Re:Responsibility lies with the Network
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
Well, yeah. I build ISPs for a living. Most of the ones I work with have intelligent routers/firewalls, and it would be fairly easy to shut down port 80 outgoing from specific boxes. That wouldn't stop anything on the local subnet, but it would at least begin to contain the problem, and would alert the clueless (since they wouldn't be able to get out via the web).
As an aside- the first comment was rated a troll????
-jeff
Responsibility lies with the Network
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Admittedly, MS shipped a flawed product (IIS), and shipped it to users who have no idea that the product is even running on their box. Bad MS! Bad!
Admittedly, most computer owners are idiots (assuming that computer users are evenly distributed throughout the population, which mostly consists of idiots) and don't patch their machines regularly, or at all. Bad user! Bad!
However, it is counter-productive to bash MS for this, because they have released a patch some time ago and what else can they do? It is counterproductive to bash the users, because most of them don't know how to install a patch, or even what a patch is, and have no source of information to help them out (and even if MS mailed out information, how many of these users could and would understand and follow it? - they need someone who knows what they are doing to help them, and they don't know that they need that help).
The only place that this worm can be stopped is at the network level. ISPs need to block not inbound port 80, but outbound port 80 from machines on their network known to be infected. Better yet, redirect all outbound port 80 from known-infected sites to a web page at the ISP which explains the problem and how to fix it, and what number to call for more help and to get your web access turned back on. DO NOT use this to get a fix on who's running servers on your network that you need to punish, or people will stop calling you for help! This cuts the spread of the worm immediately, because an infected machine can no longer spread past the first router it comes to. It also gradually cleans up the problem at the source, and eventually most of the infected machines wouldn't be. Those machines not fixed would at least not be able to spread the infection, because the pathway would be closed. This were done at each level of the network, the worst case would be a machine that could get out to the backbones because of sloppy admins at the ISP, but then would be caught and blocked by the backbones.
The whole idea is to fix the problem, rather than bitching about who should not have let it happen in the first place.
I like the idea of baby-bills, but there is a problem. Each company will have a base API, and each will create their own "better" APIs on top of this. Of course, all app developers will then write to the basic API, because they can run their apps on all three (or however many) versions of Windows. This means that:
1) The API will be effectively frozen, unless all of the players involved agree to extending it in a certain way. This limits certain possibilities for supporting new hardware and applications, because such agreement is virtually impossible.
2) The support costs for app developers will go up dramatically (why does this work on Win-A but not Win-B?).
3) Any chance for using Linux or MacOS as desktop alternatives will begin to disappear, since there will be little incentive to app developers to port when there are multiple vendors for Win*. Unless UNIX converges into a common code base (or at least library/API base), there would not be a large enough market to justify the effort of porting when you are already supporting the three largest OSs on the market. As a Mac and Linux user, this would be bad.
They would use a shuttle-type design for the same reason that they used the current design of ISS: political considerations outweigh technology optimization. The ISS could have been built much cheaper, producing a heavy launch vehicle in the process, had that option been chosen. Instead, the commission entrusted with the decision (headed by Al Gore at the time) chose the mission that would make the most use of (and therefore most justify) the shuttle fleet - in the bargain tripling the cost of ISS.
The problem from my point of view is that they are not paying me as a content owner to insert their advertising on my sites, nor are they providing me as a user with a benefit for having their software (such as free access to otherwise-paid sites). As such, they are simply taking from me either way - there is no quid pro quo. This is not theft in the classic sense, because I am not left without something I had before, but it is intrusive, abusive and rude.
As for "being indebted to someone" you are indebted to them until the copyright expires and the item passes into the public domain. Copyrights do not exist to provide works to the "public at large" they exist to protect the works and allow those who created them to garner value from their work without someone else ripping them off.
The first sentence is correct. The second is not. Copyrights exist to provide a limited monopoly to the creator of original works to ensure that he has an opportunity to make money from the work. Thus, the creator has an incentive to create in the first place, and to create again having done so once. This work then passes into the public domain, after which the rights of the purchaser (to, for example, create a derivative work, or to simply publish the existing work themselves) are restored. The natural right is that of the consumer, not that of the producer. The producer's rights are artificially created by the copyright law.
