Wouldn't it be nice to have a distributed.net victory about now? Crack that RC5-64 code and show folks that a backdoor can be broken by bad guys via brute force?
Hmm... 57.395% of total keyspace checked. Time to add a few more machines and get cracking! Come on, cows!
My letters are written... however, these are extraordinary times and more action is required.
Most of us are aware that price gauging during a crisis is immoral. Political opportunisms and raw power grabs at these times is atrocious.
But intentional disarming of our businesses, opening our information resources to hostile nations and criminals may be treason.
We'd hang a soldier that gave secrets to the enemy in wartime. We'd hang a leader who conspired with the enemy to lead our troops into ambush.
What else is appropriate for a congressperson who aids the enemy through dumbed down encryption and banned secure operating systems - even if their gain is merely political or financial?
Congresspersons, your nation *will* hold you accountable. Do not jeopardize this nation!
Someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and *bang* (no pun intended), we suddenly need tougher gun laws.
It may have seemed old, tired and annoying, but remember when us second amendment types warned the rest of you that "after they take our guns away, what of yours will they come to take?"
Well, it's here. You're next. Welcome to the club.
In fact, you Slashdotters and fellow geeks have the dubious honor of being an easier target. Who's smart enough to understand the evils being proposed? What average man can understand your argument that banning strong encryption only protects the evil, while making the innocent an easy target? You've got a tougher issue - one that most of America won't understand and won't defend.
At least we have a lobbying organization (NRA) that fights like a bunch of angry hornets whenever our nest gets swatted at. Who's speaking for you all? The EFF? Nice, mostly harmless geeks. Jon Katz on NPR? He's already sold your souls for publicity (Jon, your 15 minutes are up buddy - especially with lousy performances like the last one. "uh.. umm... err..." You've got a voice for newsprint!).
So if you want to stand up for your right to live without mind control, you'll do a lot of good by adding numbers to the NRA. Even if that's a bit much for you (we know how the media's portrayed us), at least recognize the common issues we share and perhaps speak up for our rights at election time. We've been fighting for yours for years.
Give me a break! How about looking inwards for once?
Hey now! Hollings and other (D) party members (what's in a "D" anyways? Deviant? Dishonest? Duplicitous? Destroyers?) don't speak for everyone in the US (though I did hear the quite unelequent Jon Katz speaking for us geeks on NPR gushing how he wanted to give up his liberties in exchange for a big man protecting him... what a pathetic, spineless wimp).
Actually, it's getting rather concerning that every time anything happens, one of those "D" letters pops up somewhere and says the only solution is to take away liberties. School shootings? Ban all guns. Terrorism? Ban encryption and secure software/operating systems. Economy problems? Ban wealth (redistribution). Hey, if bans work so well, just ban crime and terrorism and be done with it all!
Perhaps we need to create a crime of "legislative terrorism" that makes the opportunistic seizure of liberties during periods of national crisis a matter of treason.
I value my privacy as much as anyone else, but SOMETHING must be done to protect the safety and security of this country.
No offense, but it gets so tiring listening to folks willing to do anything just so they can feel better about doing something. It's probably the same reason we have so many people calling the psychic friends network...
You want to know what "doing something" does in this case? Holling's "Doing Something" bill will:
- eliminate strong encryption, effectively disarming you on the net from the bad guys who are already shooting at you (hello China - thanks for targeting my networks)
- eliminate strong operating systems, allowing Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian or other nationals to take over my networks.
NT is not permitted here. I tire of having to deal with trouble calls from customers who get owned by exploits in proprietary OS's, and sure as hell would not run them on our backbone. Take away my open source OS and security tools and you might as well surrender the net to to the enemy.
If you value your privacy more than human life, you should seriously consider reevaluating your priorities.
Sounds like a typical con telling me to get rid of my gun so I can "value my life"...
In that news survey, said they were willing to give up some privacy if it would have prevented the attacks. Well.. what a loaded question.
In a related survey, pollsters approached folks in dark alleys to obtain surprisingly similar results. The question was posed:
Q: Would you hand over your wallet to me right now in exchange for preventing an attack against your person?
Incredibly, 98.3% (3.5% margin of error) also said they'd gladly give up their wallets!
Poll researchers concluded that it's amazing what people will give up when you hold a gun at their head.
Researchers indicated that creating legislation based on this principle (holding perceived or actual guns at citizens heads), however, is another matter and may require changing party affiliation from Republican/Democrat to Totalitarian.
We've got lots of your "natural monopolies" (schools, water utilities, electrical utilities, etc.) and most of them are excellent examples of how the concept doesn't work. Right now, nearly every utility and governmental service agency in our community is demanding more money for less service. No thanks.
At the same time, we have utilities that exist in a competitive environment.
Consider the telephone utility. I'm served by two wireline last-mile providers (the RBOC and my cable TV company). Both have a termination to my house. Natural monopoly? Not at all.
If both can figure out how to get a wire to my house, so can the electric companies.
If there is a problem with the logistics of running multiples (e.g. water & sewer), then the city should bid the management of the right of way for a period of time to prospective vendors, and upon my deciding to hook up to the public water or sewer grid, I can pay an appropriate fee for that access.
Remember, there's nothing from stopping me from using my own "sewer" (septic tank) or water (well or even local water tank delivery, albeit expensive). In this case, I'm not forced into anything I don't want to buy, and no monopoly is coercing me.
In the process, they will certainly end up screwing things up Competition has no monopoly on screw-ups:-) (non-uniqueness). My local water monopoly does just fine without any competitors.
