result: a rock-stable system. I would only consider a more powerful supply when adding extra harddisks or optical drives.
I remember a similar review, where conclusion after measuring and testing was, that the plain WEIGHT of a power supply was a better indicator than make or price (for similar wattages, that is). This because heavier resulted from thicker wires, larger cooling blocks, larger capacitors, etc., in short: heavier quality. Doesn't say everything, but a good first indicator if you're deciding between similar-looking used power supplies. Anyway, and serious tests should include stuff like efficiency, line- and load regulation, and any serious manufacturer will provide figures on those. Also don't forget fan noise.
The problem with above is that most systems aren't constants: peripherals are added, videocards upgraded and so on. My rule is to match peak consumption of components against max. ratings of the PSU, for individual lines (+5, +3.3, +12). Then the average current draw should be safe. Too bad you don't have accurate data on some components' power draw, like motherboard or videocard.
Then to say that there was huge support in the online community would have been more appropriate, don't you think?
With the internet as common as it is today, 'online community' and 'the public' aren't so different, you know. BTW: When was the last time you saw an online petition on ANY subject gather 380,000+ votes?
The IP monopoly protection racket over here as worked pretty well for us.
Let me guess: Working in the legal business, are you?
We're bigger, richer, and more powerful than Europe partly because Intellectual Property in all its forms is protected.
You must be confusing 'protection' with 'abuse'.
It's why Europe is so stagnant, and why America really the land of opportunity.
Look again. In economic sense, Europe isn't doing so bad compared to the US. Maybe the Euro-Dollar exchange rates over the last months could give you a clue?
To classify as a huge publice concerns would seem to be overstating somewhat.
OVERstating? See this anti software patents online petition. The counter currently stands at 381,846 people/organisations who thought it was important enough to sign their name in protest. There are some more (smaller) online petitions like this. I haven't yet seen ANY online petitions seeking support for software patents.
Then when Poland helped shoot down the proposed directive, a special "Thank you, Poland!" site was started. Last thing I heard, another 25,000 people bothered to put their names on that list.
So 'a huge public concern' is hardly an overstatement.
Too bad everything in this world ('net included) still seems focused on making money/selling things.
A non-commercial version of Google or exclude keywords doesn't fix that either: Even when you're not buying, commercial info can still be interesting. Like upcoming tech included in new products, or learning more about things you already have.
It's not bad that the bulk of search results are not on the first page. There is only 1 first page, and it's only so big, so it's logical that the rest is on other pages.
Just try reducing the internet to your 30 most popular sites. 99% of what you'd normally read, would be in there, right? Would the 'net still be useful then? Don't think so.
So what's the problem really? As long as you can still find content from other pages by refinining your search, or checking out 2nd-37th result page. When search results would be limited to just 1 page (for convenience sake, commercial interests or whatever), then I'd be worried, and turn to other search engines.
While that was nice, my favorite feature of EROS (besides the name) was the idea that instead of a filesystem a disk was simply non-volitile memory cache. That facilitated my next favorite idea, orthogonal persistance, the somewhat like a persistant software suspend. I'd be interested in finding out (while the home page does not say) if these were the shortcomings of EROS it was alluding to.
Probably: yes. My feeling is that orthogonal persistance and extreme reliability (2 goals of the EROS project) are conflicting goals.
Orthogonal persistance is very useful from a user point of view: you don't need to 'save' files, you don't need to 'close' apps, so noobs can't forget it. Application programmers don't need to worry about closing files, there's just a state of the app that's saved in regular intervals, transparently done by the OS.
But the other goal, extreme reliability, requires something else: extreme simplicity of some aspects/components of the OS. If you introduce too much complexity, the extreme reliability goes out the door.
My guess is that EROS has shown that you can't have both as a core feature, and that you are forced to choose: drop the extreme reliability, or move the persistance feature out of the core into another layer (like do it an application level). It seems that developers have chosen the latter, to preserve reliability as a core feature. IMO a good choice: persistance may be a nice thing to have, but no good to use it everywhere. The project history explains this some more.