I'm not sure you'd want to rebuild S-Vs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't options. At the point that NASA committed to a Mars mission, they'd probably build vehicles based on the Shuttle, with liquid (rather than solid) boosters, and an additional SSME. That way, they could reuse the existing pads. If Russia or a non-NASA organization were to want to go to Mars, they'd either use Energia or build an all-new booster (though possibly reusing the S-Vs engine designs).
I think that it would be great if the government owned the data and TV networks. Then we could have the excellent privacy protections afforded by the FBI, the return on investment of Social Security, the service commitment of the Interior Department, the customer-friendly payment policies of the IRS and the fine management practices of the Senate. I can see my satisfaction going up already.
With all due respect, regardless of your perspective on the morality of this law, in the boundaries of the States, it is the law....right?
Is it ok to break laws you don't personally care for?
In a free country, it is the obligation of citizens to disobey laws which are unconstitutional. It is not about laws that you do not care for, but about which laws that are themselves not legally passed.
Wouldn't the more appropriate route be to move through your elected representatives to have this law repealed, or to work through an organization to challence the constitutionality of this law in court?
It is not sufficient to work through the elected representatives, as they are the ones which illegally passed the law in the first place. It is appropriate to use the courts, but you do not have legal standing to take a case to trial until you have cause of action - that is to say, you have to be a victim of the law before you can challenge its constintutionality. You also have to have a lot of money. Please note that people with a lot of money are not typically arrested by the government under shaky laws.
If something is perfectly legal where you live, but illegal in another jurisdiction, shouldn't you avoid that jurisdiction?
That is the premise of federalism, which died in the US beginning after the Civil War, and particularly during and after the Great Depression. It is now the case that the Federal government routinely ignores the Constitution on fragile pretenses (such as defining anything that happens in more than one state, and which might theoretically effect the economy, as "interstate commerce" - this is how they justified passing Federal laws against guns on public school grounds, by the way). This means that only by giving up your citizenship (or at least residency) can you escape the jurisdiction.
This is a matter of what is law. You may not like the way that the law is written. You might not like the way that the law is enforced. Neither is particularly relevant here.
Send your comments and constructive criticism to your elected representative, or your local defender of freedom to get this law overturned.
Don't simply break the law. If you do, you are likely to end up in jail. How does that help your cause of freedom?
Anomaly
BTW - God love you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
The maples scream "Opression," and the oaks just shake their heads.
Re:OK, Here's What I Really Want
on
Transmeta Webpad
·
· Score: 1
OK, given that commodity batteries will not happen (come on, how long do you think that a laptop would run off of D cells? and what about recharges?), it appears that what you want is to buy a cheap laptop (for the price you quote, an older one), an external keyboard and mouse, and a suitcase to pack them in. Problem solved.
I assume that you mean the actual containing field, rather than the shaping fields discussed in the article. Presumably, the power would come from the reactor itself, so that if the magnetic fields collapsed, it would indicate that the reaction had ceased. That would not necessarily mean that there wouldn't be plasma leakage. Most likely, though, there would be redundant generated power for critical systems (as there is at nuclear plants). For example, several reactors in the same complex could each power the others. In other words, that particular problem shouldn't be too likely.
If magnetic containment were to fail, you would have a very hot stream of plasma shooting in a straight line from the reactor. The pressure of the stream would drop so rapidly that there could not be a sustained reaction (i.e., no boom). The walls in the way of the stream would likely be melted. I'm not sure what they would do for secondary containment - most likely a shell similar to what is done with fission reactors, but using different design to account for the different hazards. You'd probably get a huge puddle of (non-radioactive) water to clean up, too.
Frankly, I'm all for countries that spend all of their resources on developing advanced technologies and none on defense. The word for this is "future US territories."
Why explore Mars? Personally I haven't a clue. Why try to find a cure for cancer? Because I might get it. When political pollsters get the mood of people I think Space Research is near the bottom of the list.
