Here's the vid so you don't have to search for it. (Wish folks would link to a vid in TFS).
Looks like Microsoft is actually starting to get serious about research, but I still don't know if this is all that compelling to be a breakthrough worth the effort of such a large corporation - they should be working on something bigger like Google or Apple, and coming out with major innovations every year or two (my opinion)
But, I suppose it's a start. Best of luck to them, I think innovation is great and every company should do more of it.
I'm deliberately speaking in very general terms here. Incremental improvements are also a good thing, and in fact I would expect large behemoth corporations to try to "play it safe" by doing it this way instead of trying too many radically new things that might be a complete flop. It's really the smaller, more "nimble" corporations that seem to be more willing to go for the breakthroughs and radically new ideas, even though for them the success of such things can mean the difference between liquidity and bankruptcy.
The other comment by EvanED in this thread is spot on. I do not like Microsoft and I have plenty of solid reasons to criticise them. Having said that, their research division is one thing they got right. The kind of autonomy afforded them, combined with the immense cash reserves of a company like MS, has indeed produced some useful things. I only wish that the design and functionality of the operating system were similarly de-coupled from marketing, at least to a greater degree than the current arrangement.
If this had an apple logo on it you'd be standing in line to buy one.
It's not very kind of you to assume he must be a mindless Apple fanboy because he offers constructive criticism. That is, I've seen no positive sign that this must be true of him and that there are no alternative explanations for why he feels the way he does. Despite that, the "Apple vs. Microsoft" tone of your comment did make me think of something.
This is actually innovative, in that it's something new despite the summary comment that "if we didn't build this, someone else will." So here we have an example of genuine innovation from Microsoft. I wonder if they realize that the only reason why they can do this is because there is no monopoly maintaining a stranglehold on small, portable PCs and smartphones. For comparison, just imagine trying to market a completely new, commercial, closed-source operating system and having to compete with Microsoft and Windows. I mention closed-source there so that this is a comparsion and not a contrast.
I wonder if the irony of one of the most successful monopolists having room to innovate because there is no sole monopoly in this new (to them) market is lost on the folks at Microsoft.
Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".
Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.
Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.
Idiots.
I think a big part of the problem is that right now, most people who have any choice at all have a choice between two monopolies: telco and cable. Your idea would provide that missing "third option". An agile competitor with minimal infrastructure costs, license costs, and other barriers to entry might just provide the innovation and options that are sorely missing from the monopolies.
I say that with the assumption that what you had in mind was WiMax or something like it. Although it would be yet another monopoly, this also makes me wonder what happened to the internet-over-powerlines idea. The above was my realistic response to you. What follows is what I'd like to see despite how unrealistic it may be.
What I'd really like to see is a more decentralized Internet. This is more like the mesh networks consisting of many low-power wireless connections that communicate with each other. On a truly decentralized Internet, it would be impossible for any single entity to force filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, bandwidth caps, and the like on large numbers of people who do not want them. It would also be a truly "public benefit" as in owned and operated by Joe Public instead of owned and operated by large, centralized, political bureaucracies in Joe Public's name. Right now this may not be feasible or likely but it would be pleasing to see a step in that direction. Of course, I would not expect the FCC to encourage this idea at all, for it would reduce the amount of control they now enjoy, but that's why I call this unrealistic.
Just as an aside, isn't there currently a lot of dark fiber? If there is a large amount of it, does anyone know why it's not currently being used, or have an idea of what could be done with it?
Then again if you follow the train back far enough we can just blame *insert how you think the world came about here* for all evil.
That's why it makes more sense to look at it in terms of enablers who could have chosen differently. The people could study statecraft and propaganda techniques. They could study dictatorships like the Third Reich or Italy under Mussolini to learn how these leaders came to power by preying on the desperation and the weaknesses of the people. They can familiarize themselves with the sorts of excuses and justifications that are given for the expansion of state power. They can learn argumentation and research so that they are equipped to investigate things on their own instead of requiring that premade conclusions be spoonfed to them. In short, they can shed the naivete and the ignorance that must be present before such horrors can arise.
Any literate adult with Internet access can do all of these things. The only obstacle they could encounter would be their own laziness or unwillingness. I would say that we have a responsibility to do these things because everything that is good about the way of life that we presently enjoy depends on an informed citizenry. Our civilization is on the decline because people think this does not apply to them, or they think that someone else will take care of it, or they think that the latest celebrity-worship is more important.
The evil politicians are like organisms in an environment. The environment in which they thrive consists of ignorant people who are far too naive and trusting and do not guard themselves against being deceived. If you set up this sort of environment, those organisms will appear in it and will prosper. Thus, I believe it is the people and their ignorance and lack of priorities that are far more to blame, for they provide fertile soil without which this organism could never succeed. It should be assumed that evil men will come along who will try to take advantage of our way of life to suit their selfish purposes. We should be prepared for this and well-able to deal with it by never rewarding it with the power it seeks to have. We are not. We think our enemies are our friends because they know how to tell us what we want to hear. That is the problem.
D.I. is neither good or bad, it is the illegal or immoral application of the technology that is the problem.
It's a technology that almost no one wants except for those who are in a position to abuse it. That makes it difficult or impossible to view it as a "neutral" thing.
DPI has been used for several years to maintain the integrity and security of networks, searching for signs of protocol non-compliance, viruses, malicious code, SPAM and other threats.