The government should have nothing to do with bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind.
That's nice, in theory. However, the government created this mess in the first place.
Consider the state of the RBOCs in the first place - a monopoly granted a hundred years ago had at least a bit of time to get entrenched. Breaking up AT&T only segmented the monopoly into smaller (but also less dormant) entities.
The Internet nearly came under the same monopolistic jurisdiction back in the early 90s (namely ANS and the "Baby Bell NAP" architecture - thanks to UUNET, PSI and Sprint for killing this animal). Again, government (then (D) Sen. Al Gore and the NSFNET folks) promoted the vision of a Bell-centric model.
Now we've got plenty of (D) Senators and Representatives, like the Swamp Thing from Bellsouth (evidently a foreign nation within national bounderies) and a few (R) types on the paid Bell lobby working hard to fix what Gore couldn't complete. Bell dominance of the Internet last mile is a key component.
Per a few other points:
What's the long distance market have to do with an ISP like Covad?
Well, for one, Covads and other "OSI 2+ last mile" entities can help slaughter the long distance toll model, at least domestically. Don't forget that the Bells are still hungry for the long distance market - mostly since their upper management is still about 10 years behind (hey, they used to be 40 years behind - that's progress!).
government...bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind
What bailing out? Much of the problem comes from exclusive local partnerships with the Bells and cable providers, limiting right-of-ways to a single entity in exchange for a lucritive franchise agreement (read "bribe to the government"). Bailing out DSL providers - how? Through chapter 11? By demanding a community resource be opened to competition (which calls that franchise agreement network what it should: public property).
Seriously, how would you feel if I entered into an agreement with your community to be the exclusive grocery store provider, in exchange for giving 3% of the profits to the city government? What a deal for me: no competition, high margins, and the government gets to beef up its budgets (building bigger political empires!). I'll even throw in a donation to your re-election campaign too, and there's no quid pro quo (wink!). What this regulation proposes is recognizing the grocery store for what it is: community granted property that belongs to the community. It's a lousy way to fix the problem created by an unethical prohibition of competition, but there probably isn't a pretty way to get out of this Bell mess.
bail out monsters like Chrysler or Continental
And how many hundreds of thousands of dot-com jobs have been lost, in many cases thanks to the unethical action of the Bells?
rework federal law simply because yet another dot-com servicer went belly-up
Yea, you probably wouldn't want to change the pollution laws either even though all the fish in the ocean were floating belly up. Really, the only laws that need "changing" are the ones protecting bloated monopolies from complying with the law mandating they open up their community-granted networks.
Unfortunately, as long as these Bell congresshacks keep getting re-elected, we can expect the government to keep rigging the system in the Bell's favor.
So Big Media is owned by content owners and really don't give a flying fuck if the first ammendment gets walked all over. So what do you do?
Here's what you don't do: get your net access through one of the same "we own your music, your TV, your newspaper, your radio and your Congressional representatives."
Back to this list:
CNN - owned by Time Warner Time Warner, also known as AOL, and owner of RoadRunner cable modem service (too).
NBC - in a strategic partnership [msnbc.com] with Microsoft Microsoft, owner of MSN.
I'm sure there are others as well... not bad for controlling all sources of information.
Ditto! I'm so used to reporters getting it wrong (from interviews I've had) that I seriously doubt anything these critters put out.
In case you're ever the recepient of a reporter's questions, here are a few recommendations for your survival:
- if it is "off the record," then don't say it. Off the record is reporter code for "this will be really juicy stuff to print, but I'll have to slightly reword it."
- if it involves a competitor or other antagonist, don't say it (reporters have a field day on creating any emotional tension, e.g. making you out to be a fool)
- if it is not for release now, keep your trap shut and only mention it when it is for release. Reporters survive by getting new stories out and their loyalty to their editor (and interest in keeping their job) is greater than their loyalty to you.
- if it is at all technical, give them a written release and limit the story to that. If you absolutely must be interviewed beyond the release, give them 10 minutes, give them a couple of soundbytes that you've pre-prepared, and refer everything else to the release.
- and if you're the boss, tell your employees that speaking to the press is voluntary resignation (e.g. nobody does it except you).
I see how AOL was glossed over (QUICK - SHORT!). Here's five contributions to a "top ten list" of why AOL is the likely acquirer:
1. They confused GEOS with BEOS and thought they had to buy it all over again.
2. What else do you do with all that cash piling up from the recent rate increases?
3. Albania wasn't for sale.
4. Case heard Gasse was from Apple and he wanted some pretty graphics for the cover of his next book.
5. It's Netscape all over again, baby!
However, RHAT is so darn low right now (tell me, I own some), that there are a few logistical problems, including:
1. their stock would likely drop upon the announcement of them acquiring another entity (due to over-dillution expected thru the exchange - you know they'd have to overpay a bit for it). So, where would RHAT go from $3.XX? $2? $1? Ack... major target for being taken over (and that "this is not a poison pill" poison pill hasn't been voted on yet, if I recall correctly)
2. $3.XX is a terrible place to be acquiring other companies at... it would have been prudent at $100+ to be buying real, tangible assets (sort of like how AOL did with their fantasy stock price awhile back).
January 4, 2002 -- Los Angeles -- The opensource community's first major game turned out to be a major bust, with total sales for 2001 at a mere 300 units, including promotional copies.
Tux Penguin, a game developed specificially for the Linux community, showed game retailers that there is little support for non-Windows games.
