Where I live, San Jose in a good neighborhood, AT&T only offers 224 kbps internet service. This makes Comcast the only game in town. This is in the very heart of Silicon Valley no less. Truly abysmal and dangerous.
Firefox has been kicking butt against IE for some time now. It is also ubiquitous across all platforms. So exactly how is "Chrome" an attack on IE that is different from or better than Firefox? Of course any of us who have peaked in the innards of Firefox or Mozilla at all have long seen "chrome". So it is a very odd choice of name. And Chrome is not even available for OS X or for Linux? Why on earth would a spend time learning a one OS way to access fundamentally OS agnostic material?
I think Google is losing it big time. With all that data and brilliance in its analysis is this the best they can come up with? How about a search engine that gives me room for feedback and learns to tune results according to my actual interests and feedback? That would be cool and a very important piece of software that most of us would rave about.
But no. Instead they do a very questionable "me too" play. This is lame. It may even be more or less evil.
It isn't about bandwidth. The ISPs have no equivalent problem with movies and other large content from Amazon, iTunes, Netflix and TV over internet. These usages are way huger than P2P traffic. But those bandwidth users are sanctioned and about control of what you see, how you see and under what conditions.
It isn't about efficiency. P2P technologies for downloads properly done are much more efficient.
It isn't about pirating. If it was they wouldn't be threatening an entire type of internet technology. You don't threaten and choke a technology because of the way some people use it.
No, it is about one and only one thing. It is about pushing a mass of consumer and few producer model. It is about control. It is about denying freedom and innovation. Today almost all internet accounts are not suitable for true peering. They don't have static IPs. IPV6 is stalled. I don't think it is an accident. The existing elites fear massive full two-way participation by anyone and everyone.
Replication the database not necessarily in real time to a separate server. Explain to them that you have no responsibility to debug their queries or possible performance problem arising therefrom. Ideally replicate it to a server they own.
How many ways can you think of to install a keylogger on the system? Have you protected against them all and do you have tools to find any if they exist?
Hmm. Two major CPU makers. A handful of memory chip companies. Two or three widely used graphics card makers. Especially graphics cards with their binary only drivers to make them work decently on FOSS. And of course getting Apple and Microsoft to toe the line wouldn't be impossible.
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night and makes me want to run nothing but FOSS and spend energy writing heavy duty vulnerability finders and system checkers. Our very minds (those parts outside our heads) could well be at stake.
Complete enough control is being able to get root access. That isn't all that hard for reasonably competent attackers. Especially if backed by the government and government supported vulnerabilities.
1) Hundreds of exploits have worked to penetrate hundreds of thousands of computers illegally;
2) Not really. Tell me exactly how you would utterly guarantee no keylogger on Windows, OS X, Linux. Without that you absolutely cannot guarantee your machine, if it is on the net at all, is not and cannot be compromised;
3) See (2) and several root kits exploits, some on commercial media. With government backing there conceivably could be such exploits on all media and/or in many software updates not too far down the line.
If you know how to really harden computers versus sticking your head in the sand then please put the knowledge out there.
For sale? They aren't going to pay you. They simple are assuming the right to hack your computational resources anyway and any time they please. Now, how are we going to stop them?
You are presumably aware of the number of PCs that are infected already if not already useable in bot nets. You are presumably aware of the number of vulnerabilities extant. Thus how can you imply that a full legal assault by the military will fail so miserably as to not be worth even worrying about?
Whether they succeed on not the implied precedence is that the government has the right to take over your "extended mindspace" whenever they jolly well feel like it.
Are you really so dense as to suppose the above list is exhaustive of fundamental rights? But the internet is very easily covered by (b) and (d). The internet wasn't around when the above was written but it quite obviously is a media of communitation, the most powerful one we have today much less tomorrow, and of association. There is no freedom of the press or of communication if one is denied all access to communication tools by government fiat. This is like Russia restricting printers and telexes and registering them back in the day.