I would like to think a "democracy" is a nation where its people would be willing to place their lives in danger to protect their freedoms. Robot armys would seem to me to be a tool for empire building, and of tyranny.
No, drones are just like any other weapon, something you can put between yourself (soldiers) and the enemy.
Compare air support: In a large scale battle, your ground troops might need air support to win on the ground. So before your groundtroops move ahead, you'd better make sure your planes control the skies first. That air support is like the topmost 'layer of armour' in your army.
Without airforce, it's down to tanks and artillery. Take those out, and it's down to machineguns and handgranades. And so on, till finally soldiers could be fighting hand-to-hand with bare hands or knives.
A war will likely end before your entire army gets to that stage, but you'd always have that as an option, when all else fails. Or, the other way round, like you always have the option of military/police force when negotiations fail.
If you have good reasons for fighting the war, then your soldiers (or even civilians?) should be prepared to continue the battle till that final man-to-man stage. If they aren't, you shouldn't be fighting the war at all.
Should I interpret this as "European Software Patents 'Not Dead Yet'"?
Better interpret this as "EU democracy and software patents mutually exclusive".
Meaning: If the EU still has a grain of democracy left, then software patents should be dead. Or, if software patents get passed somehow, EU democratic principles are proven dead.
Hmm concidering that they have proprietary software being commercially distributed, coupled up with Linux.. will they or won't they be bound by GPL to release the code for it?
With the number of open source-friendly folks on Slashdot, it amazes me how often this question turns up in comments. You'd think/. crowd knows what the GPL is, and that most readers would have some basic knowledge about the GPL (and thus, be able to answer above question for themselves).
Never read a single copy of the GPL ?!? Just trolling around? Too lazy to go to GNU.org, and check it out?
I for one, welcome our new liver-replacing overlords!
But seriously: give it some time, and you'd be a drunk, in need off a new liver. Translate: messed up your live, and in need of an expensive machine, a team of medical personnel, and lots of $$.
The hardest body part to replace if damaged, would be the brain I guess (embedded memories, brain cells not multiplying/growing much, killed by alcohol, and some minor problems like that).
So to stay on the safe side, I'll stick to enjoying a few drinks every now and then, but not too many. Some things are worth being careful with, like... your body.
Skype emphasizes that it will only incorporate such third party software or technology for the purpose of (a) adding new or additional functionality (..)
Well, that would cover addware or spyware; like it or not, one could just call it 'added functionality'.
Any and all other third party software or technology that may be distributed together with the Skype Software will be subject to you explicitly accepting a license agreement with that third party.
Sounds decent enough, but makes many -weak- assumptions:
That users actually read these licenses (they don't)
That users will decide 'No' if they don't like it (no they won't, they'll just click 'Ok' on any dialog encountered during install)
That company is honest, and will act according to the license conditions (maybe it will, maybe it won't, can you tell?)
That license read on website is same as the one included in the installer
That users will notice if license conditions are changed (probably not)
So basically, this is food for lawyers. Other than that, I'd put more faith in companies' reputation, previous track record, or some insight into why they distribute the software.
You mean because IPv6 increases the IP address space enough so that every single refrigerator, phone and toaster can have its own (public) IP# ?
Bullshit. There are many reasons to use NAT, saving IP addresses is only 1 of these. And AFAIK, there isn't a real shortage of IP addresses yet. If there is, it's because they're not distributed/used well, not because there aren't enough of them.
I believe the NAT traversal is done by routing via super-nodes which are not behind a NAT or firewall. Is this a valid assumption for the future? In other words, what if every host is behind a NAT or firewall
It looks like (I'm not sure) the Skype protocol routes voice data through non-firewalled nodes when at least one of the endpoints is firewalled. In theory, you don't need to do this. To establish a call, you may need a non-firewalled node if the node being called is behind NAT or firewall. Once contact is made, only one of both nodes must be non-firewalled to exchange data directly.
The only problem is when BOTH endpoints are firewalled. If one of these has control over the firewall (like when it's a software firewall running on the client's PC, or a router box in the home of the user), it can be adjusted to allow for the Skype client traffic -> problem solved.