"In our surveys, we found not a single Linux gamer bought a copy," said Amanda Hugginhold, analyst for the independent Wintel Gaming Industry Coalition. "Apparently getting people who've lived on free software to pay for something is a whole different matter."
Although rumors of compatibility issues leading to the game's unpopularity were raised, Sunspire Studios CEO Eric Hall said the concerns had no validity.
"We give no credit to claims that our exclusive release on the Windows operating system impacted sales," said Hall. "Anyone knows that a serious gamer can reformat his Linux system with Windows and get playing in minutes. We're 100% hardware compatible and they know it."
When asked if the feature of a Linux mascot in a Windows game had any impact on the record underperformance, Hall was equally unconcerned.
"Who says those Linux geeks have a monopoly on Penguins? Bill Gates alone could buy all the penguins in the Antartic and then where would they be? Logoless!"
Rimbo's got a good point. There's another "geek's revenge" happening which may correspond to a paranoid (but someone's still after you) perspective: post-colombine zero tolerance rules.
Oddly enough, while this overreaction (when measured against statistical data showing the actual decline of Colombine-type activities) presumes to prevent youth on youth violence, the actual legislation ends up being a target used to protect the state.
It's time to set aside the tired "Republicans vs. Democrats" misdirections and recognize that both sides are having great success at eliminating annoying liberties under the guise of protecting us.
Somewhere I heard a comment about how liberals have been outstanding in getting anti-gun laws on the books, leaving them unenforced and pointing to how the lack of statistical progress justifies even more laws. Someone asked what would happen if they suddenly decided to enforce all of the laws they snuck in over time.
Civil libertarians need to watch for the same effect happening elsewhere - as it apparently is with Torricelli pushing this case. If teachers are being threatened (both of my folks are teachers as was my wife - and yes, it does and has happened to them as well), there are existing laws that apply.
It's as if we have a con game going on between legislators making unchecked power grabs by claiming to enhance people's "safety", totally backed by the stupid electoral marks that readily give away their rights for a false prize.
I've gotten ISP accounts cancelled, but the person always seems to resurface thanks to netzero Yea, the bad guys sure can be tough to prosecute. But I'm not sure a police state makes things any better, not to mention the cost in sacrificed rights to get there.
It's always refreshing to see our elected officials so committed to fighting crime.
Obviously, some crimes are more important than others... god forbid we allow teens to hack their poorly run high school webserver and post a nasty comment about an unfavored teacher... that'd be criminal!
Now I'm just waiting for the "Condit Child Intern Protection Act of 2001" to get proposed...
From my experience, NSI is very knowledgable about fraud.
We've had a slew of "invoice moments" over the past several years dealing with NSI's unique practice of sending an invoice to multiple parties (admin, tech, and billing contacts).
As I'm listed as the admin contact for a good amount of domains (having built the first ISP in these parts and dealt primarily with business accounts), I updated my NIC handle to have my current address and company two years ago when I took on a new position/company.
Suddenly, the NSI deliquent-looking domain deletion scare invoices started coming in to my new employer (for domains that had nothing to do with that company). If you've never worked in a good sized company, let me tell you how much fun it is explaining why all these bills are coming in for things that appear to be outside projects (especially when they belong to other well-known companies in town).
"Why are we getting billed for Youknowwho's domains?" "What do you mean, ignore the invoices? We can't do that. We're accounting!" "What do you mean you can't make them stop coming?" "How are we to believe that you didn't incur the expense on our behalf? It says our name right there (it sure does)."
I had numerous discussions with the CFO, COO and CEO explaining that these were bogus invoices (hard to believe, yes, from a "real" company) double billed, and only received by us because I was left as the admin contact for the domain. (The only solution I found was getting myself removed from the domains as admin contact - using multiple NIC handles is a pain, and since I've got a single number NIC handle, it's no fun to go get a 5-digit one).
And then the real fun comes when you found out that the idiots in accounting went ahead and paid them... and so did the real owner of the domain... and NSI pocketed the bonus.
Of course, anyone who gets compensated under government contract, and then turns around and double bills the users for what they're doing under contract, ought to have the double billing scam down well.
We've been trying to deal with Verisign for 6 months on several community applications, to no avail in every case.
Verisign has been effective in stalling on every application, usually by taking 6-8 weeks to reply with an incorrect response like citing lack of authorization for the community (which was sent with the application). After you receive the erroroneous response and send a note to them pointing out their error, they take another 6-8 weeks to send a response saying "contact the community domain administrator for assistance" (which is what we would be if they'd get their act together).
All Verisign's efforts have done is fully alienate each community (we do a good job letting folks know who's botched up the job) and given them a reputation as a company to avoid like the plague.
We had a hunch the stalling tactic had another purpose...
What percentage of a name must be unique to confer protective rights to the owner?
Whatever percent a judge decides after you've been sued. This is the only fair way in the trial attorney's model system - after all, if you knew whether or not you'd be breaking the law beforehand, there would be a whole lot less attorneys out there and the system would lose its subjective foundation. (There are several good objectivist essays about this intellectual property issue and how any law that exists that doesn't allow you to know if your behavior is in compliance or not until after its been applied by third parties is evil).