Laugh these silly bastards right out of any position of power.
The law itself is problematic because of its fundamental premise. That premise is that access to the internet itself is utterly under the control of the government and that can legitimately deny anyone they please access. That is far more wrong and frightfully so than any slippery slope argument. That premise has thoroughly grease the slope beforehand. That premise must be overturned.
This is really amazing. Does the government regulate library books? How about ordering books from Amazon? If I abuse the information obtained will they forbid me to read? If I abuse (by government definitions) my intelligence will they demand I take drugs to lower it? No, these are absurd?
How then is it not absurd and utterly abhorrent to deny any 21st human being access to the fully extended intelligence and capabilities inherent in the internet? Also increasingly much will only be doable by using the internet.
This story and the concurrent story that the US military may stage attacks on civilian networks have really riled me up. The underlying message is that we are mere peons that think, live, communicate and compute only at the pleasure of the government.
Take control of the network NOW. If the current network is too easy for the governments to control then we need to work diligently to create a network they cannot control. The very future of human development may depend on it.
I though the importance was to give all access to the computational environment in general. This includes access to books but also so very much more. It also give access to technological means and knowledge to build a better life. I do not see how such goals can be furthered by making the box MS proprietary. That the box is open all the way down greatly increases its value. That it is not controlled by any proprietary corporate player also increases its value and acceptability by its recipients. There is also the fact that there is a far richer variety of software, including source, available on Linux than on MS platforms. We are not talking general consumer box here but a learning and technological enrichment tool that provides as much leveraging as possible for kids (and others) in third world nations.
Banks snitch to the government if you do something "suspicious" like put a thousand too much in cash in your account in one transation or take a thousand too much out. Many businesses must snitch about various sorts of purchases like too much gold or silver bought (about $10000 at a time IIRC). ISPs are increasingly forced to open their doors to all traffic being examined for anything the government doesn't like. No fly lists that it is impossible to get off of or challenge can list you or I for no reason we can ferret out. Now the government wants the effective power to blacklist anyone they [don't] like from doing any business online. Call me paranoid but this does not bode well at all for the republic.
Also remember that the majority of what people are in jail for (officially criminals) in this country are victimless crimes that in a saner world would never have been called crimes. Remember that the US government now has the power to declare you a terrorist or "enemy combatant" at its sole discretion, lock you up, throw away the key and never even charge you or try you. And it gives itself the power to use such 'not really torture' techniques as waterboarding.
I though tha javascript was rather limited in what it could do on a client. But I guess all it needs for some types of SQL injection is the ability to rewrite URLs and html data pages which it pretty much has to have. Or is it more specific than that?
WHAT??? Science is about sticking your head up your arse to see if your poo smells alright. Science is about understanding as much about your target area as you possibly can as well as you can. If you are busy fidgeting about your mere baseless opinion of yourself then you aren't being as effective as you could be already. If you can take certain drugs or vitamins or nutrients and function much better at what is your life then who has any bloody right to tell you that you cannot? If you can be a better scientist by doing X then not doing X is probably something that is a better candidate for concern, other things being more or less equal of course.
More importantly our continued survival and thriving as a species depends on gaining more knowledge and applying it more effectively. This "cheating" that increases cognitive ability benefits us all.
The government are mindless goons in their perverted war against some drugs. What happened to you is a travesty and it or similar travesties have happened to at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans directly and has harmed all of us. It needs to stop now. The government has no legitimate business whatsoever telling adults what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.
Maximal intelligence, creativity, productivity especially among scientists and various knowledge workers is arguably essential to our wellbeing as a species. What is "abuse" about this exactly? If a scientists used some cognitive technique to increase effective intelligence and productivity no one would I trust object. So what is the difference in using some chemical concoction that has enhances some part of the cognitive process? What precisely is the beef?
a) FCC which is not market but government interference;
b) outmoded allocated radio bandwidth model. All bands could be open with modern equipment;
c) existing out-moded business models protecting themselves like cellular vs universal WiMax or better and the Big Media control freaks;
d) we overhyped internet in the 90s and a lot of dev money got burned. There is a LOT of dark cable out there;
e) the net got hijacked to keep consumer vs producer nonsense. Not going universally to IPV6 so everyone and every net savvy bit is directly addressable is part of this;
f) to this day most of us really don't get what the net can do and be.
