It doesn't really matter if you use Linux for political reasons or not. It just so happens that Debian exists for rather political reasons, so its nonsense to say that they're not serving their potential customer base (or whatever your comment was trying to accomplish). They don't _want_ a customer base of people who disagree with them, they want the people who agree with them to have a good product.
I don't use Debian, I use RedHat. Why? Various reasons. Do I like Debian's stance? Yes. I wish that RedHat had started making a GNUer version earlier...
And its something that a lot of Netscape Navigator users begged for when Communicator came out -- a stripped-down, browser-only package for the non-Emacs folk;-).
I'd love to have a version of Mozilla that just has a rendering engine to plug into my Windows apps... but I'm afraid that will be a 15M DLL the way things are going...
The most important point to consider that you've brought up is probably that if a user violated Microsoft's Copyrights (whatever they may be in this case), it is up to Microsoft to charge that user, not Andover.
In fact, Slashdot may wish to change its legalese at the bottom of the page stating that posts are Copyright their posters and the rest belongs to Andover. This should be refined to include one of those sweeping comments about "other Copyright and Trademark owners".
If mainstream media does a story about how a child pornographer used PGP to encrypt his porn, are they liable for telling other pornographers how to do it?
If MSNBC did a TV story about the current DVD issues floating around and gave a link to OPENDVD (or other) website, would they be liable for that linking to a site that may or may not violate the DMCA in some way?
These are the counter-questions that must be asked.
Most mathematicians consider chaotic noise to be close enough to 'truly random' to count. But aside from that there are very few sources of truly random data.
A chaotic source would include white noise from radio frequencies carrying no stations.
A random source would be how often I blink while sleeping or how much fluid I drink while sipping my coffee -- these are unpredictable (within their limits).
I would agree that your rather silly post was insightful (some moderator thought so) if it weren't for the avoidance of truth:
This isn't an issue about "software" its an issue about an implementation (via software, yes) of an <em>open protocol</em>. The open protocol in question is Kerberos. Feel free to visit the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html>IETF</a> and look up the RFCs on Kerberos.
Because Microsoft made non-standard extensions to it, they have caused it to "not be Kerberos" as one poster so kindly said. They thus should either change the name to "NT authentication that looks a lot like Kerberos but isn't" or release the specs to their extension for free re-use, just like the spec they took 99% of in the first place.
Yes, if Microsoft had invented this (like NT authentication), they would retain Copyright on it and I would agree to that. This is not the case.
Its a method to help you get toward security, not security in itself (blah, blah).
At any rate, the best method, along the lines you mention, would be to covertly hitch the data along existing data streams, not create new ones. This is much more difficult, but a better approach to hiding your data. You would want to hide your encrypted data in a packet of a given type and figure out some way to get it from A to B while looking just like other packets already taking that route that you have not "manufactured".
Doing this would probably be near impossible (without source-routing, which is disabled on many hosts now) but could be simulated with a next generation of anonymous remailers; ISPs that bounce individual packets at a given frequency only (very low) and send them along to where they need to go. This way, each piece of the message would take a different route, each piece would be sent in the wrong order, and be reassembled (sounds like a really bad TCP connection...;-).
The problem with your idea is that it would be relatively easy to identify the true encrypted data unless your random number source is sufficient to produce 5M per day of random bits. It probably won't, so you'll end up with a patterned 5M per day, with a more chaotic bit in it some days (the encrypted traffic).
I would be tempted to use TCP fragments, small IPX packets containing the encrypted data sent over a UDP encoded stream, etc. to send small amounts of a message over the process of a few days or weeks. This would spread it out so much that it would be much harder to trace, especially if out of order.
Its not an ideal system for actual messages, but quite interesting as a method for key exchange...
Re:Start digging some graves folks!
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 2
There is a very fine line between opposing free speech and defending your rights.
Telling people about what's in the movie, but not stopping them from seeing it is good. Telling people not to see it because it gives money directly to scientology is good. Telling people not to see it because of content is bad -- that's censorship.