Are you suggesting people don't want a less SPAMy, more secure internet? There's more to it than "oh noes, the isp's are spying my internets!"
I'm not saying I want them to, there's just more to it than some people realize.
You and another person suggested using it to thwart spam or worm attacks. I am replying to you since the other person was more reasonable. That is, he did not say "are you suggesting people don't want a less spamy [sic], more secure internet" as though that's the same thing as criticising another wrong solution that cannot solve our problems. The way you did that reminds me of people who say "you mean you don't want to be safe from terrorists?" when you point out that it's wrong to infringe on civil liberties. It's an intimidation tactic that's designed to shut down healthy debate. It won't work on me or anyone else who can see that for what it is.
I am not a fan of "solutions" that don't address the actual causes of problems. They inevitably open up more problems, many of which can be unanticipated. It may be obvious, but we should get one thing out of the way: the presence of many insecure Windows machines is what enables the modern spam problem and the modern malware problem. If I ever see successful worms thriving "in the wild" for Unix-like operating systems, I'll gladly revise that statement, but for now, that's the reality.
The solution to that is to secure those Windows machines. Any other proposed solution is aimed at symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem which is why it will fail. Whether the users should secure those machines by obtaining a clue or whether Microsoft should do that as part of taking care of its customers is the debatable part. This is the part I want to emphasize: nothing other than securing those insecure machines, and perhaps their users, is going to solve this problem. Our efforts and our ability to create novel solutions should be directed towards that goal. Deep packet inspection is a network operation and does not constitute host security. What you are referring to there is damage control, which is about detection and containment. It is emphatically not security, which is about prevention.
If you start using DPI to target spam and worms, you'll run into all of the problems we currently have with filters and virus/malware scanners. The reason why there is not a final ultimate solution for those problems is that this approach does not address the real cause. It only treats the immediate symptoms of that cause. That's why there isn't going to be a final ultimate solution to those problems. What you will end up with is an arms race where it will be a contest between those who maintain the DPI systems and those who produce spam and malware. The contest will consist of how quickly spammers and malware authors can modify their traffic to be "missed" by the DPI filters and at some point will also consist of how well they can disguise their traffic to make it look legitimate. To be successful, the DPI filters would need to catch every possible spam/malware pattern; to be successful, the attackers would only need to find one that was missed. Thus, this scenario favors the attacker.
The arms race that this will trigger is predictable be
it's just going to push more and more protocols to use TLS wrappers and to use random "legit looking" ports (like 20, 21, 80, 443, 110), a la Skype and most IM clients nowadays
Good luck deep inspecting that crap
That's true. You'd think that "spam vs anti-spam measures" alone or "windows viruses vs windows virus scanners" alone would have taught us, by now, how to recognize an arms race when we're about to start one. This is what I mean when I say that our culture does not value foresight.
VLC is supposed to have built-in plugins that enable it to play "virtually anything". Without a codec pack.
Missing a needed codec is a valid reason to be unable to play a video file. DRM is not a valid reason for being unable to play a video file -- it's an artificial one, a problem that was created deliberately when there would otherwise not be a problem in order to serve the interests of someone other than the person playing the video.
Whether or not VLC meets its stated goals has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
D.I. is neither good or bad, it is the illegal or immoral application of the technology that is the problem.
It's a technology that almost no one wants except for those who are in a position to abuse it. That makes it difficult or impossible to view it as a "neutral" thing.
It's the use of it by the famous "men of good will but little understanding" that is bad, plus of course the use of it by men of ill will.
The former category is much more dangerous. At least most people recognize ill-will when they see it. By far people with good intentions and no comprehension of the "law of unintended consequences" do more damage to the world than do people with openly evil intentions.
No politician ever increased state power by saying "I'd like to see this nation become a totalitarian state and you should support me because this law will bring it closer to that goal." They do it by saying "this is for your safety" or "this is to stop terrorism" and the people who mean well and don't understand the damage they can do will eagerly eat that shit up. That's true whether or not the politician himself believes anything he is saying.
How would the authorities like to be deep inspected?
That's a good question.
This summary mentions education about deep packet inspection. To me that's a very simple thing that boils down to a few questions:
Do you want your ISP and potential unknown/unaccountable parties to be able to easily monitor, intercept, and record some or all of your Internet traffic? Do you want profiles built on this information that will compromise your privacy and could be used to serve advertisements or to micromanage your Internet usage? Do you feel like QoS, which will be the given reason/excuse, is such a good and desirable thing that it's worth all of these disadvantages?
Like so many things that are not the result of overwhelming customer demand, this is a bad idea that is open to all sorts of abuse.
Perhaps they realized that a good code audit and general cleanup would eliminate the need for much of the bolt-on "Stirling".
I notice that many of the Windows vulerabilities are buffer overflows. Aren't there automated tools and other procedures that can be used to locate and fix such flaws? Couldn't these tools, plus some auditing, enable Microsoft to produce a Windows codebase that has no buffer overflows? I know it's basically impossible to prove that a piece of code has no bugs but isn't it possible to prove that it has no buffer overflows? If so, wouldn't that alone go a long way towards a more secure Windows?