I have some agreement with this. I think the internet should be as much as possible like the public highway system. It may be paid for by some type of taxation (although I am not fond of that). It benefits everyone whether they are power users or not. This producer/consumer division of who pays is bullocks. We are all producers and all consumers if the net lives up to its promise. It is the world within which we all interact. Yeah there should be some reasonable monthly subscription cost. But it should not be a charge per so many GBs or some such. The amount of data will vary wildly as new services and usages come online. Good peer to peer sharing and even mesh networks may help a lot. IPV6 would help. ISPs should eventually disappear as we know them today. One flat fee to all the bandwidth you can use with connectivity available everywhere wireless and/or wired.
Actually the internet needs to be free and ubiquitous to maximize productivity and value. P2P does not demand full bandwidth at all times. Every P2P app I know of is well behave or tunable by the user. Streaming video also is not that terribly hungry if it is done with decent compression and a reasonable size segment at a time. The tech behind backbones and fiber has kept up pretty well. The real problem is at the "final mile". Some form of WiMax like technology that took advantage of MIMO and more up-to-date encoding to share any given bandwidth would help. IPV6 everywhere would help P2P as more peers could talk directly with one another more easily to share content. I think these thing will be funded by private sector easily if some vested interests get out of the way including the goverments desire to control or surveil everything and Media desire to restrict and Telco desire to nickel and dime new charges on every rather obvious incremental advance.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live, San Jose in a good neighborhood, AT&T only offers 224 kbps internet service. This makes Comcast the only game in town. This is in the very heart of Silicon Valley no less. Truly abysmal and dangerous.
Firefox has been kicking butt against IE for some time now. It is also ubiquitous across all platforms. So exactly how is "Chrome" an attack on IE that is different from or better than Firefox? Of course any of us who have peaked in the innards of Firefox or Mozilla at all have long seen "chrome". So it is a very odd choice of name. And Chrome is not even available for OS X or for Linux? Why on earth would a spend time learning a one OS way to access fundamentally OS agnostic material?
I think Google is losing it big time. With all that data and brilliance in its analysis is this the best they can come up with? How about a search engine that gives me room for feedback and learns to tune results according to my actual interests and feedback? That would be cool and a very important piece of software that most of us would rave about.
But no. Instead they do a very questionable "me too" play. This is lame. It may even be more or less evil.
It isn't about bandwidth. The ISPs have no equivalent problem with movies and other large content from Amazon, iTunes, Netflix and TV over internet. These usages are way huger than P2P traffic. But those bandwidth users are sanctioned and about control of what you see, how you see and under what conditions.
It isn't about efficiency. P2P technologies for downloads properly done are much more efficient.
It isn't about pirating. If it was they wouldn't be threatening an entire type of internet technology. You don't threaten and choke a technology because of the way some people use it.
No, it is about one and only one thing. It is about pushing a mass of consumer and few producer model. It is about control. It is about denying freedom and innovation. Today almost all internet accounts are not suitable for true peering. They don't have static IPs. IPV6 is stalled. I don't think it is an accident. The existing elites fear massive full two-way participation by anyone and everyone.
Replication the database not necessarily in real time to a separate server. Explain to them that you have no responsibility to debug their queries or possible performance problem arising therefrom. Ideally replicate it to a server they own.
Unfortunately Bush and company have declared we are in perpetual war. So "in time of peace" is the weak portion of the 3rd Amendment.
How many ways can you think of to install a keylogger on the system? Have you protected against them all and do you have tools to find any if they exist?