This attitude is the reason why democracies and publicly-held corporations are unable to obtain truly great leaps with any consistency. They depend on the emotional appeals like that of Apollo, because there just aren't enough reasoning people in the voting/shareholder pool. A republic (with limited franchise) or a dictatorship can do great things consistently. So can a very rich madman. Where are the rich madmen when you need them?
By increasing pollutants (arsenic, CO2, etc.) and cutting science funding and education funding, GW Bush will make himself the most intelligent person in America via everyone's exposure to brain damaging chemicals, lack of oxygen, lack of science and lack of teachers!
GW will be a GENIUS among MORONS!!!!
Obviously, President Bush already has passed "The Iconoclast."
First, Bush has not proposed increasing either arsenic or CO2. He has proposed reducing both to levels not as low as President Clinton implemented regulations for in the last days of his term. Let's see, if this is such a big problem, then why is it that Clinton waited 8 years to implement it? It's not as if there was any research showing a health impact of a few parts per billion (think seconds in 4 decades) difference in arsenic levels. On the other hand, there is a pretty large known cost difference between what it takes to get to each target.
Second, why is the Federal government funding education? That is a local/state issue. Federal funding takes more money from the states (in the form of less ability to tax their own citizens) and throws it into the government waste bin, out of which only some 27 cents on the dollar returns to actually be used in schools!
Bush may not be the most well-spoken person in politics in America, but he is also not the most moronic. (I'd have to say off the top of my head that that probably goes to Don Nickles, Senator from Oklahoma. I could be wrong though. Paul Wellstone is certainly right up there, but I suspect that is more lack of common sense and the ability to learn from the past than actual stupidity.)
[BLOCKQUOTE]Do we believe we can defeat any audio protection scheme? Certainly, the technical details of any scheme will become known publicly through reverse engineering. Using the techniques we have presented here, we believe no public watermark-based scheme intended to thwart copying will succeed. Other techniques may or may not be strong against attacks. For example, the encryption used to protect consumer DVDs was easily defeated. Ultimately, if it is possible for a consumer to hear or see protected content, then it will be technically possible for the consumer to copy that content. [/BLOCKQUOTE]
So they are reacting by being an ostrich.
In actual fact, the only thing that will be missing from the list you gave is the DVD player application. The capability is there. Apple is just taking additional time to break the DVD player's screen capture and the like so that they comply with their licensing restrictions. Third-party DVD players exist which work fine on OS X. Apple's (semi-useful) DVD player should ship about a month after the general OS release.
Virtual PC. It emulates standard PC hardware, so you can put any PC OS onto it. The performance is decent - my PowerBook G3/400 runs Windows faster than my PII/233 at home (haven't tested with Linux, since LinuxPPC and Yellowdog are available). It's compatible with almost everything I've tried. A few games fail because of strange copy protection or the need for hardware video acceleration.
Given the recent extensions of copyright and patent protections, both in time and in scope, and the indefensible behavior of the offices of the Government charged with administering those systems in granting overly-broad patents and excessive copyright renewals, will Congress act to reform the intellectual property system in the United States?
Not necessarily. Many companies have contracts which:
1) hold you to a broad non-compete for a long period
2) remove all of your rights to sue them, and limit their liability to any unpaid wages (in the event that the first clause is struck as not enforceable)
3) require you to pay their legal costs in any lawsuits arising out of the contract (ie, you pay them to sue you)
4) remove any time limitation on their ability to sue you
And I've seen various other horrible clauses as well. I refuse to sign any such agreements. In most cases, companies will agree to reasonable modifications.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yeah. I build ISPs for a living. Most of the ones I work with have intelligent routers/firewalls, and it would be fairly easy to shut down port 80 outgoing from specific boxes. That wouldn't stop anything on the local subnet, but it would at least begin to contain the problem, and would alert the clueless (since they wouldn't be able to get out via the web).
As an aside- the first comment was rated a troll????
-jeff
Admittedly, MS shipped a flawed product (IIS), and shipped it to users who have no idea that the product is even running on their box. Bad MS! Bad!