I hope maybe a programmer out there will read this and can give me an answer, because I am honestly rather ignorant about these things. That is, I understand the basic concepts involved but I have never tried to actually take on a task like this and I don't understand the practicality of it. I just feel that with their incredible cash reserves and other resources, Microsoft could produce a more secure Windows if they wanted to do so. I think a more secure Windows would be one of the best things that could happen to the Internet, at least as long as it's so dominant on the desktop. I say this as someone who dislikes Windows and dislikes spam and botnets much more.
I think you're both missing the point that it isn't free because of anti-trust law. I didn't realize I was going to have to spell it out.
In my opinion this entire thread misses the point because plenty of operating systems manage to maintain security without any sort of anti-virus or anti-spyware scanner. Those things are forms of damage control and are not actually security at all. With Windows they are used as a substitute for a proper security system because they are much better than nothing. That is, real security is about prevention; damage control is about detection and removal.
So how about if Microsoft makes the OS itself inherently more secure? If they made something comparable to the Unix security system (even if its mechanisms are quite different) then you would not need all of these scanners to double-check every last action taken or file opened or e-mail viewed etc. That would neatly avoid any anti-trust issues that might be raised by the likes of McAfee or Symantec and would be a significant performance boost as well. Of course such cottage industries may complain for a different reason, in that a more secure Windows could put them out of business, but if they really are obsolete then this is what should happen.
First thing I want to get data on: Obama's birth certificate _>
It's too bad this was modded as Troll. Here's the mod's thought process: "I really like Obama and that guy seems to be saying something that doesn't promote Obama. Clearly he must be a troll!" That's sort of like saying that if you disagree with Obama on a political issue, it could only be because he is black and you are racist.
How many presidents are asked to provide a birth certificate for the public?
This is not a political issue, it's pointless stirring.
I see that the number of Presidents who may have been born outside the United States and about which there is some doubt, however small, is approximately equal to the number of Presidents who are being asked to provide a birth certificate. That is, he's the only one of whom I know. I still don't see what's unreasonable about this. If it's pointless stirring it's because the birth certificate wasn't provided a long time ago to put an end to it.
Normally privacy would be my main concern, along with the concern of not validating potentially dishonest requests ("stirring" as you call it). However, this man wants a public office. He should therefore be an open book, at least as far as basic things like his place of birth are concerned. Therefore, I consider those two concerns to be negligible in his case and in the case of anyone who wants political power.
I've always felt that anyone who wants to have power over us needs to be held to some very strict standards. That's especially true when they break a law that none of us would get away with breaking but also true in terms of full disclosure. If that is too much to ask of a person, then that person is unfit to hold political power.
First thing I want to get data on: Obama's birth certificate _>
It's too bad this was modded as Troll. Here's the mod's thought process: "I really like Obama and that guy seems to be saying something that doesn't promote Obama. Clearly he must be a troll!" That's sort of like saying that if you disagree with Obama on a political issue, it could only be because he is black and you are racist. In the absence of any other reason to believe that this is a deliberate troll, it's equally childish
I'll explain this birth certificate controversy. It's really simple and boils down to only two things:
The first is an issue of equality. If an employer about to hire us required a specific document from any of us, and we furnished anything other than that specific document, that employer would not hire us. Obama is asked for his birth certificate and he provided a somewhat different document (a type of card) that is easier to falsify and was not the specific document requested. He gets a pass on this because no one has the backbone to say "this is a requirement and you aren't going anywhere until you fulfill it". That is the crux of this controversy. None of the rest of us would be able to do that, which is completely backwards considering how important the "job" of the President is compared to most other jobs. If anything, he should have to deal with a stricter standard. It's backwards and no one does anything about it and this is accepted as normal, which frankly is part of the mindfuck that goes along with most media controversies.
The second issue is that the real birth certificate should not be too much to ask. We are offering him one of the most powerful offices on the planet and all we ask at this point is that he furnish a basic document that everyone has. That just doesn't sound like something that should be a problem for Obama. I don't understand why he would let this continue to be an issue when the remedy is so simple. Lots of controversies are based on opinion or belief and therefore cannot be resolved. This one can be resolved once and for all with a single piece of evidence. I cannot think of an honest reason why someone would refuse to do so.
No, everything begins as an "idea", that part is obvious. But ideas in and of themselves are worthless until you implement them.
I can agree to that on the condition that we are speaking of "worth" in strictly materialistic or pragmatic terms. That is, however, an artificially narrow concept. Look at most forms of art and the ideas found there, or at philosophers who truly enjoy exploring the mysteries of life. Look at the idea of freedom and how very inconvenient and costly it can be, yet so utterly worthwhile. Those are ideas that are valuable to the people who entertain them that don't need to be implemented as any product or service in order to have that value.
There are a lot of great ideas that never get implemented because it turns out the implementation is too hard to make it worthwhile. For example, I think it would be a great idea if you could have a lawn-mower sharing service. A neighborhood could share one lawnmower and not have to all buy their own. Since you dont usually use it more than once or twice a month, it would be a great idea, right? Well, I doubt you could ever successfully implement it.
True, though you can find that idea to be unsound before you prove this by trying to implement it and failing. For neighbors to pool any resource and share equally with one another, they first have to actually treat each other as neighbors and not as strangers who happen to live nearby (as is so common today). Otherwise this becomes open to all sorts of problems and abuse. That can be known before anything is tried.