Only when both endpoints are behind firewall or NAT, AND neither can adjust firewall settings, it's necessary to route voice traffic through other nodes. When properly encrypted, that's just a bandwidth issue. Quoting from the PDF: "Thus, the total uplink and downlink bandwidth used for voice traffic is 5 kilobytes/s. This bandwidth usage corresponds with the Skype claim of 3-16 kilobytes/s."
So bandwidth needed for voice traffic is low, and may decease as voice compression gets improved. A node on a fast link (like cable modems today) could route many calls, and only needs to route data for clients that are currently 'on the phone'. Specialized gateways to the POTS (classic telephone) will surely be set up in way that's easy for clients. With connection speeds upgraded all the time, and always some machines not firewalled or behind NAT, I don't see much of a problem here.
If you need more than a few hundred gigs, then you are a theif or a pervert..
You're so right, I must be both. Thanks for enlighting me. Screw Slashdot for the evening, back to pr0n surfing, much more fun than reading up on domain hijacks...
.. and belong behind bars.
Yup, but then you've got half the population behind bars. So you need the other half to guard them. Who's gonna feed everybody in that scenario? Or do some nanotech-science or writing/. comments on the side?
Just saw "Revenge of the nerds" on TV (I kid you not). Damn, that movie sucks!!!
In the end, visiting or maintaining a presence on the internet is a job, not just an adventure, which requires some effort by the user to protect themselves.
I read that as saying that every internet user has the responsibility to learn about how the internet works, what dangers are lurking, and what needs to be done to avoid those dangers.
WRONG!
That responsibility exists, but shouldn't necessarily be the user's responsibility. Just to use any piece of software, you don't have to know how it works. Not all users are also developers, you know.
By using network-enabled software like browsers, a user essentially trusts browser makers to manage the interface between the web and the user. And browser makers trust the operating system below it, to manage the interface between API's and the networking hardware. That trust includes an assumption of safety/reliability/integrity. The current state of software security tells me, that trust is often misplaced.
It's an endless battle of opinions, but IMO the #1 reason for having firewalls etc. is not functionality, but the fact that operating systems, networking software, browsers and so on, are BROKEN (unreliable, buggy, insecure). If they wouldn't be, there would be few reasons to put a firewall between a househould PC and the internet. Similar goes for virus scanners, anti-spyware, etc.
It may be a full time job to keep ordinary PC's secured & 100% functional, but don't assume that should be the user's job. I guess new developments like remotely managed, limited functionality PC's (see SimPC for example) could provide some relief here for many users.
"News for Nerds". Okay, I know there is considerable overlap between 'green tech' and/. subjects (and people interested in them), but 1 or 2 of these stories a day is enough, don't you think? Nerd != environmentalist (would be nice, though).
I've never been afraid of any type of weapon, (..)
Sure sounds like you are, from what you say in the rest of your post!
You should read my comment more carefully. But okay, you ask for it, I'll try and downsize some of your arguments:
So should we ban these items?
Not at all. My home is full of dangerous items. The only real violent situation I ever experienced, enabled me to put some of these items (a door, some furniture) between the bastard and myself, so that he only managed to damage furniture. Better for me, better for him. A gun on either side would have done more damage, with longer lasting consequences. In my case, only goods and ego's were damaged. Oh BTW: the guy involved received a jail sentence, and I had a nice weekend right after the event, and cleaned up the mess the day after. So how's that for smart?
How about the situation where you turn your car down the wrong dead-end street and find yourself surrounded by thugs with pipes and knives?
You must have driven into a really bad neighbourhood. Not smart! Or you managed to piss off a whole bunch of thugs enough to make them come after you, armed with pipes and knives. What stupid things did you do to make them so angry? Oh yeah, you're driving in a car? So you can back up out of that street, right? Or explain to me how a thug with a pipe is going to stop you from driving over him. Don't need a gun here, a car will do. BTW: If they're smart thugs, they'll jump aside at the last moment, you're free to drive out, and nobody gets hurt. What, you drive a car that doesn't have a reverse gear? That is stupid!
Or just one mugger who is twice as strong as you?
