Oh, spare us your feeble attempt at hyperbole. I doubt that there are 1,000,000 people in the world who know about robots.txt, never mind 1,000,000,000s. The vast majority of Internet users today are not geeks, and have never heard of these obscure protocols, yet they still publish information on the web.
Their ignorance is their problem, not anyone else's. Those people wouldn't try to fly a plane on their own without knowing how first. If they don't know how such basic things work on the Internet, they shouldn't be publishing on it.
You're right, we should go back to the days when Internic made you use e-mail forms for all that shit. Ah, those were the days when updates took days or weeks and all domains were $35. People that pay $35 for a domain name are chumps.
I don't know about you, but I'll take those days over the days of loosing your domain to anyone who can write a DMCA takedown notice.
Lets see how much you care about their web interface if someone with a lot of money should start to dislike anything you do with your domain.
Besides, how often does one really need to use the web interface at their domain registrar? Reneweing, transfering, updating the list of DNS servers for the domain... not things one does very often.
Unluckily, before that ban, most restaurants allowed smoking. We could choose to dine elsewhere, but then we would have to give up our choice for good food. And how many people we entertained by allowing people to smoke?
You totally missed the point. It isn't about your perceived right to eat whatever you want or smokers choosing to smoke. It is about private property owners (and that includes you and me) being able to say what goes on on their own property among people who know what goes on there and choose to be there.
So should I be able to ejaculate in random peoples faces/foods? Do alcoholics pour liquor over everyone around them? Do they pour liquor over the minimum wage watresses that have to work there?
Yes, if the establishment has a "random ejaculation into faces and foods" or "alcohol poured on you" section and people voluntarily chose to go there.
If you go to one of those amusement parks with water rides and they have signs everywhere waying "you may get wet" and you stand next to one and get wet, are you going to complain to the park staff?
Would you like it if I was smoking crack at the table next to you while you ate?
I might not like it, but if I had deliberately chosen to go into a place that allowed crack smoking and had even chosen to sit in the crack smoking section then my discomfort would be my own damn fault. I'm not going to ask the government to be my nanny. I'll take the free will and responsibility.
Bar owners have rights to determine what type of patrons they want.
That's horse-shit. In California, before the ban, I couldn't find a single bar with a smoking ban.
Then don't go to the bars. Open up your own. The bars are private property. Why should they do whatever you want? Should they be forced to play music you like when you walk in too?
Hell, it was hard enough trying to find restaurants that would allow me to eat my food without having to smell/taste someone else's cigarette smoke.
The restaurants are also privately owned. They can allow you or not allow you to do whatever they want on their property. If you don't like it, don't go there. It isn't your restaurant.
Let's say one area has both DSL and Cable IP as choices for high speed internet access.
I have a lot more faith in the invisible hand of the free market than I do in corrupt politicians whose hands are dirty from counting bribe money.
There is no free market when it comes to internet access. The cable and DSL companies have their lines and equipment strung all over public and private property which is all made possible through government granted rights-of-way.
4: Wrong - I agree the DRM is principally to ensure a monopoly in the longterm (I argued this yesterday - see comment history) but it is still exactly as invasive as the content provider requires.
That's the whole problem. A content provider shouldn't be able to require my computer to be invasive at all. It isn't their computer. Why on earth should it be obeying their commands.
OS X will require the same content controls, as will any Linux player to play commercial HD content.
That's what they said about DVDs. Yet here we are with open source programs like mplayer which today is the best DVD player I have ever used.
Several Linux distros support the TPM yet I don't hear anyone yelling about it.
Because unlike DRM, control over TPM lies exactly where it should - with the owner of the machine.
I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles for a copy protection scheme that doesn't even work
I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles on any copy protection scheme at all. They're my CPU cycles and my electricity and I don't really want them doing something that isn't desirable or beneficial to me at all.
You did *not* purchase a hammer, you bought a license to *use* a hammer at the manufactures discretion.
Unfortunately, that's how software sales works now. I hate it.
Says who? If I go to a store right now and buy a copy of windows, there IS an actual copy of the software on a disc in that box along with that license, is there not?
Oh, well, you don't have to that either. If it is only doing NAT and there are no filter rules telling it to drop, it will pass packets addressed for the LAN right through from the outside regardless of NAT.
in particular one pretty much requires that you be able to execute malicious code on the router while the other only requires that you make bad packets look legit.