The idea of an Open Source phone is not inherently unsound. This failure was strictly in terms of implementation. That is, things like delays and manufacturing defects are what prevented its realization, not the fact that it was to be Open Source. That's a significant difference and I feel that this difference may go unappreciated. Thus, people throw out the baby with the bathwater and may write off the idea entirely, especially when money they intend to invest is at stake.
"Ideas" are worthless. Everybody has good ideas. It is actually implementing the idea that is the hard part.
And every method by which anything would be implemented began as... wait for it... an idea. If you do not see the simplicity of that, it is because you don't want to. I'm not trying to be rude but "ideas are worthless" is a very strong claim and while it can be asserted, I do not believe it can be supported. A single idea that produced even the slightest worth for even one person would be enough to refute that position.
I've not really followed this project, but aren't the design documents public? If so, some other company could pick this up and run with it, no?
I was referring to their willingness to do so. It takes money to do that and no one wants to invest money into an operation that fails. That willingness won't be present if they believe that the same thing will happen to them, which is essentially a rephrasing of my previous post.
The problem was that the phone had some real glaring problems that were never resolved. Such as a one day battery life. And the inability to charge the phone after the battery wore out completely.
I was going to be first in line to buy one when the power management problems were sorted out. But years later... they were still there. I'm really saddened that the phone never truly got the support it needed to succeed.
So where does that leave us for free phones?
Makes me wonder how many good ideas are ruined by poor implementation. I'm betting this is a very large number. The problem is that people throw out the baby with the bathwater and so they might conclude that open-source phones are inherently a bad idea, instead of concluding that this group failed to design/produce them correctly.
I got the most recent BSG DVDs and tried to play them on everything I had. VLC didn't work beyond the root screen. Windows Media Player failed. Intervideo DVD player crashed every time. It wasn't until I loaded the K lite codec full that I could get it to play...and only on the Media Player Classic frontend.
Sounds worse than DRM!
Nah, it's not worse than DRM, because at least missing the needed codec is a valid reason for being unable to play a video.
This is just more proof that the people who run the big media companies not only do not understand technology, but cannot be bothered to learn it either.
There is an old saying: "It is impossible to teach a man something, when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."
They make their money the old way. If they learn this new way, they realize that their old way is doomed. Thereforefore, they cannot learn the new way.
That's true. Of course, the reason it's silly is that learning the new way would mean no longer needing the old way. At no point does that require being left without a workable "way". That's why they're genuinely stupid and not merely reluctant.
If you "people" ruin this FREE offering, it will push them to put more crap ads into the stuff I actually pay for.
Let it be. Don't ruin it. Appreciate it for what it is: Internet TV. Don't make it into a DRM war because it's not: You haven't bought anything.
I'll explain what it won't push them to do and at the same time I'll explain why there was or ever could be anything resembling a "DRM war".
It won't push them to realize that if this offering is ruined or could be ruined, it is because of their own failure. Think of Hulu as an organism; think of its users and their quite-predictable response to things like DRM as the environment. An organism that denies the reality of its environment instead of working with those realities will fail. No amount of wishing will change this.
The media companies, however, seem to be like spoiled children in a couple of important ways. For one, they have completely controlled the distribution of their works and have used that control to dictate the terms of this industry for a very long time. Widespread technology that threatens this control is a relatively new phenomenon. The strong and obvious sentiment that I keep seeing from the various media companies (particularly the members of the RIAA/MPAA) is that they believe the market should adapt itself to the companies. In every other industry that doesn't use techniques like artificial scarcity, it's considered basic business sense for the company to adapt itself to the demands of the market.
To give a specific example of Hulu's failure to understand this, that means that if your users want to do something innocuous like stream your video (including ads) to an HDTV instead of a computer monitor, you leave them alone or you make this easier instead of coming up with ways to stop them. Try to stop them and they'll find a way to do it anyway, only while they're making that effort, they'll probably go ahead and remove your ads too. All of this because Hulu can't just admit that trying to tell its users which display devices they may use is unreasonable and unnecessary.
Naturally responses like this create an adversarial relationship between those media companies and their paying clients. Nowhere do you see this more clearly than the assumption of bad faith inherent in DRM: it effectively says "you might infringe our copyrights, and we will treat you as such whether or not you give us a reason to think so". Media and software companies are the only industries that seem to believe you can treat customers this way without alienating them. Then when customers are alienated and respond with some form of backlash, they blame the customers for doing so instead of themselves for giving them cause. I am amazed that anyone believes this is a good business practice, or that anyone who believes that is ever taken seriously. The amount of hubris this shows is just incredible.
When I say "paying clients" above, I should define what I mean because I am deliberately using the term loosely. The way I am using it means anyone who makes money for those companies by using their products and services in the intended fashion; this includes people who view ads and thus generate ad revenue. That's why your argument of "you haven't bought anything" is moot. Even though Hulu's viewers are not making payments, there is a quid pro quo and Hulu is not a charity. To say that those legitimate users who generate ad revenue for Hulu should have absolutely no voice in how Hulu is run constitutes a rejection of supply and demand. Again I can't name another industry that thinks it can thrive while ignoring the demands of its customers.
So, unfortunately I think you are right. It will push them to compensate in some manner without solving the actual problem. The example you gave of more advertisements in purchased media is a valid possibility. It won't push them to
Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see/hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.
