They did not become a transit network where all of this information was just flowing through waiting to be logged.
They falsely announced that they owned certain prefixes and asked the Internet (web of trust) to forward packets with those destinations to their network.
In order for them to capture an email you sent during that time, they'd have to maintain a TCP connection with you and a fake email server that matches the destination IP address you were using. For a website, they'd likely capture the initial GET request, but they'd have to reply with an actual webpage from one of their servers in order to capture anymore data. If they can't maintain something to actually reply to the packets, they only get what was initially sent and that's it. With no reply, your web browser, email client, etc. time out waiting for a reply and stop sending data.
So sure, they could capture some packets. Maybe an HTTP authentication if you just happened to send that packet at the right time. Or [window size] number of packets related to your email. But it's not like they can do this and capture 18 minutes of traffic between you and whatever.gov or hotmail.com or anything else.
They hijacked prefixes, not data. At least not directly. If you sent a packet during that time, it may have been routed to China. I doubt they stood up a big infrastructure to close TCP sessions with all of that incoming traffic and actually capture anything. Perhaps for a very targetted attack they could have, but then there'd be better ways than this to do it, I imagine.
True, but I'd consider throttling a very low level of management as compared to QoS. Throttling would be performed on a FIFO basis with no consideration to the type of traffic. I said unmanaged, but obviously you'd have to have a little bit to ensure a minimum bandwidth.
Regardless, I don't think the idea is very realistic.
The problem here would be your power company who promised both you and the guy next door to provide more electricity than the power company is capable of providing.
As I read, the proposal addresses exactly this. The "open internet" would have some reasonable minimum guaranteed throughput. If 100 houses are sold 1Mbps, there had better be a 100Mbps (or some reasonable percentage) upstream pipe to support them that is unmanaged. I get my minimum, but also realize there's no priority for my traffic over anyone else. Basically what I have now, where I can use VoIP, streaming, etc. but there's no priority applied to any packets. No amount of other's Netflix streaming or VoIP or downloading should affect my minimum throughput, either. ---- That's how I read it. Whether that's feasible or not is debatable.
Now, one top of that "open internet" (physically or logically) is additional bandwidth for specialized services where ISPs can prioritize traffic. VoIP can be prioritized over streaming, but streaming can be allocated a larger percentage of the bandwidth. Users opting for the specialized services should pay more to support the additional management or costs of providing the specialized services.
Basically, I see this as dividing the pipes (or tubes) in half. Half is dedicated to "open internet" with no prioritization. The other half is dedicated to specialized services with prioritization and bandwidth percentages. The specialized services half can not bleed over into the "open internet" half and cause congestion there. If you make it a percentage, like half, then any increase in bandwidth to support specialized services would also result in an increase on the "open internet" half. So the "open internet" can't become a second tier, left by the wayside, network.
How plausible is this implementation is the question.
I agree. Flock sounded interesting after reading a couple of posts here, so I went to the site. I still have no idea what it really does other than a "social browser". Not to mention the support page, FAQ, etc. are devoid of any help for installing on Linux, even though they offer a download. Some forums mentioned instructions, mostly be getting a.deb from another site, but none of those worked either.
having a few UI guys reinventing a combination of IFrames and RSS feeds on top of some FOSS browser base isn't hugely expensive or rocket-surgical.
Who says it has to be? I don't think it's going to take over the browser world, either, but it could be useful to a lot of users. Providing a simpler interface, as compared to tabs or IFrames, for the four or five things I use the web for sounds intriguing. I don't know that Rockmelt will actually do that, but it's worth giving a try.
perhaps not quite as elegantly, since you won't be able to interface with the drop-down menus and things
I don't think you give enough credit to a dedicated UI and how it influences people's perceptions. Look at the excitement (?) over new Windows releases that add pretty UIs and not much else. Or the multiple iPhone apps that could be a simple webpage. That dedicated UI, dedicated functionality has something to it, I think. IFrames and tabs have been done; maybe people want something else.
Now, that being said, I have no idea if Rockmelt has a UI that actually makes any of this worthwhile. There's no Linux client from as far as I can tell, so I guess I won't be testing it out.
Do you visit the same site 10 times a day, checking for new posts or updates?