You're assuming that there is a router between you and the attacker at all. Many types of broadband connections place a large number of customers on one big logical ethernet. All cable providers (at least in my area) work that way. No routing is involved in getting packets among a few hundred people in any given area.
It isn't wise to assume anything about other people's equipment when considering the security of your own wether that be your neighbor who is on the same network or your ISP.
Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting.
It isn't that the problems can't be solved by NAT, its just that they can be solved far better if IP addresses were more abundant. Then the problems NAT "solves" would go away completely rather than require more layers of duct tape and bailing wire.
Here's an example I have to deal with all the time: two organizations want to exchange data in a variety of ways between their two private networks. So they decide to create a VPN between them to facilitate that. However they're both NATting their way out to the Internet and also using a lot of RFC1918 addresses and some of their addresses happen to conflict. So to "solve" this problem one of them could NAT the traffic going to the other's network to some addresses that do not conflict. What a mess. Even if they choose random RFC1918 addresses the odds of a conflict go up quickly with the size of the networks and number of connections to others in RFC1918 space. Wouldn't life be easier if it were possible for everyone to easily obtain globally unique IP addresses?
NAT isn't an advancement in security at all. It has almost nothing to do with security. It only rewrites the addresses and ports on packets. The stuff that actually does drop certain packets won't go away with IPv6. NAT doesn't have to either, but it won't be necessary anymore.
You can get what you paid for. You paid for a license. I never understood the idea of selling software, until I realized that software is never sold.
If I go to an arbitrary retail store and buy one of those boxes labeled "Windowx XP Pro" or such, what is in that box? A licence paper and a copy of some software, correct?
"The GPL is a license that grants users far more rights than copyright law would normally allow."
I love this statement. I especially love rephrasing it: "We'd normally chop off your whole arm for this, but we're only going to chop off your hand. Consider yourself lucky."
Less restrictive is still restrictive.
Lucky indeed, since without the GPL you wouldn't have an "arm" at all since copyright took it away.
Of course, if you find the GPL too "restrictive" you can simply disregard it. You don't need to accept the terms of the GPL to use any GPLed software. GPLed software is merely a copyrighted work, and nothing in copyright law restricts you from simply using a copyrighted work you legally obtained (which you can easily do from any number of the many places that legally distribute GPLed software).
Crypto because weaking the more data you have to work with. Its just the way of Crypto. Small amount if info Crypto can be unbreakable. Large ammounts of info it can be a sitting duck.
Oh, really? Tell me, about how much AES-256 ciphertext would you need to decrypt it all without the key?
The best wireless security solution is just to not use wireless.
You know, we have this stuff called "cryptography"... it has been used to secure communications for quite a while now sucessfully to secure some pretty important things. In fact, I bet you use it directly or indirectly on a daily basis. I have some interesting news: you can use this magical crypto stuff to secure your own wireless communications too! No, seriously! Believe it or not, people actually can and do run secure wireless networks out there...
The article is written by someone that works for splunk and has a bunch of links to a splunk server (currently responding too slowly to use) to show you the logs, and pointlessly mentions numerous times how he clicked something in Splunk(tm)(C) to get some results...
Key word: End User License Agreement. None of those terms in that EULA have any effect on you unless you agree to be bound by them. EULAs are not laws.
Just like how leaving your keys in the ignition could help a criminal steal it and commit a crime, leaving your wireless internet open could let a criminal do anything they want on the internet without being traced (eg. child porn).
The local hardware store sell crowbars. They ought to stop. Those crowbars could help a criminal commit a crime (eg, breaking & entering).
Slashdot Mirror
Their ignorance is their problem, not anyone else's. Those people wouldn't try to fly a plane on their own without knowing how first. If they don't know how such basic things work on the Internet, they shouldn't be publishing on it.
I don't know about you, but I'll take those days over the days of loosing your domain to anyone who can write a DMCA takedown notice.
Lets see how much you care about their web interface if someone with a lot of money should start to dislike anything you do with your domain.
Besides, how often does one really need to use the web interface at their domain registrar? Reneweing, transfering, updating the list of DNS servers for the domain... not things one does very often.