I think you left some of that Fundamental Law unstated. This is an approximation of the full version:
If you make data possible for users to see/hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it. Only one such user is needed to make a DRM-free (and ad-free) version available via BitTorrent. Meanwhile, you stand to annoy all of your legitimate/paying/ad-watching users, especially if they understand this Fundamental Law and/or your assumption of bad faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the vid so you don't have to search for it. (Wish folks would link to a vid in TFS). Looks like Microsoft is actually starting to get serious about research, but I still don't know if this is all that compelling to be a breakthrough worth the effort of such a large corporation - they should be working on something bigger like Google or Apple, and coming out with major innovations every year or two (my opinion) But, I suppose it's a start. Best of luck to them, I think innovation is great and every company should do more of it.
I'm deliberately speaking in very general terms here. Incremental improvements are also a good thing, and in fact I would expect large behemoth corporations to try to "play it safe" by doing it this way instead of trying too many radically new things that might be a complete flop. It's really the smaller, more "nimble" corporations that seem to be more willing to go for the breakthroughs and radically new ideas, even though for them the success of such things can mean the difference between liquidity and bankruptcy.
The other comment by EvanED in this thread is spot on. I do not like Microsoft and I have plenty of solid reasons to criticise them. Having said that, their research division is one thing they got right. The kind of autonomy afforded them, combined with the immense cash reserves of a company like MS, has indeed produced some useful things. I only wish that the design and functionality of the operating system were similarly de-coupled from marketing, at least to a greater degree than the current arrangement.
This is Microsoft's version of a 'Reach around'
While doing what they so often do to their customers, that's the least they can do!
If this had an apple logo on it you'd be standing in line to buy one.
It's not very kind of you to assume he must be a mindless Apple fanboy because he offers constructive criticism. That is, I've seen no positive sign that this must be true of him and that there are no alternative explanations for why he feels the way he does. Despite that, the "Apple vs. Microsoft" tone of your comment did make me think of something.
This is actually innovative, in that it's something new despite the summary comment that "if we didn't build this, someone else will." So here we have an example of genuine innovation from Microsoft. I wonder if they realize that the only reason why they can do this is because there is no monopoly maintaining a stranglehold on small, portable PCs and smartphones. For comparison, just imagine trying to market a completely new, commercial, closed-source operating system and having to compete with Microsoft and Windows. I mention closed-source there so that this is a comparsion and not a contrast.
I wonder if the irony of one of the most successful monopolists having room to innovate because there is no sole monopoly in this new (to them) market is lost on the folks at Microsoft.
Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".
Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.
Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.
Idiots.
I think a big part of the problem is that right now, most people who have any choice at all have a choice between two monopolies: telco and cable. Your idea would provide that missing "third option". An agile competitor with minimal infrastructure costs, license costs, and other barriers to entry might just provide the innovation and options that are sorely missing from the monopolies.
I say that with the assumption that what you had in mind was WiMax or something like it. Although it would be yet another monopoly, this also makes me wonder what happened to the internet-over-powerlines idea. The above was my realistic response to you. What follows is what I'd like to see despite how unrealistic it may be.
What I'd really like to see is a more decentralized Internet. This is more like the mesh networks consisting of many low-power wireless connections that communicate with each other. On a truly decentralized Internet, it would be impossible for any single entity to force filtering, censorship, deep packet inspection, bandwidth caps, and the like on large numbers of people who do not want them. It would also be a truly "public benefit" as in owned and operated by Joe Public instead of owned and operated by large, centralized, political bureaucracies in Joe Public's name. Right now this may not be feasible or likely but it would be pleasing to see a step in that direction. Of course, I would not expect the FCC to encourage this idea at all, for it would reduce the amount of control they now enjoy, but that's why I call this unrealistic.
Just as an aside, isn't there currently a lot of dark fiber? If there is a large amount of it, does anyone know why it's not currently being used, or have an idea of what could be done with it?
I see your joke post and raise you one serious reply.
It's common knowledge but now he's done a STUDY ("Oooooooh, Aaaaaaaah"). That means that what everybody already knew has somehow become more official!
I think this is a new plan.
1. Find some obvious thing that everyone already knows.
2. Get funding to have a "study" on it.
3. ???
4. Profit!
That's why it makes more sense to look at it in terms of enablers who could have chosen differently. The people could study statecraft and propaganda techniques. They could study dictatorships like the Third Reich or Italy under Mussolini to learn how these leaders came to power by preying on the desperation and the weaknesses of the people. They can familiarize themselves with the sorts of excuses and justifications that are given for the expansion of state power. They can learn argumentation and research so that they are equipped to investigate things on their own instead of requiring that premade conclusions be spoonfed to them. In short, they can shed the naivete and the ignorance that must be present before such horrors can arise.
Any literate adult with Internet access can do all of these things. The only obstacle they could encounter would be their own laziness or unwillingness. I would say that we have a responsibility to do these things because everything that is good about the way of life that we presently enjoy depends on an informed citizenry. Our civilization is on the decline because people think this does not apply to them, or they think that someone else will take care of it, or they think that the latest celebrity-worship is more important.
The evil politicians are like organisms in an environment. The environment in which they thrive consists of ignorant people who are far too naive and trusting and do not guard themselves against being deceived. If you set up this sort of environment, those organisms will appear in it and will prosper. Thus, I believe it is the people and their ignorance and lack of priorities that are far more to blame, for they provide fertile soil without which this organism could never succeed. It should be assumed that evil men will come along who will try to take advantage of our way of life to suit their selfish purposes. We should be prepared for this and well-able to deal with it by never rewarding it with the power it seeks to have. We are not. We think our enemies are our friends because they know how to tell us what we want to hear. That is the problem.