A big part of this is of course the business model inside the ISP -- if the ISP is pricing things low on the expectation that people won't always be using their bandwidth (the standard model) and then everyone starts using server software, they can't afford to run things normally anymore and have to either raise prices or say 'no server software'.
Extending the Napster protocol and/or MP3 header to allow for the integration of a Key-ID for a music "owner" would be a 'good idea' (TM).
You would then go to a website and enter that Key-ID which would then allow you to make a donation from your CC or whatever of a given amount which would go to that owner.
The problem is that you need to authenticate ownership keys...
... the other idea, of course is to integrate it into the software. This allows any person to collect from any other -- but again doesn't guarantee ownership.
The best idea is for bands to have a website that endorses MP3s and has a 'donate to our incomes' button mentioning how much they think is a fair profit on a per-song basis.
Am I the only person who starts thinking about how network topologies actually work when he reads stuff like this?
I'm sorry... but for the last several months I've read just one too many "cable modems are shared bandwidth" pieces of...;-)
If you have 1000 modems dialing into a very expensive piece of equipment that turns them all into one digital fibre signal connected to the routers (scenario A), you have shared bandwidth.
If you have a few dozen cable modems interconnected and then connected to a group router (scenario B), you have shared bandwidth.
If you have a few dozen ADSL connections directly into a large switching router (scenario C), you still have shared bandwidth.
What's the difference? Well, its possible in A and C to not have other machines physically connected to each other, not that this has a lot to do with security, seeing as the other solutions often aren't properly configured (and encryption is the "right way" to secure your data).
All the scenarios have one (or more) major pipes to the rest of the Internet and several smaller pipes to the clients. If an ADSL supplier has 100 clients at 1 megabit each and only bought 10 megabits of bandwidth (ISPs never buy full bandwidth if they want to stay in business), the bandwidth is, at peak hours, limited to that 10 megabits over all the customers who are using their connections simultaneously.
If the cable modem company puts a limited number of cable modems on any given area router and purchases enough bandwidth, they're set to be just as fast as can be, no matter how many people are online.
The issue is network topology and configuration, not inherent design issues with ADSL, ISDN, Cable, or whatever.
The part that burns those Unix people around here is that they don't give credit where credit is due for symlinking in the first place. I don't mind crediting them with a program that automatically generates symlinks in a NOS environment, but I will never credit them with inventing the concept of "storing one copy of a file and making links to it" which they do claim credit for.
One area that cybernews sites could really use some work is very local news. How many more people would read an online news site if it had news about their neighbourhood and area of large cities, or just their town even?
They could sub-contract the local news writers to do the stories that would be put instantly on the online version.
Re:Like Democracy, choice yeilds two majorities ..
on
Gnome 1.1.4 Released
·
· Score: 2
I agree with you -- but that's what meta moderation is for.
So, in other words, make the same design mistakes that Microsoft did that alienated all the legacy hardware users out there? You do realise, of course, that Linux is not all about servers running the latest and greatest in hardware? It is largely developped by and aimed toward those poor souls running 486s and low to mid-range older Pentiums who want to get the most out of their hardware. People who run Linux aren't all basement hackers on 386s or anything, no. Linux runs just fine on large SGI machines, sure. The point is that the Linux community is not the type to drop legacy support...... I shouldn't have even replied to this its so preposterous.