Mugger: just wants your money, I assume? So observe his appearance, toss your wallet out, provide police with a detailed description, you're down a bit of cash and replaceable plastic, and maybe police will grab him quickly and again, no-one gets hurt (well, maybe the mugger, after resisting arrest). BTW: shoot/kill a mugger in self-defense, and you have to live with the fact that you killed a man, just to stop him from taking your wallet. A high price I'd say. I'll take the 'lose wallet' option here anytime.
That's okay, because in your fantasy world we are safe because there are NO GUNS (..) Which makes you feel less safe than having cops without guns (see above).
Bullshit. I have 0 problems with gun ownership, it's just that having a gun wouldn't make me feel safe/safer. Nor am I scared of cops with guns. Cops don't make it a habit of shooting at reasonable behaving people, in my country they're only allowed to use their gun in very strict circumstances, and rarely do so. Almost all situations can be handled without the use of deadly force (as it should be).
You are assuming that all robbers are professionals.
I'll give you that one. But then again, the bad guy usually has the element of surprise (a big advantage, you know) on his side. And maybe used to a violent situation, unlike the victim.
By the way - anyone can twist statistics any way they want.
Sure, you have some kids, and a gun in your home? Than it's waaay more likely that some innocent person will be hurt, than prevented from being hurt as a result. All the statistics-twisting you like, doesn't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately not. When a license says you can't copy stuff, or a storage medium is copy-protected, more people may pay up for an original. But at the same time, other people may get annoyed, and copy stuff precisely because it's forbidden. So you put something out, and it will be copied. Period.
Funny: the reverse is also true. You grant some rights that people otherwise wouldn't have (I'm talking GPL or Creative Commons here), on the condition that they obey some rules, and guess what: those rules get ignored too. For software, the BusyBox Hall of Shame is just one example.
The only thing licenses, copy-protections etc. do, is keep lawyers busy, and (somewhat) influence the economics involved. But no matter what rules copyright holders come up with, most people don't care, and these rules are ignored. Just check how few people actually read licenses.
Yes, one would expect a view like that from reasonable people. But you know, in the US, if you walk around pointing guns at people: business as usual. But if somebody drops his pants in the middle of the street, or worse, shares a movie over P2P, then everybody goes crazy.
Weird folks, those Americans.
It's funny how often the energy production appears the sole focus of a discussion like this. There are 2 sides you know: the production side, and the consumption side.
IMHO The USA could do better by looking closer at the consumption side. Why? Because SAVING 1% of energy consumption has the same or better effect than adding 1% on the supply side. It also may be EASIER to do, and reduces pressure on the power grid. Just look at the economics: to get one 1% improvement, what costs you more: save 1%, or produce 1% extra? With oil prices going through the roof, I suspect that saving energy makes more economical sense than beefing up the supply side. If you factor in hidden costs of pollution and global warming, saving energy makes even more sense.
Many energy savings can be both significant and easy: isolate your home, use energy efficient lighting, replace that stupid SUV with a hybrid car, drive with 2 people from A to B instead of on your own, use public transport where possible, use natural gas instead of electricity for cooking and heating, use a water-saving (=heat-saving) shower head, etc. etc. All measures that don't affect your lifestyle much, but your energy consumption a lot.
Then there's the investment side. Suppose a power company can improve the efficiency/environmentals of a plant with an X money investment, while at the same time you have a very poor performing/polluting plant in another country. Why not make that X investment there? Same financial effort, much bigger gain. Politics can do a lot here in terms of worldwide technology and 'pollution quota' exchange programs.
Anyway, I think it's stupid that we're still operating scores of nuclear power plants around the world that AREN'T walk-away safe. Maybe these Chinese plants use new tech, but it's been known for a long time how you can build a nuclear plant that doesn't blow up if you walk out.
Sure, picture tube built in. Very portable, only 8 kilograms, and a couple of cubic feet in size. That makes sense.
In general, the best power suppy is one that matches the equipment it powers.