It's a technology that almost no one wants except for those who are in a position to abuse it. That makes it difficult or impossible to view it as a "neutral" thing.
What about this? http://dpi.priv.gc.ca/index.php/what-is-deep-packet-inspection/
DPI has been used for several years to maintain the integrity and security of networks, searching for signs of protocol non-compliance, viruses, malicious code, SPAM and other threats.
Are you suggesting people don't want a less SPAMy, more secure internet? There's more to it than "oh noes, the isp's are spying my internets!" I'm not saying I want them to, there's just more to it than some people realize.
You and another person suggested using it to thwart spam or worm attacks. I am replying to you since the other person was more reasonable. That is, he did not say "are you suggesting people don't want a less spamy [sic], more secure internet" as though that's the same thing as criticising another wrong solution that cannot solve our problems. The way you did that reminds me of people who say "you mean you don't want to be safe from terrorists?" when you point out that it's wrong to infringe on civil liberties. It's an intimidation tactic that's designed to shut down healthy debate. It won't work on me or anyone else who can see that for what it is.
I am not a fan of "solutions" that don't address the actual causes of problems. They inevitably open up more problems, many of which can be unanticipated. It may be obvious, but we should get one thing out of the way: the presence of many insecure Windows machines is what enables the modern spam problem and the modern malware problem. If I ever see successful worms thriving "in the wild" for Unix-like operating systems, I'll gladly revise that statement, but for now, that's the reality.
The solution to that is to secure those Windows machines. Any other proposed solution is aimed at symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem which is why it will fail. Whether the users should secure those machines by obtaining a clue or whether Microsoft should do that as part of taking care of its customers is the debatable part. This is the part I want to emphasize: nothing other than securing those insecure machines, and perhaps their users, is going to solve this problem. Our efforts and our ability to create novel solutions should be directed towards that goal. Deep packet inspection is a network operation and does not constitute host security. What you are referring to there is damage control, which is about detection and containment. It is emphatically not security, which is about prevention.
If you start using DPI to target spam and worms, you'll run into all of the problems we currently have with filters and virus/malware scanners. The reason why there is not a final ultimate solution for those problems is that this approach does not address the real cause. It only treats the immediate symptoms of that cause. That's why there isn't going to be a final ultimate solution to those problems. What you will end up with is an arms race where it will be a contest between those who maintain the DPI systems and those who produce spam and malware. The contest will consist of how quickly spammers and malware authors can modify their traffic to be "missed" by the DPI filters and at some point will also consist of how well they can disguise their traffic to make it look legitimate. To be successful, the DPI filters would need to catch every possible spam/malware pattern; to be successful, the attackers would only need to find one that was missed. Thus, this scenario favors the attacker.
The arms race that this will trigger is predictable be
it's just going to push more and more protocols to use TLS wrappers and to use random "legit looking" ports (like 20, 21, 80, 443, 110), a la Skype and most IM clients nowadays Good luck deep inspecting that crap
That's true. You'd think that "spam vs anti-spam measures" alone or "windows viruses vs windows virus scanners" alone would have taught us, by now, how to recognize an arms race when we're about to start one. This is what I mean when I say that our culture does not value foresight.
VLC is supposed to have built-in plugins that enable it to play "virtually anything". Without a codec pack.
Missing a needed codec is a valid reason to be unable to play a video file. DRM is not a valid reason for being unable to play a video file -- it's an artificial one, a problem that was created deliberately when there would otherwise not be a problem in order to serve the interests of someone other than the person playing the video.
Whether or not VLC meets its stated goals has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
It's a technology that almost no one wants except for those who are in a position to abuse it. That makes it difficult or impossible to view it as a "neutral" thing.
The former category is much more dangerous. At least most people recognize ill-will when they see it. By far people with good intentions and no comprehension of the "law of unintended consequences" do more damage to the world than do people with openly evil intentions.
No politician ever increased state power by saying "I'd like to see this nation become a totalitarian state and you should support me because this law will bring it closer to that goal." They do it by saying "this is for your safety" or "this is to stop terrorism" and the people who mean well and don't understand the damage they can do will eagerly eat that shit up. That's true whether or not the politician himself believes anything he is saying.
How would the authorities like to be deep inspected?
That's a good question.
This summary mentions education about deep packet inspection. To me that's a very simple thing that boils down to a few questions:
Do you want your ISP and potential unknown/unaccountable parties to be able to easily monitor, intercept, and record some or all of your Internet traffic? Do you want profiles built on this information that will compromise your privacy and could be used to serve advertisements or to micromanage your Internet usage? Do you feel like QoS, which will be the given reason/excuse, is such a good and desirable thing that it's worth all of these disadvantages?
Like so many things that are not the result of overwhelming customer demand, this is a bad idea that is open to all sorts of abuse.
Perhaps they realized that a good code audit and general cleanup would eliminate the need for much of the bolt-on "Stirling".
I notice that many of the Windows vulerabilities are buffer overflows. Aren't there automated tools and other procedures that can be used to locate and fix such flaws? Couldn't these tools, plus some auditing, enable Microsoft to produce a Windows codebase that has no buffer overflows? I know it's basically impossible to prove that a piece of code has no bugs but isn't it possible to prove that it has no buffer overflows? If so, wouldn't that alone go a long way towards a more secure Windows?