Hmm. Two major CPU makers. A handful of memory chip companies. Two or three widely used graphics card makers. Especially graphics cards with their binary only drivers to make them work decently on FOSS. And of course getting Apple and Microsoft to toe the line wouldn't be impossible.
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night and makes me want to run nothing but FOSS and spend energy writing heavy duty vulnerability finders and system checkers. Our very minds (those parts outside our heads) could well be at stake.
Complete enough control is being able to get root access. That isn't all that hard for reasonably competent attackers. Especially if backed by the government and government supported vulnerabilities.
1) Hundreds of exploits have worked to penetrate hundreds of thousands of computers illegally;
2) Not really. Tell me exactly how you would utterly guarantee no keylogger on Windows, OS X, Linux. Without that you absolutely cannot guarantee your machine, if it is on the net at all, is not and cannot be compromised;
3) See (2) and several root kits exploits, some on commercial media. With government backing there conceivably could be such exploits on all media and/or in many software updates not too far down the line.
If you know how to really harden computers versus sticking your head in the sand then please put the knowledge out there.
For sale? They aren't going to pay you. They simple are assuming the right to hack your computational resources anyway and any time they please. Now, how are we going to stop them?
You are presumably aware of the number of PCs that are infected already if not already useable in bot nets. You are presumably aware of the number of vulnerabilities extant. Thus how can you imply that a full legal assault by the military will fail so miserably as to not be worth even worrying about?
Whether they succeed on not the implied precedence is that the government has the right to take over your "extended mindspace" whenever they jolly well feel like it.
Are you really so dense as to suppose the above list is exhaustive of fundamental rights? But the internet is very easily covered by (b) and (d). The internet wasn't around when the above was written but it quite obviously is a media of communitation, the most powerful one we have today much less tomorrow, and of association. There is no freedom of the press or of communication if one is denied all access to communication tools by government fiat. This is like Russia restricting printers and telexes and registering them back in the day.
Laugh these silly bastards right out of any position of power.
The law itself is problematic because of its fundamental premise. That premise is that access to the internet itself is utterly under the control of the government and that can legitimately deny anyone they please access. That is far more wrong and frightfully so than any slippery slope argument. That premise has thoroughly grease the slope beforehand. That premise must be overturned.
This is really amazing. Does the government regulate library books? How about ordering books from Amazon? If I abuse the information obtained will they forbid me to read? If I abuse (by government definitions) my intelligence will they demand I take drugs to lower it? No, these are absurd?
How then is it not absurd and utterly abhorrent to deny any 21st human being access to the fully extended intelligence and capabilities inherent in the internet? Also increasingly much will only be doable by using the internet.
This story and the concurrent story that the US military may stage attacks on civilian networks have really riled me up. The underlying message is that we are mere peons that think, live, communicate and compute only at the pleasure of the government.
Take control of the network NOW. If the current network is too easy for the governments to control then we need to work diligently to create a network they cannot control. The very future of human development may depend on it.
I though the importance was to give all access to the computational environment in general. This includes access to books but also so very much more. It also give access to technological means and knowledge to build a better life. I do not see how such goals can be furthered by making the box MS proprietary. That the box is open all the way down greatly increases its value. That it is not controlled by any proprietary corporate player also increases its value and acceptability by its recipients. There is also the fact that there is a far richer variety of software, including source, available on Linux than on MS platforms. We are not talking general consumer box here but a learning and technological enrichment tool that provides as much leveraging as possible for kids (and others) in third world nations.
Banks snitch to the government if you do something "suspicious" like put a thousand too much in cash in your account in one transation or take a thousand too much out. Many businesses must snitch about various sorts of purchases like too much gold or silver bought (about $10000 at a time IIRC). ISPs are increasingly forced to open their doors to all traffic being examined for anything the government doesn't like. No fly lists that it is impossible to get off of or challenge can list you or I for no reason we can ferret out. Now the government wants the effective power to blacklist anyone they [don't] like from doing any business online. Call me paranoid but this does not bode well at all for the republic.
