do you relly care watching your video on a 5 to 6 inch screen. putting these 4k displays in these phones has to be the biggest wast of money ever,
Remember, this is a generic internet service. While it may mostly be used by mobile devices a lot of rural areas are forced to use these connections for their home internet connections and that includes providing service to the 70" UHD internet connected, voice activated television that knows when you're fridge ran out of beer.
This would destroy the major USA ISPs. Most of them advertise "up to" speeds that are asynchronous and rarely live up to half their expectation. Many of the larger ISPs depend on this lack of clarity to arbitrarily over subscribe their customers. This would drastically destroy many of their shady marketing practices. 3 Here's to hoping...
What we really ought to do is declare free communication a human right (though I pity the person trying to figure out language allowing the suppression of dangerous misinformation, harassment, incitement to violence, etc.), then make damn sure the borders stay 'information porous'.
The U.N. has already partially done this. Unfortunately it's not a binding treaty but rather a recommendatory resolution, but through time and acceptance it's risen to the level of customary international law. It's specifically in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, which states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It is very broad and open to a large amount of interpretation, but you find that in all international laws. Removing or restricting access to dissenting political bodies access to the information would be a pretty clear cut violation of this. Once again those, this isn't an enforceable or binding treaty and several significant countries oppose it becoming one (not surprisingly, primarily China and Russia).
Separately, I disagree with government attempting to censor misinformation. I know it's a huge problem, but when the government gets involved at that level it sets a dangerous precedent of authority against people who disagree with the government or statements made by the government. Ideally I'd want to support no
form of government censorship at all (leaving individual site censorship up to the operators of the site), but there are to many possibilities for direct and blatant harm to individuals through harassment, threats, posting private information, etc. for the only repercussion to be loss of access to a public site.
What you seem to be assuming is that their is only one work. If you contact a programmer to make you a specific program you are paying for the creation and license of that work. You own a copy of that work. The programmer owns the work.
If you did not get the copyright from the photographer taking wedding photos, they could not come to your house and take the pictures of your wedding off your wall. You own those copies, just as you own a copy of the software written for you.
If a competitor of your company wants the same software made by the same programmer there is nothing stopping that programmer reusing the code they used to make yours and adjusting it to fit your competitor's needs and be well within his rights to create a derivative work based on something he owns the copyright to.
What your missing is that by paying for it, your buying the right to use the software anyway you see fit unless your contract with the programmer states otherwise.
If you higher a contractor to build you an internal application and then you try to sell that as a product, you deserve the legal ramification that will come from this. The programmer should retain the rights to the code that they have created. The ability to reuse common code between jobs makes things go quicker for both you and any other clients that the developer chooses to take on.
The next time your hiring a programmer try asking them how long the job will take if they were not allowed to reuse any code that they already have.
Your argument has a significant flaw in it. Architects do not create the building, they create the blueprints for the building. Architects can then take bits and pieces of that blueprint and reuse them in any other building that they design. This is true with source code ownership. While you as a developer do not own the product, you should be able to take the pieces that you did make and reuse them as you'd like effectively owning them.
This doesn't apply in the face of the construction phase of creating a new building because you can't reuse the same physical material without removing it from the original. It's meta-physical existence vs physical existence. This is what spawned copyrights in the first place. "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work."
While I'm not disagreeing with you, there are absurdly good players at any game out there, there is also a wide range of people that actually do hack. In the case of the entire call of duty series there is a group that has turned it into a business of selling hacks. Here they are.
There are definitely people that call out good players as hackers, but it's usually pretty obvious to me who is a good player and who is a hacker. Quite a few them don't even have any problem admitting they are using hacks, commonly saying things like "If you don't like me using them then leave the server".
The ranking system built in to modern warfare 2 is also a bit of a give away right now. It takes a significant amount of playtime to get to "Level 70" in game. Once you reach level 70 you can go into prestige mode which starts you back at level 1. Most of the players that are Level 70, prestige 10 (essentially level 700) are hackers. Not at all of them mind you, there are some people out there that seem to have legitimately put in the ridiculous amount of hours to do that legit.
Encryption is separate from authentication. As it stands right now quite a few people assume they are the same thing. Encryption ensures that once you and whatever it is are talking to each other that session is private and only the two of you can understand what is being passed back and forth. Ensuring that your talking to the right person before starting the session is not the job of the encryption.
I understand that this view is wide open for man in the middle attacks but tying encryption and authentication together has been a big mistake. It is a convenient way to authenticate a server or a client and that is why it was implemented this way and continues to be implemented this way. A authentication handshake could easily be performed over and already encrypted session and verify the server for who it is.
"It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque "
Maybe I'm off my rocker but the way this is stated, it sounds like a fact they observed rather than a model that they created. While this "fact" makes logical sense it is far too often that I see the statement "It turns out..."
I think that at least the latter half of this post is missing one huge piece of information. How can you be sure that it is Google that is defining public/private data. A lot of organizations are required to follow federal standards which in themselves define what is public and private. Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers are always at the top of every one of those lists.