Admittedly, most computer owners are idiots (assuming that computer users are evenly distributed throughout the population, which mostly consists of idiots) and don't patch their machines regularly, or at all. Bad user! Bad!
However, it is counter-productive to bash MS for this, because they have released a patch some time ago and what else can they do? It is counterproductive to bash the users, because most of them don't know how to install a patch, or even what a patch is, and have no source of information to help them out (and even if MS mailed out information, how many of these users could and would understand and follow it? - they need someone who knows what they are doing to help them, and they don't know that they need that help).
The only place that this worm can be stopped is at the network level. ISPs need to block not inbound port 80, but outbound port 80 from machines on their network known to be infected. Better yet, redirect all outbound port 80 from known-infected sites to a web page at the ISP which explains the problem and how to fix it, and what number to call for more help and to get your web access turned back on. DO NOT use this to get a fix on who's running servers on your network that you need to punish, or people will stop calling you for help! This cuts the spread of the worm immediately, because an infected machine can no longer spread past the first router it comes to. It also gradually cleans up the problem at the source, and eventually most of the infected machines wouldn't be. Those machines not fixed would at least not be able to spread the infection, because the pathway would be closed. This were done at each level of the network, the worst case would be a machine that could get out to the backbones because of sloppy admins at the ISP, but then would be caught and blocked by the backbones.
The whole idea is to fix the problem, rather than bitching about who should not have let it happen in the first place.
-jeff
Good point.
(That's a point and a half, Canadian.)
-jeff
I like the idea of baby-bills, but there is a problem. Each company will have a base API, and each will create their own "better" APIs on top of this. Of course, all app developers will then write to the basic API, because they can run their apps on all three (or however many) versions of Windows. This means that:
1) The API will be effectively frozen, unless all of the players involved agree to extending it in a certain way. This limits certain possibilities for supporting new hardware and applications, because such agreement is virtually impossible.
2) The support costs for app developers will go up dramatically (why does this work on Win-A but not Win-B?).
3) Any chance for using Linux or MacOS as desktop alternatives will begin to disappear, since there will be little incentive to app developers to port when there are multiple vendors for Win*. Unless UNIX converges into a common code base (or at least library/API base), there would not be a large enough market to justify the effort of porting when you are already supporting the three largest OSs on the market. As a Mac and Linux user, this would be bad.
All of that said, though, it's not a bad idea.
They would use a shuttle-type design for the same reason that they used the current design of ISS: political considerations outweigh technology optimization. The ISS could have been built much cheaper, producing a heavy launch vehicle in the process, had that option been chosen. Instead, the commission entrusted with the decision (headed by Al Gore at the time) chose the mission that would make the most use of (and therefore most justify) the shuttle fleet - in the bargain tripling the cost of ISS.
Yes, these are the rights which are granted by law. They are not natural rights accruing to the content producer.
The problem from my point of view is that they are not paying me as a content owner to insert their advertising on my sites, nor are they providing me as a user with a benefit for having their software (such as free access to otherwise-paid sites). As such, they are simply taking from me either way - there is no quid pro quo. This is not theft in the classic sense, because I am not left without something I had before, but it is intrusive, abusive and rude.
-jeff
My ethics compel me to patent the fax machine, and quickly.
I'm not sure you'd want to rebuild S-Vs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't options. At the point that NASA committed to a Mars mission, they'd probably build vehicles based on the Shuttle, with liquid (rather than solid) boosters, and an additional SSME. That way, they could reuse the existing pads. If Russia or a non-NASA organization were to want to go to Mars, they'd either use Energia or build an all-new booster (though possibly reusing the S-Vs engine designs).
GPS
I think that it would be great if the government owned the data and TV networks. Then we could have the excellent privacy protections afforded by the FBI, the return on investment of Social Security, the service commitment of the Interior Department, the customer-friendly payment policies of the IRS and the fine management practices of the Senate. I can see my satisfaction going up already.
The maples scream "Opression," and the oaks just shake their heads.
OK, given that commodity batteries will not happen (come on, how long do you think that a laptop would run off of D cells? and what about recharges?), it appears that what you want is to buy a cheap laptop (for the price you quote, an older one), an external keyboard and mouse, and a suitcase to pack them in. Problem solved.