I hope maybe a programmer out there will read this and can give me an answer, because I am honestly rather ignorant about these things. That is, I understand the basic concepts involved but I have never tried to actually take on a task like this and I don't understand the practicality of it. I just feel that with their incredible cash reserves and other resources, Microsoft could produce a more secure Windows if they wanted to do so. I think a more secure Windows would be one of the best things that could happen to the Internet, at least as long as it's so dominant on the desktop. I say this as someone who dislikes Windows and dislikes spam and botnets much more.
I think you're both missing the point that it isn't free because of anti-trust law. I didn't realize I was going to have to spell it out.
In my opinion this entire thread misses the point because plenty of operating systems manage to maintain security without any sort of anti-virus or anti-spyware scanner. Those things are forms of damage control and are not actually security at all. With Windows they are used as a substitute for a proper security system because they are much better than nothing. That is, real security is about prevention; damage control is about detection and removal.
So how about if Microsoft makes the OS itself inherently more secure? If they made something comparable to the Unix security system (even if its mechanisms are quite different) then you would not need all of these scanners to double-check every last action taken or file opened or e-mail viewed etc. That would neatly avoid any anti-trust issues that might be raised by the likes of McAfee or Symantec and would be a significant performance boost as well. Of course such cottage industries may complain for a different reason, in that a more secure Windows could put them out of business, but if they really are obsolete then this is what should happen.
First thing I want to get data on: Obama's birth certificate _>
It's too bad this was modded as Troll. Here's the mod's thought process: "I really like Obama and that guy seems to be saying something that doesn't promote Obama. Clearly he must be a troll!" That's sort of like saying that if you disagree with Obama on a political issue, it could only be because he is black and you are racist.
How many presidents are asked to provide a birth certificate for the public?
This is not a political issue, it's pointless stirring.
I see that the number of Presidents who may have been born outside the United States and about which there is some doubt, however small, is approximately equal to the number of Presidents who are being asked to provide a birth certificate. That is, he's the only one of whom I know. I still don't see what's unreasonable about this. If it's pointless stirring it's because the birth certificate wasn't provided a long time ago to put an end to it.
Normally privacy would be my main concern, along with the concern of not validating potentially dishonest requests ("stirring" as you call it). However, this man wants a public office. He should therefore be an open book, at least as far as basic things like his place of birth are concerned. Therefore, I consider those two concerns to be negligible in his case and in the case of anyone who wants political power.
I've always felt that anyone who wants to have power over us needs to be held to some very strict standards. That's especially true when they break a law that none of us would get away with breaking but also true in terms of full disclosure. If that is too much to ask of a person, then that person is unfit to hold political power.
First thing I want to get data on: Obama's birth certificate _>
It's too bad this was modded as Troll. Here's the mod's thought process: "I really like Obama and that guy seems to be saying something that doesn't promote Obama. Clearly he must be a troll!" That's sort of like saying that if you disagree with Obama on a political issue, it could only be because he is black and you are racist. In the absence of any other reason to believe that this is a deliberate troll, it's equally childish
I'll explain this birth certificate controversy. It's really simple and boils down to only two things:
The first is an issue of equality. If an employer about to hire us required a specific document from any of us, and we furnished anything other than that specific document, that employer would not hire us. Obama is asked for his birth certificate and he provided a somewhat different document (a type of card) that is easier to falsify and was not the specific document requested. He gets a pass on this because no one has the backbone to say "this is a requirement and you aren't going anywhere until you fulfill it". That is the crux of this controversy. None of the rest of us would be able to do that, which is completely backwards considering how important the "job" of the President is compared to most other jobs. If anything, he should have to deal with a stricter standard. It's backwards and no one does anything about it and this is accepted as normal, which frankly is part of the mindfuck that goes along with most media controversies.
The second issue is that the real birth certificate should not be too much to ask. We are offering him one of the most powerful offices on the planet and all we ask at this point is that he furnish a basic document that everyone has. That just doesn't sound like something that should be a problem for Obama. I don't understand why he would let this continue to be an issue when the remedy is so simple. Lots of controversies are based on opinion or belief and therefore cannot be resolved. This one can be resolved once and for all with a single piece of evidence. I cannot think of an honest reason why someone would refuse to do so.
I can agree to that on the condition that we are speaking of "worth" in strictly materialistic or pragmatic terms. That is, however, an artificially narrow concept. Look at most forms of art and the ideas found there, or at philosophers who truly enjoy exploring the mysteries of life. Look at the idea of freedom and how very inconvenient and costly it can be, yet so utterly worthwhile. Those are ideas that are valuable to the people who entertain them that don't need to be implemented as any product or service in order to have that value.
True, though you can find that idea to be unsound before you prove this by trying to implement it and failing. For neighbors to pool any resource and share equally with one another, they first have to actually treat each other as neighbors and not as strangers who happen to live nearby (as is so common today). Otherwise this becomes open to all sorts of problems and abuse. That can be known before anything is tried.
The idea of an Open Source phone is not inherently unsound. This failure was strictly in terms of implementation. That is, things like delays and manufacturing defects are what prevented its realization, not the fact that it was to be Open Source. That's a significant difference and I feel that this difference may go unappreciated. Thus, people throw out the baby with the bathwater and may write off the idea entirely, especially when money they intend to invest is at stake.