I found the comments by Adobe's attorneys to be even more humerous about "what attorney works for free" - besides being completely dishonest (do you think Adobe gets them for free? Aren't they doing Adobe's bidding? Don't tell me they do everything on a contingency basis with Adobe...), they overlook two excellent examples of when attorneys do end up working for free:
1. pro bono: I've had attorneys do work for nonprofits (even for non-501(c)3 where there's no way they can claim a deduction for their work). Yes, contrary to Adobe's unethical sharks, there are attorneys out there that are more than well dressed thugs.
2. failed contingency suits: If an attorney takes a suit on the basis that he gets paid only if he wins, and he either loses or wins against a judgement proof defendent, guess what? He doesn't get paid!
I'd argue that the Killistrator author may be a good candidate for being judgement proof - at least, he should get an attorney to make that clear. "You get NOTHING, sir. NOTHING!"
Unless Adobe's attorney likes the prospect of misrepresenting his client, he needs to present the options at that point:
- litigate: if we win, we get nothing other than getting the name back since this guy has no money, and I give you a big bill for all my costs, plus court costs, etc. But we could also lose, causing us to lose protection of our mark, opening us to counterclaims for legal damages, etc. That'd be a nightmare.
- settle: the kid gives the name back, stops using it, and the problem goes away. You walk away a winner with a small bill from me and no risk.
I've been in this position before; if Adobe doesn't control its attorneys, they'll die sooner than you'd think.
*scoove*
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
The problem I have with presumably well-intentioned wishes is that there are hidden assumptions that don't resolve. For example:
where is the method to collect money (and given to whom) from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
If the pollution is really a problem, set and mandate the standard - and apply it across the board. Biodiesel is a cleaner alternative than fossil fuel-produced diesel, but doesn't have enough production to get the costs down. Set the standard and encourage the market to come up with cost-effective alternatives.
Taxes, which only create larger governments, which by definition are ineffecient wasters of resources, also result in their own pollution of a sort.
This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs. And your better system is... ? (not that the current system would ever meet the definition of capitalism).
*scoove*
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Agreed; mine's a F-250 superduty. But getting the wife to drive a truck is a different matter, and pulling the Escort out of the mud wasn't fun either (though it got good mileage).
*scoove*
p.s. Actually, I've hauled 40 bags of pea gravel at at time in the trunk of a BMW 740. Just pray it doesn't rain as you go down the dirt road. But that was the former city car...
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 3
When someone drives 50 miles each way for their commute, alone, in a 3 ton truck, something is not right.
So steal their money from them via taxes (and give the money to whom)? Afraid to allow them to be stupid and suffer their own natural consequences?
I drive a large diesel truck since its required for operating my orchard, as well as being used on the job building rural telecom networks (yea, it's my truck and I bought it. Bite me). You may see me driving 50 miles alone to the city to a meeting, or perhaps a run for orchard supplies. You'd better believe I'm aware of the cost (why do you think I bought the Diesel? 21 MPG highway vs. 10 on the gas engine, and compatibility with biodiesel which I can't wait to run), but then again, it's apparent I'm more aware of the situation than you are.
Per family incomes being too high, god bless them wherever they are at. If they're being foolish with their money, the next (or potentially current) recession will cure that stupidity.
Since these folks are already accountable for their higher costs, potential economic risks, loss of money that could be used for other things, etc., and that doesn't satisfy you, it's apparent that there are more fundamental reactions at work (e.g. class/income jealousy, relativistic justification of theft, etc.).
As we say in our parts, "Mind your own damn business."
*scoove*
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
You know, I'm mystified at how usually enlightened slashdotters can blather such myopic hatred at others (without thinking it through).
What's the motivation behind punishing buyers of SUVs? Ever consider that folks living in rural parts may need a four-wheel vehicle to get to and from their homes (next time you eat something, remember us - your food didn't grow at Albertsons).
Sure, we laugh at your silly Cadillac and Mercedes SUVs. Your "Big Bad Dad" yuppie mobiles wouldn't last a winter in our parts, but hey, if it helps you get the stuff back from Home Depot and you're willing to pay the cost, it's your choice.
I'd love to see some slashdotters stand up to this nice sounding but intellectually void SUV bashing. Better stop the inquisition before it comes knocking on your door
*scoove*
(what's that... an Itanium? When the common man can't afford a 486? That doesn't look like the People's Operating System either... How dare you run such an elitist system that consumed scarce resources while your brethern suffer!)
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 3
Actually, there's a natural "tax" (or behaviour disincentive) with SUVs already: they consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
Ever think to question why people are buying these vehicles - especially when the sticker is $10K+ over a midsized auto, the fuel costs are 50% to 100% more, and insurance isn't any cheaper? If these values proposed are so critical, why aren't we all driving Metros?
I think you'll find a good amount of buyer behavior associated with:
- safety: the lack of enforcement of drunk driving laws (especially violations across state lines which keeps 15+ incident repeat offenders driving), irresponsible drivers with irresponsible cures (ban cell phones while permitting applying makeup or eating burger king in the car) and other factors encourage folks to adopt other means to protect their family.
- utility: SUVs not only get the family around in comfort, but allow for folks to pick up home improvement supplies, load up gardening materials, etc.
We've already got enough taxes on behavior and laws on intent. Take responsibility for your life and let others be responsible for theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be nice to have a distributed.net victory about now? Crack that RC5-64 code and show folks that a backdoor can be broken by bad guys via brute force?
Hmm... 57.395% of total keyspace checked. Time to add a few more machines and get cracking! Come on, cows!
*scoove*
My letters are written... however, these are extraordinary times and more action is required.
Most of us are aware that price gauging during a crisis is immoral. Political opportunisms and raw power grabs at these times is atrocious.