I assume that you mean the actual containing field, rather than the shaping fields discussed in the article. Presumably, the power would come from the reactor itself, so that if the magnetic fields collapsed, it would indicate that the reaction had ceased. That would not necessarily mean that there wouldn't be plasma leakage. Most likely, though, there would be redundant generated power for critical systems (as there is at nuclear plants). For example, several reactors in the same complex could each power the others. In other words, that particular problem shouldn't be too likely.
If magnetic containment were to fail, you would have a very hot stream of plasma shooting in a straight line from the reactor. The pressure of the stream would drop so rapidly that there could not be a sustained reaction (i.e., no boom). The walls in the way of the stream would likely be melted. I'm not sure what they would do for secondary containment - most likely a shell similar to what is done with fission reactors, but using different design to account for the different hazards. You'd probably get a huge puddle of (non-radioactive) water to clean up, too.
Frankly, I'm all for countries that spend all of their resources on developing advanced technologies and none on defense. The word for this is "future US territories."
-jeff
First, Bush has not proposed increasing either arsenic or CO2. He has proposed reducing both to levels not as low as President Clinton implemented regulations for in the last days of his term. Let's see, if this is such a big problem, then why is it that Clinton waited 8 years to implement it? It's not as if there was any research showing a health impact of a few parts per billion (think seconds in 4 decades) difference in arsenic levels. On the other hand, there is a pretty large known cost difference between what it takes to get to each target.
Second, why is the Federal government funding education? That is a local/state issue. Federal funding takes more money from the states (in the form of less ability to tax their own citizens) and throws it into the government waste bin, out of which only some 27 cents on the dollar returns to actually be used in schools!
Bush may not be the most well-spoken person in politics in America, but he is also not the most moronic. (I'd have to say off the top of my head that that probably goes to Don Nickles, Senator from Oklahoma. I could be wrong though. Paul Wellstone is certainly right up there, but I suspect that is more lack of common sense and the ability to learn from the past than actual stupidity.)
-jeff
[BLOCKQUOTE]Do we believe we can defeat any audio protection scheme? Certainly, the technical details of any scheme will become known publicly through reverse engineering. Using the techniques we have presented here, we believe no public watermark-based scheme intended to thwart copying will succeed. Other techniques may or may not be strong against attacks. For example, the encryption used to protect consumer DVDs was easily defeated. Ultimately, if it is possible for a consumer to hear or see protected content, then it will be technically possible for the consumer to copy that content. [/BLOCKQUOTE] So they are reacting by being an ostrich.
Insightful? More like a troll.
In actual fact, the only thing that will be missing from the list you gave is the DVD player application. The capability is there. Apple is just taking additional time to break the DVD player's screen capture and the like so that they comply with their licensing restrictions. Third-party DVD players exist which work fine on OS X. Apple's (semi-useful) DVD player should ship about a month after the general OS release.
Virtual PC. It emulates standard PC hardware, so you can put any PC OS onto it. The performance is decent - my PowerBook G3/400 runs Windows faster than my PII/233 at home (haven't tested with Linux, since LinuxPPC and Yellowdog are available). It's compatible with almost everything I've tried. A few games fail because of strange copy protection or the need for hardware video acceleration.
-jeff
Given the recent extensions of copyright and patent protections, both in time and in scope, and the indefensible behavior of the offices of the Government charged with administering those systems in granting overly-broad patents and excessive copyright renewals, will Congress act to reform the intellectual property system in the United States?
Thank you for your time.
Not necessarily. Many companies have contracts which:
1) hold you to a broad non-compete for a long period
2) remove all of your rights to sue them, and limit their liability to any unpaid wages (in the event that the first clause is struck as not enforceable)
3) require you to pay their legal costs in any lawsuits arising out of the contract (ie, you pay them to sue you)
4) remove any time limitation on their ability to sue you
And I've seen various other horrible clauses as well. I refuse to sign any such agreements. In most cases, companies will agree to reasonable modifications.