To start this off on an honest note (after flaming a Microsoft worker for not saying so w.r.t. a Microsoft post he made), I'm a theology student with the PAOC, although they have no responsibility for the words herein...:-) I love my beliefs... I believe in God and basic Christianity and the rest of it. If you don't like that (anyone reading this), tell me about it elsewhere and read my feedback on the Internet Infidels site. I would agree that most incarnations of organised Christian religion (I won't comment on others) are not perfect and, in some cases, bad. However, it should be pointed out that from within the worldview of true Christianity, organisation makes sense, even if it doesn't always work out well. The PAOC, for instance, organised itself mostly because there was a desire to share funds between individual independant churches to send people overseas with. In todays incarnation of it, there is still the attitude that we are an association of independant assemblies... (we are a sister organisation to the Assemblies of God in the USA). Why do I mention all this? I don't want to compose a 20 page essay on the issue, but suffice it to say that Christians wouldn't be Christian if they didn't believe in getting together for Church regularly, that certain activities are wrong (like murder, lying, cheating or homosexuality... none more than the others), etc. If you don't like the beliefs of Christians, that's not the problem of Christianity. If a person is truly a Christian, it will permeate their life and system of thinking. If so, it will affect what they have to say to their governors and how they vote. If this happens, you will end up with what looks like religion in government when in fact all you have is Christians who are voters. Yes, there are Christian-right groups who aren't thinking straight and not acting in love of the world while promoting their beliefs. Mind you, the rest of "us" try to keep them straight as much as the rest of "you" do. We just tend to be nicer about it... Censorship? Just on a note that hits home a little, I believe that censorship is wrong to the Christian because, if anything, those who are able to control anything will control and stifle religion first. I'm not too worried about the religious right taking over the world (it won't happen)... but getting my free speach shut up (including my belief that homosexuality is wrong but that I can still hang out with and befriend a homosexual) is something that really scares me...... have fun with this... I'm not proofreading:-)
When I first read about Katz in Wired magazine, I was thrilled to have a voice in pop media re: the geek culture. Then I read a few articles.
They weren't bad... although technically lacking and often inaccurate. He seems to note this with uncaring in his responses to questions... geeks are picky about technicalities... or something to that effect.
I don't care if you're a geek or not. I wish my mother read Slashdot for some of the good news here... and I'd love to have a whole bunch of Slashdots out there that were related to other fields (MedDot and HealthDot and BikeDot or maybe FishDot)... but right now there's only one real Slashdot and there's no way for anyone to be editorial except to submit a long essay and get no response as to why it was ignored for posting.
We need a truly free way to start new threads -- that would make a big difference... off the main page, I don't care where, just a way to start whatever you want to talk about and have people join... then we'd have those messages outside the other threads.
With some simple A HREF'ing, I can link you to a related subject (as some authors do now) and continue the discussion there...
... why does Katz get to be "the editorial voice" of a community that doesn't need representing?
I'm saying that we'd be having less attacks if society started being a little more philisophical about it and started caring about our intelligent youth instead of allowing them to exert their interests in these ways.
Talk to any 'collector' of movies or music and you'll find that they'll buy the same CD from different countries just to hear the different recordings. It can be quite interesting.
Unfortunately, that's not what DVD creators want.
Its like Intel, when they announced their measures to keep out overclocking saying that they didn't want to hurt the legitimate overclocking community. Well, they didn't have to, but they did.
And so should people who do lots of other criminal activity against society. It seems everyone thinks that there are 'good' and 'bad' people out there... that the people who do harm to your financial success are all 'bad'.
Has it ever occured to anyone that we might want to all take responsibility and work together for a better society in more ways than jailing the 'bad' ones? Lets not produce them (abuse, neglect -- including latch-key, etc.).
I knew the kid who hacked NASA from Sudbury, Ontario a couple years ago... he was a nice kid. His family went through stuff and he did the 'retreat into the computer' thing... (not like anyone here would identify)... and now he's in jail.
... bah... nobody on Slashdot ever feels like getting philisophical unless its about personal individual rights (you know, my life matters, yours doesn't, go away).
Slashdot Mirror
Netscape products have always offered hitting 'STOP' twice after the page loads (since 4.x?) to stop Animated gifs ...
... I like a lot of the animated GIFs out there ... the nice clean ones that look like well-done marketing logos.
... PS, yes
It doesn't really matter if you use Linux for political reasons or not. It just so happens that Debian exists for rather political reasons, so its nonsense to say that they're not serving their potential customer base (or whatever your comment was trying to accomplish). They don't _want_ a customer base of people who disagree with them, they want the people who agree with them to have a good product.
...