Take my own rig for example: The Athlon XP CPU's current is derived from the +5V line. Together with peripherals, that makes a big requirement on this line, but +12V supply isn't too critical. If CPU draws current from +12V line, things would the other way round. My PS is only 200 Watt, powering XP1800+ system. Way too small? Nope: CPU is lower-voltage type, ~50W peak rating, only 1 HDD, 1 optical drive, 1 memory module, passively cooled videocard. PS is good quality, and matches this setup well. Result: a rock-stable system. I would only consider a more powerful supply when adding extra harddisks or optical drives.
I remember a similar review, where conclusion after measuring and testing was, that the plain WEIGHT of a power supply was a better indicator than make or price (for similar wattages, that is). This because heavier resulted from thicker wires, larger cooling blocks, larger capacitors, etc., in short: heavier quality. Doesn't say everything, but a good first indicator if you're deciding between similar-looking used power supplies. Anyway, and serious tests should include stuff like efficiency, line- and load regulation, and any serious manufacturer will provide figures on those. Also don't forget fan noise.
The problem with above is that most systems aren't constants: peripherals are added, videocards upgraded and so on. My rule is to match peak consumption of components against max. ratings of the PSU, for individual lines (+5, +3.3, +12). Then the average current draw should be safe. Too bad you don't have accurate data on some components' power draw, like motherboard or videocard.
With the internet as common as it is today, 'online community' and 'the public' aren't so different, you know. BTW: When was the last time you saw an online petition on ANY subject gather 380,000+ votes?
Let me guess: Working in the legal business, are you?
We're bigger, richer, and more powerful than Europe partly because Intellectual Property in all its forms is protected.
You must be confusing 'protection' with 'abuse'.
It's why Europe is so stagnant, and why America really the land of opportunity.
Look again. In economic sense, Europe isn't doing so bad compared to the US. Maybe the Euro-Dollar exchange rates over the last months could give you a clue?
OVERstating? See this anti software patents online petition. The counter currently stands at 381,846 people/organisations who thought it was important enough to sign their name in protest. There are some more (smaller) online petitions like this. I haven't yet seen ANY online petitions seeking support for software patents.
Then when Poland helped shoot down the proposed directive, a special "Thank you, Poland!" site was started. Last thing I heard, another 25,000 people bothered to put their names on that list.
So 'a huge public concern' is hardly an overstatement.
Easy: just use Photoshop.
A non-commercial version of Google or exclude keywords doesn't fix that either: Even when you're not buying, commercial info can still be interesting. Like upcoming tech included in new products, or learning more about things you already have.
It's not bad that the bulk of search results are not on the first page. There is only 1 first page, and it's only so big, so it's logical that the rest is on other pages.
Just try reducing the internet to your 30 most popular sites. 99% of what you'd normally read, would be in there, right? Would the 'net still be useful then? Don't think so.
So what's the problem really? As long as you can still find content from other pages by refinining your search, or checking out 2nd-37th result page. When search results would be limited to just 1 page (for convenience sake, commercial interests or whatever), then I'd be worried, and turn to other search engines.
Since when do patents include inventions? I always believed patents were describing old stuff, and are meant to provide lawyers with jobs.
Probably: yes. My feeling is that orthogonal persistance and extreme reliability (2 goals of the EROS project) are conflicting goals.
Orthogonal persistance is very useful from a user point of view: you don't need to 'save' files, you don't need to 'close' apps, so noobs can't forget it. Application programmers don't need to worry about closing files, there's just a state of the app that's saved in regular intervals, transparently done by the OS.
But the other goal, extreme reliability, requires something else: extreme simplicity of some aspects/components of the OS. If you introduce too much complexity, the extreme reliability goes out the door.
My guess is that EROS has shown that you can't have both as a core feature, and that you are forced to choose: drop the extreme reliability, or move the persistance feature out of the core into another layer (like do it an application level). It seems that developers have chosen the latter, to preserve reliability as a core feature. IMO a good choice: persistance may be a nice thing to have, but no good to use it everywhere. The project history explains this some more.
Using Red Hat for embedding in a robot application? Sounds like an awful poor choice of tools, if you ask me.
No, drones are just like any other weapon, something you can put between yourself (soldiers) and the enemy.