And every method by which anything would be implemented began as ... wait for it ... an idea. If you do not see the simplicity of that, it is because you don't want to. I'm not trying to be rude but "ideas are worthless" is a very strong claim and while it can be asserted, I do not believe it can be supported. A single idea that produced even the slightest worth for even one person would be enough to refute that position.
I was referring to their willingness to do so. It takes money to do that and no one wants to invest money into an operation that fails. That willingness won't be present if they believe that the same thing will happen to them, which is essentially a rephrasing of my previous post.
The problem was that the phone had some real glaring problems that were never resolved. Such as a one day battery life. And the inability to charge the phone after the battery wore out completely.
I was going to be first in line to buy one when the power management problems were sorted out. But years later... they were still there. I'm really saddened that the phone never truly got the support it needed to succeed.
So where does that leave us for free phones?
Makes me wonder how many good ideas are ruined by poor implementation. I'm betting this is a very large number. The problem is that people throw out the baby with the bathwater and so they might conclude that open-source phones are inherently a bad idea, instead of concluding that this group failed to design/produce them correctly.
I got the most recent BSG DVDs and tried to play them on everything I had. VLC didn't work beyond the root screen. Windows Media Player failed. Intervideo DVD player crashed every time. It wasn't until I loaded the K lite codec full that I could get it to play...and only on the Media Player Classic frontend.
Sounds worse than DRM!
Nah, it's not worse than DRM, because at least missing the needed codec is a valid reason for being unable to play a video.
That says a lot about the management. If they had any sense they would value and appreciate anyone who's willing to point that out.
This is just more proof that the people who run the big media companies not only do not understand technology, but cannot be bothered to learn it either.
There is an old saying: "It is impossible to teach a man something, when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."
They make their money the old way. If they learn this new way, they realize that their old way is doomed. Thereforefore, they cannot learn the new way.
That's true. Of course, the reason it's silly is that learning the new way would mean no longer needing the old way. At no point does that require being left without a workable "way". That's why they're genuinely stupid and not merely reluctant.
I'll explain what it won't push them to do and at the same time I'll explain why there was or ever could be anything resembling a "DRM war".
It won't push them to realize that if this offering is ruined or could be ruined, it is because of their own failure. Think of Hulu as an organism; think of its users and their quite-predictable response to things like DRM as the environment. An organism that denies the reality of its environment instead of working with those realities will fail. No amount of wishing will change this.
The media companies, however, seem to be like spoiled children in a couple of important ways. For one, they have completely controlled the distribution of their works and have used that control to dictate the terms of this industry for a very long time. Widespread technology that threatens this control is a relatively new phenomenon. The strong and obvious sentiment that I keep seeing from the various media companies (particularly the members of the RIAA/MPAA) is that they believe the market should adapt itself to the companies. In every other industry that doesn't use techniques like artificial scarcity, it's considered basic business sense for the company to adapt itself to the demands of the market.
To give a specific example of Hulu's failure to understand this, that means that if your users want to do something innocuous like stream your video (including ads) to an HDTV instead of a computer monitor, you leave them alone or you make this easier instead of coming up with ways to stop them. Try to stop them and they'll find a way to do it anyway, only while they're making that effort, they'll probably go ahead and remove your ads too. All of this because Hulu can't just admit that trying to tell its users which display devices they may use is unreasonable and unnecessary.
Naturally responses like this create an adversarial relationship between those media companies and their paying clients. Nowhere do you see this more clearly than the assumption of bad faith inherent in DRM: it effectively says "you might infringe our copyrights, and we will treat you as such whether or not you give us a reason to think so". Media and software companies are the only industries that seem to believe you can treat customers this way without alienating them. Then when customers are alienated and respond with some form of backlash, they blame the customers for doing so instead of themselves for giving them cause. I am amazed that anyone believes this is a good business practice, or that anyone who believes that is ever taken seriously. The amount of hubris this shows is just incredible.
When I say "paying clients" above, I should define what I mean because I am deliberately using the term loosely. The way I am using it means anyone who makes money for those companies by using their products and services in the intended fashion; this includes people who view ads and thus generate ad revenue. That's why your argument of "you haven't bought anything" is moot. Even though Hulu's viewers are not making payments, there is a quid pro quo and Hulu is not a charity. To say that those legitimate users who generate ad revenue for Hulu should have absolutely no voice in how Hulu is run constitutes a rejection of supply and demand. Again I can't name another industry that thinks it can thrive while ignoring the demands of its customers.
So, unfortunately I think you are right. It will push them to compensate in some manner without solving the actual problem. The example you gave of more advertisements in purchased media is a valid possibility. It won't push them to
Couldn't an enterprising screen-scraper also just run it through the same Javascript code? Hulu is forgetting what I like to call the Fundamental Law of DRM: if you make data possible for users to see /hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it.
I think you left some of that Fundamental Law unstated. This is an approximation of the full version:
If you make data possible for users to see/hear, it will be possible for a reasonably enterprising user to copy it. Only one such user is needed to make a DRM-free (and ad-free) version available via BitTorrent. Meanwhile, you stand to annoy all of your legitimate/paying/ad-watching users, especially if they understand this Fundamental Law and/or your assumption of bad faith.