But intentional disarming of our businesses, opening our information resources to hostile nations and criminals may be treason.
We'd hang a soldier that gave secrets to the enemy in wartime. We'd hang a leader who conspired with the enemy to lead our troops into ambush.
What else is appropriate for a congressperson who aids the enemy through dumbed down encryption and banned secure operating systems - even if their gain is merely political or financial?
Congresspersons, your nation *will* hold you accountable. Do not jeopardize this nation!
*scoove*
Don't tread on me... or my constitution.
Someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and *bang* (no pun intended), we suddenly need tougher gun laws.
It may have seemed old, tired and annoying, but remember when us second amendment types warned the rest of you that "after they take our guns away, what of yours will they come to take?"
Well, it's here. You're next. Welcome to the club.
In fact, you Slashdotters and fellow geeks have the dubious honor of being an easier target. Who's smart enough to understand the evils being proposed? What average man can understand your argument that banning strong encryption only protects the evil, while making the innocent an easy target? You've got a tougher issue - one that most of America won't understand and won't defend.
At least we have a lobbying organization (NRA) that fights like a bunch of angry hornets whenever our nest gets swatted at. Who's speaking for you all? The EFF? Nice, mostly harmless geeks. Jon Katz on NPR? He's already sold your souls for publicity (Jon, your 15 minutes are up buddy - especially with lousy performances like the last one. "uh.. umm... err..." You've got a voice for newsprint!).
So if you want to stand up for your right to live without mind control, you'll do a lot of good by adding numbers to the NRA. Even if that's a bit much for you (we know how the media's portrayed us), at least recognize the common issues we share and perhaps speak up for our rights at election time. We've been fighting for yours for years.
*scoove*
Don't tread on me... or my constitution.
Give me a break! How about looking inwards for once?
Hey now! Hollings and other (D) party members (what's in a "D" anyways? Deviant? Dishonest? Duplicitous? Destroyers?) don't speak for everyone in the US (though I did hear the quite unelequent Jon Katz speaking for us geeks on NPR gushing how he wanted to give up his liberties in exchange for a big man protecting him... what a pathetic, spineless wimp).
Actually, it's getting rather concerning that every time anything happens, one of those "D" letters pops up somewhere and says the only solution is to take away liberties. School shootings? Ban all guns. Terrorism? Ban encryption and secure software/operating systems. Economy problems? Ban wealth (redistribution). Hey, if bans work so well, just ban crime and terrorism and be done with it all!
Perhaps we need to create a crime of "legislative terrorism" that makes the opportunistic seizure of liberties during periods of national crisis a matter of treason.
*scoove*
Don't tread on me... or my constitution.
I value my privacy as much as anyone else, but SOMETHING must be done to protect the safety and security of this country.
No offense, but it gets so tiring listening to folks willing to do anything just so they can feel better about doing something. It's probably the same reason we have so many people calling the psychic friends network...
You want to know what "doing something" does in this case? Holling's "Doing Something" bill will:
- eliminate strong encryption, effectively disarming you on the net from the bad guys who are already shooting at you (hello China - thanks for targeting my networks)
- eliminate strong operating systems, allowing Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian or other nationals to take over my networks.
NT is not permitted here. I tire of having to deal with trouble calls from customers who get owned by exploits in proprietary OS's, and sure as hell would not run them on our backbone. Take away my open source OS and security tools and you might as well surrender the net to to the enemy.
If you value your privacy more than human life, you should seriously consider reevaluating your priorities.
Sounds like a typical con telling me to get rid of my gun so I can "value my life"...
*scoove*
In that news survey, said they were willing to give up some privacy if it would have prevented the attacks. Well.. what a loaded question.
In a related survey, pollsters approached folks in dark alleys to obtain surprisingly similar results. The question was posed:
Q: Would you hand over your wallet to me right now in exchange for preventing an attack against your person?
Incredibly, 98.3% (3.5% margin of error) also said they'd gladly give up their wallets!
Poll researchers concluded that it's amazing what people will give up when you hold a gun at their head.
Researchers indicated that creating legislation based on this principle (holding perceived or actual guns at citizens heads), however, is another matter and may require changing party affiliation from Republican/Democrat to Totalitarian.
*scoove*
Exactly... the ARRL has an interesting article (here) regarding the likelyhood of UWB causing a great amount of interference to licensed bands.
In a respect, UWB seems to be a clever marketing way to steal other people's licensed frequencies.
Get your own frequency or play above 6 GHz, time domain...
*scoove*
We've got lots of your "natural monopolies" (schools, water utilities, electrical utilities, etc.) and most of them are excellent examples of how the concept doesn't work. Right now, nearly every utility and governmental service agency in our community is demanding more money for less service. No thanks.
At the same time, we have utilities that exist in a competitive environment.
Consider the telephone utility. I'm served by two wireline last-mile providers (the RBOC and my cable TV company). Both have a termination to my house. Natural monopoly? Not at all.
If both can figure out how to get a wire to my house, so can the electric companies.
If there is a problem with the logistics of running multiples (e.g. water & sewer), then the city should bid the management of the right of way for a period of time to prospective vendors, and upon my deciding to hook up to the public water or sewer grid, I can pay an appropriate fee for that access.
Remember, there's nothing from stopping me from using my own "sewer" (septic tank) or water (well or even local water tank delivery, albeit expensive). In this case, I'm not forced into anything I don't want to buy, and no monopoly is coercing me.