For reference look at PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FERPA (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), and HIPPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act). Now while FERPA and HIPPA might not have anything talking about SS#s and CC#s take this excerpt from FERPA:
"Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance."
If a school can publicly disclose addresses without consent which they collect mandatorily, why can't Google, who is just indexing information that was already public not link to it?
The problem with the private data online isn't Google, they are just the biggest target that happens to have been hit by this guy's particular wild shooting.
I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet. I stumbled upon it on accident while looking for the same thing. A product named DimDim. It's open source and basically webex. It's free for conference rooms that have under 20 people. You can also host a server yourself. Using this I have helped many friends and family members overcome different problems. Setting up my own server was pain (dependency nightmare) but I like to know what information goes where (yeah I'm a bit paranoid).
There is one thing that people seem to be missing in all of this. Does the Administrator actually care about the data that you are worried they are going to steal. I personally strongly value my job and the trust that people put in me. Even if that wasn't the case I personally manage and maintain systems that store terabytes of sensitive data, hundreds of thousands of personal, potentially confidential, and sensitive emails, and I wouldn't waste my time looking through that. There just isn't any reason.
Unless you have a shady administrator with a lot of free time, no other clients (this should be a warning sign by itself), and a very small amount of data. This shouldn't be a concern.
This is actually one of my problems with comcast the "real world" speed tests you have done are marred by there "speed boost technology". It makes it next to impossible to measure your real world performance. I also have there business class service and can tell you right now that it is not actually 20/2.
Comcast is one of the worst offenders of false advertising when it comes to usuable bandwidth, but doesn't violate any laws in doing so by saying "up to" about there speeds.
Personally i've wanted to be a programmer for a long time and have looked into various career venues within programming. While games tends to be a low-paying market it is also very innovative. I can honestly say that Introversion (me being introduced to Uplink when it came out) perked my interest in games and I now write little things in my spare time. None of which i'm proud enough to release to the general public but it is a fun and rewarding hobby.
I thought of this as well but in a way that combines with a previously mentioned method. Have the content server, database server, etc all hosted inside Tor. Have two or three independent hosting companies work as gateways to your Tor content server.
Pros:
Near Impossible to trace down the content server
If a server gets seized, you lose nothing and they get nothing but maybe access logs
Can quickly add/remove gateway servers
Data is always synced since despite multiple gateways they are only front ends to the actual content server.
Cons:
The TOR network tends to be very slow, so poor performance
There are probably a considerable number more pros/cons but thats all I could come up with just now.
Slashdot Mirror
do you relly care watching your video on a 5 to 6 inch screen. putting these 4k displays in these phones has to be the biggest wast of money ever,
Remember, this is a generic internet service. While it may mostly be used by mobile devices a lot of rural areas are forced to use these connections for their home internet connections and that includes providing service to the 70" UHD internet connected, voice activated television that knows when you're fridge ran out of beer.
This would destroy the major USA ISPs. Most of them advertise "up to" speeds that are asynchronous and rarely live up to half their expectation. Many of the larger ISPs depend on this lack of clarity to arbitrarily over subscribe their customers. This would drastically destroy many of their shady marketing practices. 3 Here's to hoping...
What we really ought to do is declare free communication a human right (though I pity the person trying to figure out language allowing the suppression of dangerous misinformation, harassment, incitement to violence, etc.), then make damn sure the borders stay 'information porous'.
The U.N. has already partially done this. Unfortunately it's not a binding treaty but rather a recommendatory resolution, but through time and acceptance it's risen to the level of customary international law. It's specifically in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, which states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It is very broad and open to a large amount of interpretation, but you find that in all international laws. Removing or restricting access to dissenting political bodies access to the information would be a pretty clear cut violation of this. Once again those, this isn't an enforceable or binding treaty and several significant countries oppose it becoming one (not surprisingly, primarily China and Russia).
Separately, I disagree with government attempting to censor misinformation. I know it's a huge problem, but when the government gets involved at that level it sets a dangerous precedent of authority against people who disagree with the government or statements made by the government. Ideally I'd want to support no form of government censorship at all (leaving individual site censorship up to the operators of the site), but there are to many possibilities for direct and blatant harm to individuals through harassment, threats, posting private information, etc. for the only repercussion to be loss of access to a public site.
What you seem to be assuming is that their is only one work. If you contact a programmer to make you a specific program you are paying for the creation and license of that work. You own a copy of that work. The programmer owns the work.
If you did not get the copyright from the photographer taking wedding photos, they could not come to your house and take the pictures of your wedding off your wall. You own those copies, just as you own a copy of the software written for you.
If a competitor of your company wants the same software made by the same programmer there is nothing stopping that programmer reusing the code they used to make yours and adjusting it to fit your competitor's needs and be well within his rights to create a derivative work based on something he owns the copyright to.
What your missing is that by paying for it, your buying the right to use the software anyway you see fit unless your contract with the programmer states otherwise.
