What do you do? You try to raise awarness of those anticompetitive tactics and what those tactics are hiding, without the law. Try to get as many of the people you know using good software instead, once they switch they won't look back.
Ok, yes this is a pretty robust setup. But how hard would it be, for example, for thirteen well co-ordinated individuals who can physically get to the locations of these servers to deliberately cause widespread disruption for everyone who relies on DNS? Or if software was the weapon of choice, how hard would it be for a group of people to DDoS the networks housing the servers?
Yes I realise these are unlikely scenarios, but my point is that there are a relatively small number of key servers which we all rely on, and as such the network (not just DNS) could be vulnerable.
I can't suggest any way you could create a truely decentralized network, I'm just saying the internet is not one. Take a look at a map; there is not one single central point, but there are some nodes which connect large portions of the network together. If enough of those were disrupted it could cause problems for quite a few people.
In any case, we've gone off topic here. I think the main point of the article is that it's a bad idea for a number of large sites to rely on one company for DNS services. With that, I think we can all agree.
It's not truely decentralized, in that there are a small number of critical servers/services on which pretty much everything else relies. The root nameservers are the most obvious example of this, though I'm sure there are others. Having said that, this Akamai problem doesn't actually involve the root servers but it does highlight on a smaller scale what could happen if some or all of those servers went down.
I agree completely; IE has big problems when it comes to some things. Most notably, it has trouble with even moderately complicated CSS and transparent PNG's. It is quite frustrating when you spend hours working on a page which looks perfect in mozilla, only to find IE is messing up some of the most basic parts.
Nokia said the 3220's air messaging system could be used by friends to talk to each other across crowded rooms or open-air concerts.
Yes, because waiving a phone around in the air in a crowded room is a good idea; how long until someone gets suied for injuring someone with one of these? Or even better, how long until Nokia gets suied? Also, this would be a great way to advertise to muggers just how new and expensive your phone is.
Given the rapid development cycles of some projects, I don't think four times a year is too much. If they were anual many important projects could be missed.
This raises the question of whether or not companies that are already using such techniques are in violation of the new patent.
Wouldn't that be an example of prior art? If so it wouldn't cause much of a problem for them.
Either way, I have to wonder how effective this method would actually be. Surely I could get around it by simply downloading the file with the biggest number of sources?
I believe that was to test the theory that changes in velocity affect time, whereas the current experiment is to test the theory that a rotating object affects time and space.
Do cell phones actually interfere with airliners anyway? I mean c'mon -- are the systems onboard a modern aircraft really so fragile that my cell phone will bother them?
There's an article in this month's Wired that talks about this. Basically, no it wouldn't cause a problem.
I've also seen worms/viruses sent Base64 encoded...the mail client auto-decodes and displays the message, but the filtering software (at least then) didn't.
I guess this wouldn't matter so much if only someone would have Microsoft's trademark scrapped - 'windows' can be used to describe a common feature in pretty much all modern OS's.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you do? You try to raise awarness of those anticompetitive tactics and what those tactics are hiding, without the law. Try to get as many of the people you know using good software instead, once they switch they won't look back.
Ok, yes this is a pretty robust setup. But how hard would it be, for example, for thirteen well co-ordinated individuals who can physically get to the locations of these servers to deliberately cause widespread disruption for everyone who relies on DNS? Or if software was the weapon of choice, how hard would it be for a group of people to DDoS the networks housing the servers?
Yes I realise these are unlikely scenarios, but my point is that there are a relatively small number of key servers which we all rely on, and as such the network (not just DNS) could be vulnerable.
I can't suggest any way you could create a truely decentralized network, I'm just saying the internet is not one. Take a look at a map; there is not one single central point, but there are some nodes which connect large portions of the network together. If enough of those were disrupted it could cause problems for quite a few people.
In any case, we've gone off topic here. I think the main point of the article is that it's a bad idea for a number of large sites to rely on one company for DNS services. With that, I think we can all agree.
It's not truely decentralized, in that there are a small number of critical servers/services on which pretty much everything else relies. The root nameservers are the most obvious example of this, though I'm sure there are others. Having said that, this Akamai problem doesn't actually involve the root servers but it does highlight on a smaller scale what could happen if some or all of those servers went down.
I agree completely; IE has big problems when it comes to some things. Most notably, it has trouble with even moderately complicated CSS and transparent PNG's. It is quite frustrating when you spend hours working on a page which looks perfect in mozilla, only to find IE is messing up some of the most basic parts.
Nokia said the 3220's air messaging system could be used by friends to talk to each other across crowded rooms or open-air concerts.
Yes, because waiving a phone around in the air in a crowded room is a good idea; how long until someone gets suied for injuring someone with one of these? Or even better, how long until Nokia gets suied? Also, this would be a great way to advertise to muggers just how new and expensive your phone is.
Gnutella - named after a hazelnut spread with the approximate taste and consistency of crankcase sludge- with a "GNU" thrown in to keep RMS happy.
Except Gnutella isn't part of the GNU project, so I would imagine it wouldn't make RMS very happy.
To this and the AC reply from a few minutes earlier; yes, most projects don't get very far. But, the good ones tend to be very productive.
Given the rapid development cycles of some projects, I don't think four times a year is too much. If they were anual many important projects could be missed.
"Oh my! That looks like a bomb! I'd better call 911...wait, why isn't my phone working?!"
...Followed by an explosion a few minutes later.
That's true, but the fact that it wouldn't be useful today shouldn't prevent us from developing tomorrow's technology.
Wouldn't that be an example of prior art? If so it wouldn't cause much of a problem for them.
Either way, I have to wonder how effective this method would actually be. Surely I could get around it by simply downloading the file with the biggest number of sources?
That's what I thought at first. Regular barcodes are 1D (they're only read horizontally); this thing reads vertically as well.
I'm guessing recognising a bunch of coloured blocks is easier than recognising handwriting.
My guess is that they'd rewrite the parts they don't own - kind of like what happened with BSD.
I believe that was to test the theory that changes in velocity affect time, whereas the current experiment is to test the theory that a rotating object affects time and space.
I'm no expert, but wouldn't a security problem with TCP be completely unrelated to IP?
Do cell phones actually interfere with airliners anyway? I mean c'mon -- are the systems onboard a modern aircraft really so fragile that my cell phone will bother them?
There's an article in this month's Wired that talks about this. Basically, no it wouldn't cause a problem.
I've also seen worms/viruses sent Base64 encoded...the mail client auto-decodes and displays the message, but the filtering software (at least then) didn't.
wow, I must be a geek, I misread the name of the example patent as "Buffer overflow control device". Now that would be a useful invention.
I guess this wouldn't matter so much if only someone would have Microsoft's trademark scrapped - 'windows' can be used to describe a common feature in pretty much all modern OS's.