In the process, they will certainly end up screwing things up
Competition has no monopoly on screw-ups:-) (non-uniqueness). My local water monopoly does just fine without any competitors.
*scoove*
The government should have nothing to do with bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind.
That's nice, in theory. However, the government created this mess in the first place.
Consider the state of the RBOCs in the first place - a monopoly granted a hundred years ago had at least a bit of time to get entrenched. Breaking up AT&T only segmented the monopoly into smaller (but also less dormant) entities.
The Internet nearly came under the same monopolistic jurisdiction back in the early 90s (namely ANS and the "Baby Bell NAP" architecture - thanks to UUNET, PSI and Sprint for killing this animal). Again, government (then (D) Sen. Al Gore and the NSFNET folks) promoted the vision of a Bell-centric model.
Now we've got plenty of (D) Senators and Representatives, like the Swamp Thing from Bellsouth (evidently a foreign nation within national bounderies) and a few (R) types on the paid Bell lobby working hard to fix what Gore couldn't complete. Bell dominance of the Internet last mile is a key component.
Per a few other points:
What's the long distance market have to do with an ISP like Covad?
Well, for one, Covads and other "OSI 2+ last mile" entities can help slaughter the long distance toll model, at least domestically. Don't forget that the Bells are still hungry for the long distance market - mostly since their upper management is still about 10 years behind (hey, they used to be 40 years behind - that's progress!).
government...bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind
What bailing out? Much of the problem comes from exclusive local partnerships with the Bells and cable providers, limiting right-of-ways to a single entity in exchange for a lucritive franchise agreement (read "bribe to the government"). Bailing out DSL providers - how? Through chapter 11? By demanding a community resource be opened to competition (which calls that franchise agreement network what it should: public property).
Seriously, how would you feel if I entered into an agreement with your community to be the exclusive grocery store provider, in exchange for giving 3% of the profits to the city government? What a deal for me: no competition, high margins, and the government gets to beef up its budgets (building bigger political empires!). I'll even throw in a donation to your re-election campaign too, and there's no quid pro quo (wink!). What this regulation proposes is recognizing the grocery store for what it is: community granted property that belongs to the community. It's a lousy way to fix the problem created by an unethical prohibition of competition, but there probably isn't a pretty way to get out of this Bell mess.
bail out monsters like Chrysler or Continental
And how many hundreds of thousands of dot-com jobs have been lost, in many cases thanks to the unethical action of the Bells?
rework federal law simply because yet another dot-com servicer went belly-up
Yea, you probably wouldn't want to change the pollution laws either even though all the fish in the ocean were floating belly up. Really, the only laws that need "changing" are the ones protecting bloated monopolies from complying with the law mandating they open up their community-granted networks.
Unfortunately, as long as these Bell congresshacks keep getting re-elected, we can expect the government to keep rigging the system in the Bell's favor.
*scoove*
So Big Media is owned by content owners and really don't give a flying fuck if the first ammendment gets walked all over. So what do you do?
Here's what you don't do: get your net access through one of the same "we own your music, your TV, your newspaper, your radio and your Congressional representatives."
Back to this list:
CNN - owned by Time Warner
Time Warner, also known as AOL, and owner of RoadRunner cable modem service (too).
NBC - in a strategic partnership [msnbc.com] with Microsoft
Microsoft, owner of MSN.
I'm sure there are others as well... not bad for controlling all sources of information.
*scoove*
Ditto! I'm so used to reporters getting it wrong (from interviews I've had) that I seriously doubt anything these critters put out.
In case you're ever the recepient of a reporter's questions, here are a few recommendations for your survival:
- if it is "off the record," then don't say it. Off the record is reporter code for "this will be really juicy stuff to print, but I'll have to slightly reword it."
- if it involves a competitor or other antagonist, don't say it (reporters have a field day on creating any emotional tension, e.g. making you out to be a fool)
- if it is not for release now, keep your trap shut and only mention it when it is for release. Reporters survive by getting new stories out and their loyalty to their editor (and interest in keeping their job) is greater than their loyalty to you.
- if it is at all technical, give them a written release and limit the story to that. If you absolutely must be interviewed beyond the release, give them 10 minutes, give them a couple of soundbytes that you've pre-prepared, and refer everything else to the release.
- and if you're the boss, tell your employees that speaking to the press is voluntary resignation (e.g. nobody does it except you).
This will help you survive these critters.
*scoove*
I see how AOL was glossed over (QUICK - SHORT!). Here's five contributions to a "top ten list" of why AOL is the likely acquirer:
1. They confused GEOS with BEOS and thought they had to buy it all over again.
2. What else do you do with all that cash piling up from the recent rate increases?
3. Albania wasn't for sale.
4. Case heard Gasse was from Apple and he wanted some pretty graphics for the cover of his next book.
5. It's Netscape all over again, baby!
*scoove*
Sure... if they had an acquisition in mind.
However, RHAT is so darn low right now (tell me, I own some), that there are a few logistical problems, including:
1. their stock would likely drop upon the announcement of them acquiring another entity (due to over-dillution expected thru the exchange - you know they'd have to overpay a bit for it). So, where would RHAT go from $3.XX? $2? $1? Ack... major target for being taken over (and that "this is not a poison pill" poison pill hasn't been voted on yet, if I recall correctly)
2. $3.XX is a terrible place to be acquiring other companies at... it would have been prudent at $100+ to be buying real, tangible assets (sort of like how AOL did with their fantasy stock price awhile back).