Also remember that the majority of what people are in jail for (officially criminals) in this country are victimless crimes that in a saner world would never have been called crimes. Remember that the US government now has the power to declare you a terrorist or "enemy combatant" at its sole discretion, lock you up, throw away the key and never even charge you or try you. And it gives itself the power to use such 'not really torture' techniques as waterboarding.
Do NOT give such people the benefit of the doubt.
I though tha javascript was rather limited in what it could do on a client. But I guess all it needs for some types of SQL injection is the ability to rewrite URLs and html data pages which it pretty much has to have. Or is it more specific than that?
NoScript is a pain.
WHAT??? Science is about sticking your head up your arse to see if your poo smells alright. Science is about understanding as much about your target area as you possibly can as well as you can. If you are busy fidgeting about your mere baseless opinion of yourself then you aren't being as effective as you could be already. If you can take certain drugs or vitamins or nutrients and function much better at what is your life then who has any bloody right to tell you that you cannot? If you can be a better scientist by doing X then not doing X is probably something that is a better candidate for concern, other things being more or less equal of course.
More importantly our continued survival and thriving as a species depends on gaining more knowledge and applying it more effectively. This "cheating" that increases cognitive ability benefits us all.
The government are mindless goons in their perverted war against some drugs. What happened to you is a travesty and it or similar travesties have happened to at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans directly and has harmed all of us. It needs to stop now. The government has no legitimate business whatsoever telling adults what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.
Maximal intelligence, creativity, productivity especially among scientists and various knowledge workers is arguably essential to our wellbeing as a species. What is "abuse" about this exactly? If a scientists used some cognitive technique to increase effective intelligence and productivity no one would I trust object. So what is the difference in using some chemical concoction that has enhances some part of the cognitive process? What precisely is the beef?
US answer:
a) FCC which is not market but government interference;
b) outmoded allocated radio bandwidth model. All bands could be open with modern equipment;
c) existing out-moded business models protecting themselves like cellular vs universal WiMax or better and the Big Media control freaks;
d) we overhyped internet in the 90s and a lot of dev money got burned. There is a LOT of dark cable out there;
e) the net got hijacked to keep consumer vs producer nonsense. Not going universally to IPV6 so everyone and every net savvy bit is directly addressable is part of this;
f) to this day most of us really don't get what the net can do and be.
I have some agreement with this. I think the internet should be as much as possible like the public highway system. It may be paid for by some type of taxation (although I am not fond of that). It benefits everyone whether they are power users or not. This producer/consumer division of who pays is bullocks. We are all producers and all consumers if the net lives up to its promise. It is the world within which we all interact. Yeah there should be some reasonable monthly subscription cost. But it should not be a charge per so many GBs or some such. The amount of data will vary wildly as new services and usages come online. Good peer to peer sharing and even mesh networks may help a lot. IPV6 would help. ISPs should eventually disappear as we know them today. One flat fee to all the bandwidth you can use with connectivity available everywhere wireless and/or wired.
Nothing will get better as long as we talk of producers and consumers. The real internet is where we are all both.
Actually the internet needs to be free and ubiquitous to maximize productivity and value. P2P does not demand full bandwidth at all times. Every P2P app I know of is well behave or tunable by the user. Streaming video also is not that terribly hungry if it is done with decent compression and a reasonable size segment at a time. The tech behind backbones and fiber has kept up pretty well. The real problem is at the "final mile". Some form of WiMax like technology that took advantage of MIMO and more up-to-date encoding to share any given bandwidth would help. IPV6 everywhere would help P2P as more peers could talk directly with one another more easily to share content. I think these thing will be funded by private sector easily if some vested interests get out of the way including the goverments desire to control or surveil everything and Media desire to restrict and Telco desire to nickel and dime new charges on every rather obvious incremental advance.