Says who? Microsoft? Why do you think that is the case? Because Microsoft said so?
If you go to one of those amusement parks with water rides and they have signs everywhere waying "you may get wet" and you stand next to one and get wet, are you going to complain to the park staff? I might not like it, but if I had deliberately chosen to go into a place that allowed crack smoking and had even chosen to sit in the crack smoking section then my discomfort would be my own damn fault. I'm not going to ask the government to be my nanny. I'll take the free will and responsibility.
That's the whole problem. A content provider shouldn't be able to require my computer to be invasive at all. It isn't their computer. Why on earth should it be obeying their commands.
That's what they said about DVDs. Yet here we are with open source programs like mplayer which today is the best DVD player I have ever used.
Because unlike DRM, control over TPM lies exactly where it should - with the owner of the machine.
I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles on any copy protection scheme at all. They're my CPU cycles and my electricity and I don't really want them doing something that isn't desirable or beneficial to me at all.
Says who? If I go to a store right now and buy a copy of windows, there IS an actual copy of the software on a disc in that box along with that license, is there not?
Oh, well, you don't have to that either. If it is only doing NAT and there are no filter rules telling it to drop, it will pass packets addressed for the LAN right through from the outside regardless of NAT.
You're assuming that there is a router between you and the attacker at all. Many types of broadband connections place a large number of customers on one big logical ethernet. All cable providers (at least in my area) work that way. No routing is involved in getting packets among a few hundred people in any given area.
It isn't wise to assume anything about other people's equipment when considering the security of your own wether that be your neighbor who is on the same network or your ISP.
.
It isn't that the problems can't be solved by NAT, its just that they can be solved far better if IP addresses were more abundant. Then the problems NAT "solves" would go away completely rather than require more layers of duct tape and bailing wire.
Here's an example I have to deal with all the time: two organizations want to exchange data in a variety of ways between their two private networks. So they decide to create a VPN between them to facilitate that. However they're both NATting their way out to the Internet and also using a lot of RFC1918 addresses and some of their addresses happen to conflict. So to "solve" this problem one of them could NAT the traffic going to the other's network to some addresses that do not conflict. What a mess. Even if they choose random RFC1918 addresses the odds of a conflict go up quickly with the size of the networks and number of connections to others in RFC1918 space. Wouldn't life be easier if it were possible for everyone to easily obtain globally unique IP addresses?
NAT isn't an advancement in security at all. It has almost nothing to do with security. It only rewrites the addresses and ports on packets. The stuff that actually does drop certain packets won't go away with IPv6. NAT doesn't have to either, but it won't be necessary anymore.
If I go to an arbitrary retail store and buy one of those boxes labeled "Windowx XP Pro" or such, what is in that box? A licence paper and a copy of some software, correct?
Lucky indeed, since without the GPL you wouldn't have an "arm" at all since copyright took it away.
Of course, if you find the GPL too "restrictive" you can simply disregard it. You don't need to accept the terms of the GPL to use any GPLed software. GPLed software is merely a copyrighted work, and nothing in copyright law restricts you from simply using a copyrighted work you legally obtained (which you can easily do from any number of the many places that legally distribute GPLed software).
Those things are in the kernel, which isn't a library at all.
Oh, really? Tell me, about how much AES-256 ciphertext would you need to decrypt it all without the key?
You know, we have this stuff called "cryptography"... it has been used to secure communications for quite a while now sucessfully to secure some pretty important things. In fact, I bet you use it directly or indirectly on a daily basis. I have some interesting news: you can use this magical crypto stuff to secure your own wireless communications too! No, seriously! Believe it or not, people actually can and do run secure wireless networks out there...
What country are you referring to again, and who are these small government zealots that have been leading it for the past 25 years?
The article is written by someone that works for splunk and has a bunch of links to a splunk server (currently responding too slowly to use) to show you the logs, and pointlessly mentions numerous times how he clicked something in Splunk(tm)(C) to get some results...
bnetd was a victim of the DMCA... not an EULA.
Key word: End User License Agreement. None of those terms in that EULA have any effect on you unless you agree to be bound by them. EULAs are not laws.
The local hardware store sell crowbars. They ought to stop. Those crowbars could help a criminal commit a crime (eg, breaking & entering).