*scoove*
OPENSOURCE FOUND TO BE GAMING DEAD END
January 4, 2002 -- Los Angeles -- The opensource community's first major game turned out to be a major bust, with total sales for 2001 at a mere 300 units, including promotional copies.
Tux Penguin, a game developed specificially for the Linux community, showed game retailers that there is little support for non-Windows games.
"In our surveys, we found not a single Linux gamer bought a copy," said Amanda Hugginhold, analyst for the independent Wintel Gaming Industry Coalition. "Apparently getting people who've lived on free software to pay for something is a whole different matter."
Although rumors of compatibility issues leading to the game's unpopularity were raised, Sunspire Studios CEO Eric Hall said the concerns had no validity.
"We give no credit to claims that our exclusive release on the Windows operating system impacted sales," said Hall. "Anyone knows that a serious gamer can reformat his Linux system with Windows and get playing in minutes. We're 100% hardware compatible and they know it."
When asked if the feature of a Linux mascot in a Windows game had any impact on the record underperformance, Hall was equally unconcerned.
"Who says those Linux geeks have a monopoly on Penguins? Bill Gates alone could buy all the penguins in the Antartic and then where would they be? Logoless!"
###
Rimbo's got a good point. There's another "geek's revenge" happening which may correspond to a paranoid (but someone's still after you) perspective: post-colombine zero tolerance rules.
Oddly enough, while this overreaction (when measured against statistical data showing the actual decline of Colombine-type activities) presumes to prevent youth on youth violence, the actual legislation ends up being a target used to protect the state.
It's time to set aside the tired "Republicans vs. Democrats" misdirections and recognize that both sides are having great success at eliminating annoying liberties under the guise of protecting us.
*scoove*
Somewhere I heard a comment about how liberals have been outstanding in getting anti-gun laws on the books, leaving them unenforced and pointing to how the lack of statistical progress justifies even more laws. Someone asked what would happen if they suddenly decided to enforce all of the laws they snuck in over time.
Civil libertarians need to watch for the same effect happening elsewhere - as it apparently is with Torricelli pushing this case. If teachers are being threatened (both of my folks are teachers as was my wife - and yes, it does and has happened to them as well), there are existing laws that apply.
It's as if we have a con game going on between legislators making unchecked power grabs by claiming to enhance people's "safety", totally backed by the stupid electoral marks that readily give away their rights for a false prize.
I've gotten ISP accounts cancelled, but the person always seems to resurface thanks to netzero Yea, the bad guys sure can be tough to prosecute. But I'm not sure a police state makes things any better, not to mention the cost in sacrificed rights to get there.
*scoove*
It's always refreshing to see our elected officials so committed to fighting crime.
Obviously, some crimes are more important than others... god forbid we allow teens to hack their poorly run high school webserver and post a nasty comment about an unfavored teacher... that'd be criminal!
Now I'm just waiting for the "Condit Child Intern Protection Act of 2001" to get proposed...
*scoove*
From my experience, NSI is very knowledgable about fraud.
We've had a slew of "invoice moments" over the past several years dealing with NSI's unique practice of sending an invoice to multiple parties (admin, tech, and billing contacts).
As I'm listed as the admin contact for a good amount of domains (having built the first ISP in these parts and dealt primarily with business accounts), I updated my NIC handle to have my current address and company two years ago when I took on a new position/company.
Suddenly, the NSI deliquent-looking domain deletion scare invoices started coming in to my new employer (for domains that had nothing to do with that company). If you've never worked in a good sized company, let me tell you how much fun it is explaining why all these bills are coming in for things that appear to be outside projects (especially when they belong to other well-known companies in town).
"Why are we getting billed for Youknowwho's domains?" "What do you mean, ignore the invoices? We can't do that. We're accounting!" "What do you mean you can't make them stop coming?" "How are we to believe that you didn't incur the expense on our behalf? It says our name right there (it sure does)."
I had numerous discussions with the CFO, COO and CEO explaining that these were bogus invoices (hard to believe, yes, from a "real" company) double billed, and only received by us because I was left as the admin contact for the domain. (The only solution I found was getting myself removed from the domains as admin contact - using multiple NIC handles is a pain, and since I've got a single number NIC handle, it's no fun to go get a 5-digit one).
And then the real fun comes when you found out that the idiots in accounting went ahead and paid them... and so did the real owner of the domain... and NSI pocketed the bonus.
Of course, anyone who gets compensated under government contract, and then turns around and double bills the users for what they're doing under contract, ought to have the double billing scam down well.
*scoove*
We've been trying to deal with Verisign for 6 months on several community applications, to no avail in every case.
Verisign has been effective in stalling on every application, usually by taking 6-8 weeks to reply with an incorrect response like citing lack of authorization for the community (which was sent with the application). After you receive the erroroneous response and send a note to them pointing out their error, they take another 6-8 weeks to send a response saying "contact the community domain administrator for assistance" (which is what we would be if they'd get their act together).
All Verisign's efforts have done is fully alienate each community (we do a good job letting folks know who's botched up the job) and given them a reputation as a company to avoid like the plague.
We had a hunch the stalling tactic had another purpose...
*scoove*
What percentage of a name must be unique to confer protective rights to the owner?
Whatever percent a judge decides after you've been sued. This is the only fair way in the trial attorney's model system - after all, if you knew whether or not you'd be breaking the law beforehand, there would be a whole lot less attorneys out there and the system would lose its subjective foundation. (There are several good objectivist essays about this intellectual property issue and how any law that exists that doesn't allow you to know if your behavior is in compliance or not until after its been applied by third parties is evil).