Compare air support: In a large scale battle, your ground troops might need air support to win on the ground. So before your groundtroops move ahead, you'd better make sure your planes control the skies first. That air support is like the topmost 'layer of armour' in your army.
Without airforce, it's down to tanks and artillery. Take those out, and it's down to machineguns and handgranades. And so on, till finally soldiers could be fighting hand-to-hand with bare hands or knives.
A war will likely end before your entire army gets to that stage, but you'd always have that as an option, when all else fails. Or, the other way round, like you always have the option of military/police force when negotiations fail.
If you have good reasons for fighting the war, then your soldiers (or even civilians?) should be prepared to continue the battle till that final man-to-man stage. If they aren't, you shouldn't be fighting the war at all.
Better interpret this as "EU democracy and software patents mutually exclusive".
Meaning: If the EU still has a grain of democracy left, then software patents should be dead. Or, if software patents get passed somehow, EU democratic principles are proven dead.
Either way, Netcraft will confirm it.
With the number of open source-friendly folks on Slashdot, it amazes me how often this question turns up in comments. You'd think /. crowd knows what the GPL is, and that most readers would have some basic knowledge about the GPL (and thus, be able to answer above question for themselves).
Never read a single copy of the GPL ?!? Just trolling around? Too lazy to go to GNU.org, and check it out?
But seriously: give it some time, and you'd be a drunk, in need off a new liver. Translate: messed up your live, and in need of an expensive machine, a team of medical personnel, and lots of $$.
The hardest body part to replace if damaged, would be the brain I guess (embedded memories, brain cells not multiplying/growing much, killed by alcohol, and some minor problems like that).
So to stay on the safe side, I'll stick to enjoying a few drinks every now and then, but not too many. Some things are worth being careful with, like... your body.
Well, that would cover addware or spyware; like it or not, one could just call it 'added functionality'.
Any and all other third party software or technology that may be distributed together with the Skype Software will be subject to you explicitly accepting a license agreement with that third party.
Sounds decent enough, but makes many -weak- assumptions:
So basically, this is food for lawyers. Other than that, I'd put more faith in companies' reputation, previous track record, or some insight into why they distribute the software.
You mean because IPv6 increases the IP address space enough so that every single refrigerator, phone and toaster can have its own (public) IP# ?
Bullshit. There are many reasons to use NAT, saving IP addresses is only 1 of these. And AFAIK, there isn't a real shortage of IP addresses yet. If there is, it's because they're not distributed/used well, not because there aren't enough of them.
It looks like (I'm not sure) the Skype protocol routes voice data through non-firewalled nodes when at least one of the endpoints is firewalled. In theory, you don't need to do this. To establish a call, you may need a non-firewalled node if the node being called is behind NAT or firewall. Once contact is made, only one of both nodes must be non-firewalled to exchange data directly.
The only problem is when BOTH endpoints are firewalled. If one of these has control over the firewall (like when it's a software firewall running on the client's PC, or a router box in the home of the user), it can be adjusted to allow for the Skype client traffic -> problem solved.
Only when both endpoints are behind firewall or NAT, AND neither can adjust firewall settings, it's necessary to route voice traffic through other nodes. When properly encrypted, that's just a bandwidth issue. Quoting from the PDF: "Thus, the total uplink and downlink bandwidth used for voice traffic is 5 kilobytes/s. This bandwidth usage corresponds with the Skype claim of 3-16 kilobytes/s."
So bandwidth needed for voice traffic is low, and may decease as voice compression gets improved. A node on a fast link (like cable modems today) could route many calls, and only needs to route data for clients that are currently 'on the phone'. Specialized gateways to the POTS (classic telephone) will surely be set up in way that's easy for clients. With connection speeds upgraded all the time, and always some machines not firewalled or behind NAT, I don't see much of a problem here.
A piece of software that can be multiplied infinitely, running 'out of stock' ;-)
You're so right, I must be both. Thanks for enlighting me. Screw Slashdot for the evening, back to pr0n surfing, much more fun than reading up on domain hijacks...
Yup, but then you've got half the population behind bars. So you need the other half to guard them. Who's gonna feed everybody in that scenario? Or do some nanotech-science or writing /. comments on the side?