This part intrigued me. I pretty much have the same 5 or 6 tabs open all day long and go back and forth looking for updates. If Rockmelt can provide me a better interface to do that, I'm interested. I don't discourage options, even if they don't work for me.:)
Flock needs to update their webpage so you can actually tell what the browser is about. I've browsed it and still have no idea. They also need to make it easier to install/use on Linux. There is a Linux download, but no instructions or FAQs or support documents. Some forum posts give directions, but they don't work currently, either.
Rockmelt doesn't look any better on that front, though. I don't think they even offer a Linux client.
explain to me the differeance between a mini-itx atom running windows 7 hooked up to my TV and the googleTV(arm? and linux?) hooked up to my TV.
Google TV has Google as a middle-man making money off of the re-distribution of free online content.
This is cable vs. broadcast TV all over again. Cable grabbed free OTA TV and made money off of redistributing it. Eventually cable had to pay the broadcasters for their content. Google might as well accept they're going to have to do the same.
They don't want internet on the television screen, because it doesn't earn as much money for them.
It's sad how short-sighted the broadcasters are. If you lose enough viewers to Internet video, it makes that video more valuable for advertising. The transition is going to happen and the more you fight it now, the harder it's going to be to catch up later.
This allows the masses to watch Hulu on their TV through a PS3, Roku or whatever else adds the option. I know that's trivial to computer geeks that have a computer hooked up to their TV already, but the geeks are in the minority. It's also easier for the masses versus downloading via torrent (ignoring the legal issues for now). Some things are worth paying a little for.
I already pay for cable and a DVR, so I don't see any need for this. It makes it slightly more plausible to cut cable entirely and just go with Hulu/Netflix/Internet for "TV" watching, though.
I also imagine that content will start to be exclusive to Hulu Plus as an enticement to getting people to sign up.
Had the documented abuses been punished with prejudice, that would have been something worthy of pride.
Are you sure the abusers weren't punished? These are initial action reports put into a central database for others to act on. Even if it says "NO INVESTIGATION INITIATED AT THIS POINT" who's to say something wasn't started later? Maybe the E-5 on nightshift copy and pasted that in and didn't make the right decision. It's not like these things are constantly updated after the initial action is complete.
If the reports aren't factual, I think it is far more likely that they were falsified by those who wrote them in the first place than by Wikileaks.
These are initial situation reports that yes, may be wrong. Falsified is the wrong term, though. If civilian deaths are adjusted up or down later on in an investigation or abusers detained or charged later in the course of an investigation, these reports aren't pulled up and updated. They get the ball rolling with first hand accounts of what's happening now for others to act on.
Yep. I think it's only a matter of time before we see some sort of must carry / retransmission consent for Internet video systems. Google has the money, they should just accept that route and try to get some favorable regulations passed.
The device will think the channel is "free" because it cannot detect it, and start broadcasting on 17, but in reality it will be occupied.
Is the government or industry under some kind of obligation that you receive a distant station? I don't think so. There's an obligation for free television in support of the public interest, but not for any and all stations you could ever pick up from any market with any size or gain antenna.
Come back to us when a local television station is interfered with by these mythical whitespace devices.
Believe it or not, but some people read all of the articles, watch the videos and make their own judgments on people. It may not line up with yours, but that doesn't mean they're a sheep.
Take this for example from Assange: "This is likely to cause a huge backlash against Moneybookers. Craven behaviour in relation to the US government is unlikely to be seen sympathetically." Textbook egotistical. A company decided to stop doing business with WikiLeaks because of the actions the organization took. Assange believes he's so important that everyone else will jump away from Moneybookers because they won't deal with WikiLeaks.
And also from Assange: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal." Amnesty said they wanted to help, but were stretched thin. Assange didn't get what he wanted, so he'll just discredit them and also accuse them of being "US lead".
Not directly quoted to Assange, but: "Thousands of leaked US military papers from Afghanistan contain evidence of possible war crimes that must be urgently investigated, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says at press conference in London." Really? Which ones? Why aren't these thousands of situation reports showing war crimes being emphasized and reported on? Typical egotistical performance, inflating the importance of what he's done.
I think we were just lucky that there wasn't any/much identifying information in the leak. Maybe that's what the rest of the documents are. You have to admit that it'd be a concern when a trove of raw data is just dumped to the public, though. Was every single line looked at? If so, why not just release the ones that clearly showed a coverup, war crime, etc. Where are those documents? Where are the leaks and the whisteblowing? All I see is a copy and paste of an operations database.