I found the comments by Adobe's attorneys to be even more humerous about "what attorney works for free" - besides being completely dishonest (do you think Adobe gets them for free? Aren't they doing Adobe's bidding? Don't tell me they do everything on a contingency basis with Adobe...), they overlook two excellent examples of when attorneys do end up working for free:
1. pro bono: I've had attorneys do work for nonprofits (even for non-501(c)3 where there's no way they can claim a deduction for their work). Yes, contrary to Adobe's unethical sharks, there are attorneys out there that are more than well dressed thugs.
2. failed contingency suits: If an attorney takes a suit on the basis that he gets paid only if he wins, and he either loses or wins against a judgement proof defendent, guess what? He doesn't get paid!
I'd argue that the Killistrator author may be a good candidate for being judgement proof - at least, he should get an attorney to make that clear. "You get NOTHING, sir. NOTHING!"
Unless Adobe's attorney likes the prospect of misrepresenting his client, he needs to present the options at that point:
- litigate: if we win, we get nothing other than getting the name back since this guy has no money, and I give you a big bill for all my costs, plus court costs, etc. But we could also lose, causing us to lose protection of our mark, opening us to counterclaims for legal damages, etc. That'd be a nightmare.
- settle: the kid gives the name back, stops using it, and the problem goes away. You walk away a winner with a small bill from me and no risk.
I've been in this position before; if Adobe doesn't control its attorneys, they'll die sooner than you'd think.
*scoove*
The problem I have with presumably well-intentioned wishes is that there are hidden assumptions that don't resolve. For example:
where is the method to collect money (and given to whom) from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
If the pollution is really a problem, set and mandate the standard - and apply it across the board. Biodiesel is a cleaner alternative than fossil fuel-produced diesel, but doesn't have enough production to get the costs down. Set the standard and encourage the market to come up with cost-effective alternatives.
Taxes, which only create larger governments, which by definition are ineffecient wasters of resources, also result in their own pollution of a sort.
This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs. And your better system is... ? (not that the current system would ever meet the definition of capitalism).
*scoove*
Agreed; mine's a F-250 superduty. But getting the wife to drive a truck is a different matter, and pulling the Escort out of the mud wasn't fun either (though it got good mileage).
*scoove*
p.s. Actually, I've hauled 40 bags of pea gravel at at time in the trunk of a BMW 740. Just pray it doesn't rain as you go down the dirt road. But that was the former city car...
When someone drives 50 miles each way for their commute, alone, in a 3 ton truck, something is not right.
So steal their money from them via taxes (and give the money to whom)? Afraid to allow them to be stupid and suffer their own natural consequences?
I drive a large diesel truck since its required for operating my orchard, as well as being used on the job building rural telecom networks (yea, it's my truck and I bought it. Bite me). You may see me driving 50 miles alone to the city to a meeting, or perhaps a run for orchard supplies. You'd better believe I'm aware of the cost (why do you think I bought the Diesel? 21 MPG highway vs. 10 on the gas engine, and compatibility with biodiesel which I can't wait to run), but then again, it's apparent I'm more aware of the situation than you are.
Per family incomes being too high, god bless them wherever they are at. If they're being foolish with their money, the next (or potentially current) recession will cure that stupidity.
Since these folks are already accountable for their higher costs, potential economic risks, loss of money that could be used for other things, etc., and that doesn't satisfy you, it's apparent that there are more fundamental reactions at work (e.g. class/income jealousy, relativistic justification of theft, etc.).
As we say in our parts, "Mind your own damn business."
*scoove*
You know, I'm mystified at how usually enlightened slashdotters can blather such myopic hatred at others (without thinking it through).
What's the motivation behind punishing buyers of SUVs? Ever consider that folks living in rural parts may need a four-wheel vehicle to get to and from their homes (next time you eat something, remember us - your food didn't grow at Albertsons).
Sure, we laugh at your silly Cadillac and Mercedes SUVs. Your "Big Bad Dad" yuppie mobiles wouldn't last a winter in our parts, but hey, if it helps you get the stuff back from Home Depot and you're willing to pay the cost, it's your choice.
I'd love to see some slashdotters stand up to this nice sounding but intellectually void SUV bashing. Better stop the inquisition before it comes knocking on your door
*scoove*
(what's that... an Itanium? When the common man can't afford a 486? That doesn't look like the People's Operating System either... How dare you run such an elitist system that consumed scarce resources while your brethern suffer!)
Actually, there's a natural "tax" (or behaviour disincentive) with SUVs already: they consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
Ever think to question why people are buying these vehicles - especially when the sticker is $10K+ over a midsized auto, the fuel costs are 50% to 100% more, and insurance isn't any cheaper? If these values proposed are so critical, why aren't we all driving Metros?
I think you'll find a good amount of buyer behavior associated with:
- safety: the lack of enforcement of drunk driving laws (especially violations across state lines which keeps 15+ incident repeat offenders driving), irresponsible drivers with irresponsible cures (ban cell phones while permitting applying makeup or eating burger king in the car) and other factors encourage folks to adopt other means to protect their family.
- utility: SUVs not only get the family around in comfort, but allow for folks to pick up home improvement supplies, load up gardening materials, etc.
We've already got enough taxes on behavior and laws on intent. Take responsibility for your life and let others be responsible for theirs.
*scoove*