Just saw "Revenge of the nerds" on TV (I kid you not). Damn, that movie sucks!!!
I read that as saying that every internet user has the responsibility to learn about how the internet works, what dangers are lurking, and what needs to be done to avoid those dangers.
WRONG!
That responsibility exists, but shouldn't necessarily be the user's responsibility. Just to use any piece of software, you don't have to know how it works. Not all users are also developers, you know.
By using network-enabled software like browsers, a user essentially trusts browser makers to manage the interface between the web and the user. And browser makers trust the operating system below it, to manage the interface between API's and the networking hardware. That trust includes an assumption of safety/reliability/integrity. The current state of software security tells me, that trust is often misplaced.
It's an endless battle of opinions, but IMO the #1 reason for having firewalls etc. is not functionality, but the fact that operating systems, networking software, browsers and so on, are BROKEN (unreliable, buggy, insecure). If they wouldn't be, there would be few reasons to put a firewall between a househould PC and the internet. Similar goes for virus scanners, anti-spyware, etc.
It may be a full time job to keep ordinary PC's secured & 100% functional, but don't assume that should be the user's job. I guess new developments like remotely managed, limited functionality PC's (see SimPC for example) could provide some relief here for many users.
"News for Nerds". Okay, I know there is considerable overlap between 'green tech' and /. subjects (and people interested in them), but 1 or 2 of these stories a day is enough, don't you think? Nerd != environmentalist (would be nice, though).
Sure sounds like you are, from what you say in the rest of your post!
You should read my comment more carefully. But okay, you ask for it, I'll try and downsize some of your arguments:
So should we ban these items?
Not at all. My home is full of dangerous items. The only real violent situation I ever experienced, enabled me to put some of these items (a door, some furniture) between the bastard and myself, so that he only managed to damage furniture. Better for me, better for him. A gun on either side would have done more damage, with longer lasting consequences. In my case, only goods and ego's were damaged. Oh BTW: the guy involved received a jail sentence, and I had a nice weekend right after the event, and cleaned up the mess the day after. So how's that for smart?
How about the situation where you turn your car down the wrong dead-end street and find yourself surrounded by thugs with pipes and knives?
You must have driven into a really bad neighbourhood. Not smart! Or you managed to piss off a whole bunch of thugs enough to make them come after you, armed with pipes and knives. What stupid things did you do to make them so angry? Oh yeah, you're driving in a car? So you can back up out of that street, right? Or explain to me how a thug with a pipe is going to stop you from driving over him. Don't need a gun here, a car will do. BTW: If they're smart thugs, they'll jump aside at the last moment, you're free to drive out, and nobody gets hurt. What, you drive a car that doesn't have a reverse gear? That is stupid!
Or just one mugger who is twice as strong as you?
Mugger: just wants your money, I assume? So observe his appearance, toss your wallet out, provide police with a detailed description, you're down a bit of cash and replaceable plastic, and maybe police will grab him quickly and again, no-one gets hurt (well, maybe the mugger, after resisting arrest). BTW: shoot/kill a mugger in self-defense, and you have to live with the fact that you killed a man, just to stop him from taking your wallet. A high price I'd say. I'll take the 'lose wallet' option here anytime.
That's okay, because in your fantasy world we are safe because there are NO GUNS (..) Which makes you feel less safe than having cops without guns (see above).
Bullshit. I have 0 problems with gun ownership, it's just that having a gun wouldn't make me feel safe/safer. Nor am I scared of cops with guns. Cops don't make it a habit of shooting at reasonable behaving people, in my country they're only allowed to use their gun in very strict circumstances, and rarely do so. Almost all situations can be handled without the use of deadly force (as it should be).
You are assuming that all robbers are professionals.
I'll give you that one. But then again, the bad guy usually has the element of surprise (a big advantage, you know) on his side. And maybe used to a violent situation, unlike the victim.
By the way - anyone can twist statistics any way they want.
Sure, you have some kids, and a gun in your home? Than it's waaay more likely that some innocent person will be hurt, than prevented from being hurt as a result. All the statistics-twisting you like, doesn't change that.