The US has long become more sophisticated than that. They understand that if you create a martyr, you could still be hearing about it two thousand years later.
Wait a fucking minute... are we getting blamed for that now, too??
Slashdot Mirror
They did not become a transit network where all of this information was just flowing through waiting to be logged.
They falsely announced that they owned certain prefixes and asked the Internet (web of trust) to forward packets with those destinations to their network.
In order for them to capture an email you sent during that time, they'd have to maintain a TCP connection with you and a fake email server that matches the destination IP address you were using. For a website, they'd likely capture the initial GET request, but they'd have to reply with an actual webpage from one of their servers in order to capture anymore data. If they can't maintain something to actually reply to the packets, they only get what was initially sent and that's it. With no reply, your web browser, email client, etc. time out waiting for a reply and stop sending data.
So sure, they could capture some packets. Maybe an HTTP authentication if you just happened to send that packet at the right time. Or [window size] number of packets related to your email. But it's not like they can do this and capture 18 minutes of traffic between you and whatever.gov or hotmail.com or anything else.
-John
They hijacked prefixes, not data. At least not directly. If you sent a packet during that time, it may have been routed to China. I doubt they stood up a big infrastructure to close TCP sessions with all of that incoming traffic and actually capture anything. Perhaps for a very targetted attack they could have, but then there'd be better ways than this to do it, I imagine.
Sorry, FIFO doesn't make much sense... wrong term. I meant more of a taildrop of traffic exceeding a certain rate, regardless of the type of traffic.
True, but I'd consider throttling a very low level of management as compared to QoS. Throttling would be performed on a FIFO basis with no consideration to the type of traffic. I said unmanaged, but obviously you'd have to have a little bit to ensure a minimum bandwidth.
Regardless, I don't think the idea is very realistic.
As I read, the proposal addresses exactly this. The "open internet" would have some reasonable minimum guaranteed throughput. If 100 houses are sold 1Mbps, there had better be a 100Mbps (or some reasonable percentage) upstream pipe to support them that is unmanaged. I get my minimum, but also realize there's no priority for my traffic over anyone else. Basically what I have now, where I can use VoIP, streaming, etc. but there's no priority applied to any packets. No amount of other's Netflix streaming or VoIP or downloading should affect my minimum throughput, either. ---- That's how I read it. Whether that's feasible or not is debatable.
Now, one top of that "open internet" (physically or logically) is additional bandwidth for specialized services where ISPs can prioritize traffic. VoIP can be prioritized over streaming, but streaming can be allocated a larger percentage of the bandwidth. Users opting for the specialized services should pay more to support the additional management or costs of providing the specialized services.
Basically, I see this as dividing the pipes (or tubes) in half. Half is dedicated to "open internet" with no prioritization. The other half is dedicated to specialized services with prioritization and bandwidth percentages. The specialized services half can not bleed over into the "open internet" half and cause congestion there. If you make it a percentage, like half, then any increase in bandwidth to support specialized services would also result in an increase on the "open internet" half. So the "open internet" can't become a second tier, left by the wayside, network.
How plausible is this implementation is the question.
-John
I agree. Flock sounded interesting after reading a couple of posts here, so I went to the site. I still have no idea what it really does other than a "social browser". Not to mention the support page, FAQ, etc. are devoid of any help for installing on Linux, even though they offer a download. Some forums mentioned instructions, mostly be getting a .deb from another site, but none of those worked either.
Who says it has to be? I don't think it's going to take over the browser world, either, but it could be useful to a lot of users. Providing a simpler interface, as compared to tabs or IFrames, for the four or five things I use the web for sounds intriguing. I don't know that Rockmelt will actually do that, but it's worth giving a try.
I don't think you give enough credit to a dedicated UI and how it influences people's perceptions. Look at the excitement (?) over new Windows releases that add pretty UIs and not much else. Or the multiple iPhone apps that could be a simple webpage. That dedicated UI, dedicated functionality has something to it, I think. IFrames and tabs have been done; maybe people want something else.
Now, that being said, I have no idea if Rockmelt has a UI that actually makes any of this worthwhile. There's no Linux client from as far as I can tell, so I guess I won't be testing it out.