I don't use Debian, I use RedHat. Why? Various reasons. Do I like Debian's stance? Yes. I wish that RedHat had started making a GNUer version earlier
And its something that a lot of Netscape Navigator users begged for when Communicator came out -- a stripped-down, browser-only package for the non-Emacs folk ;-).
... but I'm afraid that will be a 15M DLL the way things are going ...
I'd love to have a version of Mozilla that just has a rendering engine to plug into my Windows apps
MySQL is, AFAIK open source, just not Free Software. Feel free too look up both definitions. The limitation to MySQL is available
Don't forget that GPL'd versions of MySQL (older releases) are always made available as well.
The most important point to consider that you've brought up is probably that if a user violated Microsoft's Copyrights (whatever they may be in this case), it is up to Microsoft to charge that user, not Andover.
In fact, Slashdot may wish to change its legalese at the bottom of the page stating that posts are Copyright their posters and the rest belongs to Andover. This should be refined to include one of those sweeping comments about "other Copyright and Trademark owners".
If mainstream media does a story about how a child pornographer used PGP to encrypt his porn, are they liable for telling other pornographers how to do it?
If MSNBC did a TV story about the current DVD issues floating around and gave a link to OPENDVD (or other) website, would they be liable for that linking to a site that may or may not violate the DMCA in some way?
These are the counter-questions that must be asked.
The DMCA must be re-written!!
Most mathematicians consider chaotic noise to be close enough to 'truly random' to count. But aside from that there are very few sources of truly random data.
A chaotic source would include white noise from radio frequencies carrying no stations.
A random source would be how often I blink while sleeping or how much fluid I drink while sipping my coffee -- these are unpredictable (within their limits).
I would agree that your rather silly post was insightful (some moderator thought so) if it weren't for the avoidance of truth:
This isn't an issue about "software" its an issue about an implementation (via software, yes) of an <em>open protocol</em>. The open protocol in question is Kerberos. Feel free to visit the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html>IETF</a> and look up the RFCs on Kerberos.
Because Microsoft made non-standard extensions to it, they have caused it to "not be Kerberos" as one poster so kindly said. They thus should either change the name to "NT authentication that looks a lot like Kerberos but isn't" or release the specs to their extension for free re-use, just like the spec they took 99% of in the first place.
Yes, if Microsoft had invented this (like NT authentication), they would retain Copyright on it and I would agree to that. This is not the case.
Its a method to help you get toward security, not security in itself (blah, blah).
... ;-).
...
At any rate, the best method, along the lines you mention, would be to covertly hitch the data along existing data streams, not create new ones. This is much more difficult, but a better approach to hiding your data. You would want to hide your encrypted data in a packet of a given type and figure out some way to get it from A to B while looking just like other packets already taking that route that you have not "manufactured".
Doing this would probably be near impossible (without source-routing, which is disabled on many hosts now) but could be simulated with a next generation of anonymous remailers; ISPs that bounce individual packets at a given frequency only (very low) and send them along to where they need to go. This way, each piece of the message would take a different route, each piece would be sent in the wrong order, and be reassembled (sounds like a really bad TCP connection
The problem with your idea is that it would be relatively easy to identify the true encrypted data unless your random number source is sufficient to produce 5M per day of random bits. It probably won't, so you'll end up with a patterned 5M per day, with a more chaotic bit in it some days (the encrypted traffic).
I would be tempted to use TCP fragments, small IPX packets containing the encrypted data sent over a UDP encoded stream, etc. to send small amounts of a message over the process of a few days or weeks. This would spread it out so much that it would be much harder to trace, especially if out of order.
Its not an ideal system for actual messages, but quite interesting as a method for key exchange
There is a very fine line between opposing free speech and defending your rights.
Telling people about what's in the movie, but not stopping them from seeing it is good.
Telling people not to see it because it gives money directly to scientology is good.
Telling people not to see it because of content is bad -- that's censorship.
A big part of this is of course the business model inside the ISP -- if the ISP is pricing things low on the expectation that people won't always be using their bandwidth (the standard model) and then everyone starts using server software, they can't afford to run things normally anymore and have to either raise prices or say 'no server software'.