If you higher a contractor to build you an internal application and then you try to sell that as a product, you deserve the legal ramification that will come from this. The programmer should retain the rights to the code that they have created. The ability to reuse common code between jobs makes things go quicker for both you and any other clients that the developer chooses to take on.
The next time your hiring a programmer try asking them how long the job will take if they were not allowed to reuse any code that they already have.
Your argument has a significant flaw in it. Architects do not create the building, they create the blueprints for the building. Architects can then take bits and pieces of that blueprint and reuse them in any other building that they design. This is true with source code ownership. While you as a developer do not own the product, you should be able to take the pieces that you did make and reuse them as you'd like effectively owning them. This doesn't apply in the face of the construction phase of creating a new building because you can't reuse the same physical material without removing it from the original. It's meta-physical existence vs physical existence. This is what spawned copyrights in the first place. "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work."
While I'm not disagreeing with you, there are absurdly good players at any game out there, there is also a wide range of people that actually do hack. In the case of the entire call of duty series there is a group that has turned it into a business of selling hacks. Here they are.
There are definitely people that call out good players as hackers, but it's usually pretty obvious to me who is a good player and who is a hacker. Quite a few them don't even have any problem admitting they are using hacks, commonly saying things like "If you don't like me using them then leave the server".
The ranking system built in to modern warfare 2 is also a bit of a give away right now. It takes a significant amount of playtime to get to "Level 70" in game. Once you reach level 70 you can go into prestige mode which starts you back at level 1. Most of the players that are Level 70, prestige 10 (essentially level 700) are hackers. Not at all of them mind you, there are some people out there that seem to have legitimately put in the ridiculous amount of hours to do that legit.
TL;DR Hacking is extremely prevalent in MW2
Encryption is separate from authentication. As it stands right now quite a few people assume they are the same thing. Encryption ensures that once you and whatever it is are talking to each other that session is private and only the two of you can understand what is being passed back and forth. Ensuring that your talking to the right person before starting the session is not the job of the encryption.
I understand that this view is wide open for man in the middle attacks but tying encryption and authentication together has been a big mistake. It is a convenient way to authenticate a server or a client and that is why it was implemented this way and continues to be implemented this way. A authentication handshake could easily be performed over and already encrypted session and verify the server for who it is.
"It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque " Maybe I'm off my rocker but the way this is stated, it sounds like a fact they observed rather than a model that they created. While this "fact" makes logical sense it is far too often that I see the statement "It turns out..."
I think that at least the latter half of this post is missing one huge piece of information. How can you be sure that it is Google that is defining public/private data. A lot of organizations are required to follow federal standards which in themselves define what is public and private. Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers are always at the top of every one of those lists. For reference look at PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FERPA (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), and HIPPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act). Now while FERPA and HIPPA might not have anything talking about SS#s and CC#s take this excerpt from FERPA: "Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance." If a school can publicly disclose addresses without consent which they collect mandatorily, why can't Google, who is just indexing information that was already public not link to it? The problem with the private data online isn't Google, they are just the biggest target that happens to have been hit by this guy's particular wild shooting.
I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet. I stumbled upon it on accident while looking for the same thing. A product named DimDim. It's open source and basically webex. It's free for conference rooms that have under 20 people. You can also host a server yourself. Using this I have helped many friends and family members overcome different problems. Setting up my own server was pain (dependency nightmare) but I like to know what information goes where (yeah I'm a bit paranoid).
There is one thing that people seem to be missing in all of this. Does the Administrator actually care about the data that you are worried they are going to steal. I personally strongly value my job and the trust that people put in me. Even if that wasn't the case I personally manage and maintain systems that store terabytes of sensitive data, hundreds of thousands of personal, potentially confidential, and sensitive emails, and I wouldn't waste my time looking through that. There just isn't any reason. Unless you have a shady administrator with a lot of free time, no other clients (this should be a warning sign by itself), and a very small amount of data. This shouldn't be a concern.
... if they can't get through the tubes!
This is actually one of my problems with comcast the "real world" speed tests you have done are marred by there "speed boost technology". It makes it next to impossible to measure your real world performance. I also have there business class service and can tell you right now that it is not actually 20/2. Comcast is one of the worst offenders of false advertising when it comes to usuable bandwidth, but doesn't violate any laws in doing so by saying "up to" about there speeds.
Personally i've wanted to be a programmer for a long time and have looked into various career venues within programming. While games tends to be a low-paying market it is also very innovative. I can honestly say that Introversion (me being introduced to Uplink when it came out) perked my interest in games and I now write little things in my spare time. None of which i'm proud enough to release to the general public but it is a fun and rewarding hobby.
I thought of this as well but in a way that combines with a previously mentioned method. Have the content server, database server, etc all hosted inside Tor. Have two or three independent hosting companies work as gateways to your Tor content server.
Pros:
Cons:
There are probably a considerable number more pros/cons but thats all I could come up with just now.