This part intrigued me. I pretty much have the same 5 or 6 tabs open all day long and go back and forth looking for updates. If Rockmelt can provide me a better interface to do that, I'm interested. I don't discourage options, even if they don't work for me. :)
-John
Flock needs to update their webpage so you can actually tell what the browser is about. I've browsed it and still have no idea. They also need to make it easier to install/use on Linux. There is a Linux download, but no instructions or FAQs or support documents. Some forum posts give directions, but they don't work currently, either.
Rockmelt doesn't look any better on that front, though. I don't think they even offer a Linux client.
-John
It's obviously heavily tied to facebook, why should it be open to anyone not on the site? Use another browser...
Google TV has Google as a middle-man making money off of the re-distribution of free online content.
This is cable vs. broadcast TV all over again. Cable grabbed free OTA TV and made money off of redistributing it. Eventually cable had to pay the broadcasters for their content. Google might as well accept they're going to have to do the same.
-John
It's sad how short-sighted the broadcasters are. If you lose enough viewers to Internet video, it makes that video more valuable for advertising. The transition is going to happen and the more you fight it now, the harder it's going to be to catch up later.
-John
Yeah, I'm going to walk mom and dad through that and any issues that pop up or get a $99 Roku box.
This allows the masses to watch Hulu on their TV through a PS3, Roku or whatever else adds the option. I know that's trivial to computer geeks that have a computer hooked up to their TV already, but the geeks are in the minority. It's also easier for the masses versus downloading via torrent (ignoring the legal issues for now). Some things are worth paying a little for.
I already pay for cable and a DVR, so I don't see any need for this. It makes it slightly more plausible to cut cable entirely and just go with Hulu/Netflix/Internet for "TV" watching, though.
I also imagine that content will start to be exclusive to Hulu Plus as an enticement to getting people to sign up.
You're smart enough to read, but too stupid to create an HTML link to the report?
Are you sure the abusers weren't punished? These are initial action reports put into a central database for others to act on. Even if it says "NO INVESTIGATION INITIATED AT THIS POINT" who's to say something wasn't started later? Maybe the E-5 on nightshift copy and pasted that in and didn't make the right decision. It's not like these things are constantly updated after the initial action is complete.
These are initial situation reports that yes, may be wrong. Falsified is the wrong term, though. If civilian deaths are adjusted up or down later on in an investigation or abusers detained or charged later in the course of an investigation, these reports aren't pulled up and updated. They get the ball rolling with first hand accounts of what's happening now for others to act on.
Yep. I think it's only a matter of time before we see some sort of must carry / retransmission consent for Internet video systems. Google has the money, they should just accept that route and try to get some favorable regulations passed.
If you're a cable or satellite operator, you pay for stations that elect Retransmission Consent.
John
Is the government or industry under some kind of obligation that you receive a distant station? I don't think so. There's an obligation for free television in support of the public interest, but not for any and all stations you could ever pick up from any market with any size or gain antenna.
Come back to us when a local television station is interfered with by these mythical whitespace devices.
-John
Believe it or not, but some people read all of the articles, watch the videos and make their own judgments on people. It may not line up with yours, but that doesn't mean they're a sheep.
Take this for example from Assange: "This is likely to cause a huge backlash against Moneybookers. Craven behaviour in relation to the US government is unlikely to be seen sympathetically." Textbook egotistical. A company decided to stop doing business with WikiLeaks because of the actions the organization took. Assange believes he's so important that everyone else will jump away from Moneybookers because they won't deal with WikiLeaks.
And also from Assange: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal." Amnesty said they wanted to help, but were stretched thin. Assange didn't get what he wanted, so he'll just discredit them and also accuse them of being "US lead".
Not directly quoted to Assange, but: "Thousands of leaked US military papers from Afghanistan contain evidence of possible war crimes that must be urgently investigated, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says at press conference in London." Really? Which ones? Why aren't these thousands of situation reports showing war crimes being emphasized and reported on? Typical egotistical performance, inflating the importance of what he's done.
-John
I think we were just lucky that there wasn't any/much identifying information in the leak. Maybe that's what the rest of the documents are. You have to admit that it'd be a concern when a trove of raw data is just dumped to the public, though. Was every single line looked at? If so, why not just release the ones that clearly showed a coverup, war crime, etc. Where are those documents? Where are the leaks and the whisteblowing? All I see is a copy and paste of an operations database.
Wait a fucking minute... are we getting blamed for that now, too??
Yeah, you showed them!!
oh... nevermind.