Extending the Napster protocol and/or MP3 header to allow for the integration of a Key-ID for a music "owner" would be a 'good idea' (TM).
...
You would then go to a website and enter that Key-ID which would then allow you to make a donation from your CC or whatever of a given amount which would go to that owner.
The problem is that you need to authenticate ownership keys
... the other idea, of course is to integrate it into the software. This allows any person to collect from any other -- but again doesn't guarantee ownership.
The best idea is for bands to have a website that endorses MP3s and has a 'donate to our incomes' button mentioning how much they think is a fair profit on a per-song basis.
Am I the only person who starts thinking about how network topologies actually work when he reads stuff like this?
... but for the last several months I've read just one too many "cable modems are shared bandwidth" pieces of ... ;-)
I'm sorry
If you have 1000 modems dialing into a very expensive piece of equipment that turns them all into one digital fibre signal connected to the routers (scenario A), you have shared bandwidth.
If you have a few dozen cable modems interconnected and then connected to a group router (scenario B), you have shared bandwidth.
If you have a few dozen ADSL connections directly into a large switching router (scenario C), you still have shared bandwidth.
What's the difference? Well, its possible in A and C to not have other machines physically connected to each other, not that this has a lot to do with security, seeing as the other solutions often aren't properly configured (and encryption is the "right way" to secure your data).
All the scenarios have one (or more) major pipes to the rest of the Internet and several smaller pipes to the clients. If an ADSL supplier has 100 clients at 1 megabit each and only bought 10 megabits of bandwidth (ISPs never buy full bandwidth if they want to stay in business), the bandwidth is, at peak hours, limited to that 10 megabits over all the customers who are using their connections simultaneously.
If the cable modem company puts a limited number of cable modems on any given area router and purchases enough bandwidth, they're set to be just as fast as can be, no matter how many people are online.
The issue is network topology and configuration, not inherent design issues with ADSL, ISDN, Cable, or whatever.
I hate to be the guy to burst your ego (nah, I don't really -- but it sounds polite), but you're wrong.
... when the primary changes, the other does too.
Shortcuts are files that contain data about a file they want pointed to.
Hard links are actually pointing to the equivalent of a FAT entry for the file in question.
File starting at sector 301 = "blah"
/home/myfiles/blah.txt is a link to 301
/home/yourfiles/blah.txt can be alink to 301
... they don't (actually) link to "each other" but to the same space on the drive
... read up on linking.
The part that burns those Unix people around here is that they don't give credit where credit is due for symlinking in the first place. I don't mind crediting them with a program that automatically generates symlinks in a NOS environment, but I will never credit them with inventing the concept of "storing one copy of a file and making links to it" which they do claim credit for.
From the DVD side, its probably very important to them that the case be settled before the general public becomes more technologically literate.
In fact, I bet most of the people pushing this case actually believe CSS does something to prevent copying.
It reminds me of the 4.0 browser wars ... and the old java support wars, and then the push technology wars (which are now removed from browsers).
One of the above (ahem, Mozilla?) should remove support for extraneous garbage and make a browser, not an operating system.
One area that cybernews sites could really use some work is very local news. How many more people would read an online news site if it had news about their neighbourhood and area of large cities, or just their town even?
They could sub-contract the local news writers to do the stories that would be put instantly on the online version.
I agree with you -- but that's what meta moderation is for.
Luckily, that market is respected by a lot of music industry people and hopefully they'll join the club in protest ...
So, in other words, make the same design mistakes that Microsoft did that alienated all the legacy hardware users out there? You do realise, of course, that Linux is not all about servers running the latest and greatest in hardware? It is largely developped by and aimed toward those poor souls running 486s and low to mid-range older Pentiums who want to get the most out of their hardware. People who run Linux aren't all basement hackers on 386s or anything, no. Linux runs just fine on large SGI machines, sure. The point is that the Linux community is not the type to drop legacy support ... ... I shouldn't have even replied to this its so preposterous.
To start this off on an honest note (after flaming a Microsoft worker for not saying so w.r.t. a Microsoft post he made), I'm a theology student with the PAOC, although they have no responsibility for the words herein ... :-) I love my beliefs ... I believe in God and basic Christianity and the rest of it. If you don't like that (anyone reading this), tell me about it elsewhere and read my feedback on the Internet Infidels site. I would agree that most incarnations of organised Christian religion (I won't comment on others) are not perfect and, in some cases, bad. However, it should be pointed out that from within the worldview of true Christianity, organisation makes sense, even if it doesn't always work out well. The PAOC, for instance, organised itself mostly because there was a desire to share funds between individual independant churches to send people overseas with. In todays incarnation of it, there is still the attitude that we are an association of independant assemblies ... (we are a sister organisation to the Assemblies of God in the USA). Why do I mention all this? I don't want to compose a 20 page essay on the issue, but suffice it to say that Christians wouldn't be Christian if they didn't believe in getting together for Church regularly, that certain activities are wrong (like murder, lying, cheating or homosexuality ... none more than the others), etc. If you don't like the beliefs of Christians, that's not the problem of Christianity. If a person is truly a Christian, it will permeate their life and system of thinking. If so, it will affect what they have to say to their governors and how they vote. If this happens, you will end up with what looks like religion in government when in fact all you have is Christians who are voters. Yes, there are Christian-right groups who aren't thinking straight and not acting in love of the world while promoting their beliefs. Mind you, the rest of "us" try to keep them straight as much as the rest of "you" do. We just tend to be nicer about it ... Censorship? Just on a note that hits home a little, I believe that censorship is wrong to the Christian because, if anything, those who are able to control anything will control and stifle religion first. I'm not too worried about the religious right taking over the world (it won't happen) ... but getting my free speach shut up (including my belief that homosexuality is wrong but that I can still hang out with and befriend a homosexual) is something that really scares me ... ... have fun with this ... I'm not proofreading :-)
When I first read about Katz in Wired magazine, I was thrilled to have a voice in pop media re: the geek culture. Then I read a few articles.
... although technically lacking and often inaccurate. He seems to note this with uncaring in his responses to questions ... geeks are picky about technicalities ... or something to that effect.
... and I'd love to have a whole bunch of Slashdots out there that were related to other fields (MedDot and HealthDot and BikeDot or maybe FishDot) ... but right now there's only one real Slashdot and there's no way for anyone to be editorial except to submit a long essay and get no response as to why it was ignored for posting.
... off the main page, I don't care where, just a way to start whatever you want to talk about and have people join ... then we'd have those messages outside the other threads.
...
They weren't bad
I don't care if you're a geek or not. I wish my mother read Slashdot for some of the good news here
We need a truly free way to start new threads -- that would make a big difference
With some simple A HREF'ing, I can link you to a related subject (as some authors do now) and continue the discussion there
... why does Katz get to be "the editorial voice" of a community that doesn't need representing?
I'm saying that we'd be having less attacks if society started being a little more philisophical about it and started caring about our intelligent youth instead of allowing them to exert their interests in these ways.
Talk to any 'collector' of movies or music and you'll find that they'll buy the same CD from different countries just to hear the different recordings. It can be quite interesting.
Unfortunately, that's not what DVD creators want.
Its like Intel, when they announced their measures to keep out overclocking saying that they didn't want to hurt the legitimate overclocking community. Well, they didn't have to, but they did.
And so should people who do lots of other criminal activity against society. It seems everyone thinks that there are 'good' and 'bad' people out there ... that the people who do harm to your financial success are all 'bad'.
... he was a nice kid. His family went through stuff and he did the 'retreat into the computer' thing ... (not like anyone here would identify) ... and now he's in jail.
... nobody on Slashdot ever feels like getting philisophical unless its about personal individual rights (you know, my life matters, yours doesn't, go away).
Has it ever occured to anyone that we might want to all take responsibility and work together for a better society in more ways than jailing the 'bad' ones? Lets not produce them (abuse, neglect -- including latch-key, etc.).
I knew the kid who hacked NASA from Sudbury, Ontario a couple years ago
... bah