Pleasse note that all you have done with Elicense is that instead of having to unwrap the program, you simply have to impersonate Elicense. Done and done. Look up DAMN Elicense Proxy - Sometimes called DAMN Eproxy. All it does is tells your computer to use a local proxy that "automagically" was able to provide the proper E-License authorization. Auth servers somewhere around 192.168.1.1,hmm?
The crack is just as painless as the "install" was. Therefore, man in the middle attack wins when you cannot have things 100% secure on both ends. Also, DAMN Eproxy/etc has been around since the days of the CRT programs that used it, which no longer do.
In addition, where there's no desire to a view a website due to ads, there's no business. If the user doesn't have an enjoyable experience viewing a website they certainly have even less of an incentive to view something that makes it less enjoyable. I for one, applaud anyone who wants to block firefox, or IE, since it just makes their business die off that much faster.
People should know by now that subscription services (if legitimate), having a shop, things like that provide alternate methods to gain revenue. Just because we don't want to sit through the equivalent of a 5minute TV ad repeated ad nauseum, doesn't mean that we wouldn't perhaps buy something cnet branded.
Just like the RIAA and MPAA, its time to revisit your business model if you live solely on advertising.
Okay, I don't understand the software as well as most people but from what I have read almost every issue here is extremely significant.
First, on a government standard, if you make something a government standard, you damn well better have tested it in every condition that exists due to a: variation (note, that is a concern here) and b: gross incompetence by some cops (most may be smart, but you know how extremes get). If you had read the other comments they clearly state that it does a very unscientific average. Think of it that you could round in your head mentally in a more accurate fashion.
Although I'm glad you read the article, I think your understanding doesn't seem to match the consensus of the other legitimate information offered by people on slashdot.
And a field sobriety test? That thing is subjective. Thats like me watching someone walk down the street and saying "you're drunk". PAH. Not everyone is either a: good with balance, or b: drunk. You know something about late nights? It's called being TIRED. It's been proven thousands of times that being tired is the equivalent of drunk. Should we go all "lets make a law against sleepy drivers?" no, it's damn near impossible (because some people have to drive overnight, it'd be too ambiguous). You want me to find your during your sleepiest hours (lets say thats daytime even, for the 3rd shift workers) and give you a breathalyzer test and make you spend a day down at county just because I "thought" like you might be drunk?
You do realize the basis of law is fact and not in any single way intended or supposed to be opinion. Law does not allow "I think, I feel, in my opinion". In any law case you can object to anything someone says if it is an opinion. The only thing admissable is fact. So yes, when you want to introduce something that is an intuitive "feeling", please note that the law doesn't accept such things. Thats why like 90% of expert witnesses never make it to trial, and also why if you had any legal knowledge you'd know how impossible it is for you to be ticketed for things like speeding (and why lawyers never get speeding tickets). Thats why racial profiling isn't acceptable, even if many people fit a stereotype.
on a non factual, personal opinion basis I would guess that more than 15 or 20% of the internet is gaming (number of gamers + bandwith requirements on servers), maybe 5-10% specifically is youtube, maybe 5% is porn ads. I don't think its that much anymore since its not neccessarily high bandwith if its a bunch of garbled text full image porn ads are easily blocked by websites, the text is not. I'd guess another 20% is streaming services (non youtube/hdtv/etc), another 20% is bittorrent, and the rest is random things. By the way, what else gets a high amount of overall internet usage?
In fact, why do we not have some sort of actual factual study so that we have a real basis (as opposed to the people that scream youtube is 99% of the world's internet and thus must be sued and pay for the bandwith they already paid for). How much would be involved (time-wise), and who would have to be contacted to start such a data collection? I'm not an expert statistician but I think I'd be interested in gathering some of this data.
From the article: "If you are running file-sharing software, you are giving criminals the keys to your computer," said assistant U.S. attorney Kathryn Warma. "Criminals are getting access to incredibly valuable information."
This woman sure adds some emotions to her wordings! It's not like she's added any media spin! never! . Sheesh. This woman must be aiming for a job with microsoft. From the last link I just provided: "We know that Robert Soloway is one of the most prolific spammers in the world," Warma said before the hearing. "He has condemned them (his victims) to perpetual spam hell" unless they escape by canceling their domain names or changing their Internet protocol addresses. Spam Hell? Although the woman does seem to prosecute for some good causes (people who use botnet attacks, etc), why does it seem like there's an excess of spin in her quotes to people? Seems like she wants to just scream "EEEVILLL" or something.
semantics semantics. I understand, and anytime someone teaches me something I welcome it. Why some people don't is beyond me. As much as I have my days of stupids someone willing to correct me with fact will always get an apology/open ear at all times. And yes, I was taking mean as more of a median/mode, I guess I forgot the million styles. Now, given that the "last result has the highest impact", how much of a theoretical difference are we talking?
as I said to the other poster, I apologize for the lack of ability to edit posts and correct myself. Alas, slashdot:) Read my response to the other person who replied for my thoughts on the rest:) I don't want to repeat self.
I retract and apologize for misunderstanding. However, a mean is not an average. I'm not about to open that can of worms. Regardless, you are correct, but my statement was as well. Although I was incorrect on the math, would that not be as I said that the more times you blow could average the readings higher or lower? Just checking.
Robb, I'm always that way. horrible expression, good thoughts. You might recognize me as the guy that provided you with the log:) I only speak off firsthand knowledge.
In a firmware object temporary code should not and will not make it in, as such. That is not even remotely acceptable. Thats why there are betas and there are releases. The beta isn't a release until its finalized. I saw nothing incorrect. Did you even read the link I provided? It seems not. Here was the entire #2, as you interpreted it (pun intended).
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings. Nonetheless, the comments say that the values should be averaged, and they are not. Please read more carefully before you make incorrect phrases. The last reading has the least weight, as the first one determines the average. It's basically using a mean instead of an average. What this means is each reading could increase or decrease the score, as opposed to being consistant. If you take 3-4 tests each one could show you as "more drunk" when you might have started at.06 and ended at.30 (as an extreme example) or started at.15 and ended at.03.
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled
5. Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.
6. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low.
7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substitute d: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations.
8. Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value.
9. Code Does Not Detect Data Variations
10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times
11. Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment.
12. Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't see it listed anywhere that I could tell up front.
If you note that list is pretty serious. They picked a "top 5" type thing for the other link, but this one is pretty accurate. Note these guys were called in as expert witnesses and their information on their website shows they have extensive experience working with government. If these guys find flaws that is definitely pretty serious.
The article states that the opposite is what occurs. from http://www.duiblog.com/2007/09/04/secret-breathaly zer-software-finally-revealed/ - 10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported...
. So yes, they did look over the source code, they had a judge approved expert witness (aka someone who works with this stuff as their job)
There's a tough part of that issue though. When it comes to a legal standpoint they can't look at it as an opinionated issue, which is a problem. It's like a legal grey area that has to be defined in black in white-law is about strictly facts, not opinions (although the latter sways some parts of trials).
Morally - I/most of us don't like it. Factually, if they choose to degrade service, they can do so. The problem is that they might not allow a law to be partial to certain situations. Many companies already do it but how is part of the issue. If everyone's packets but mine have higher priority then the question is whether it can be considered an emotional non-factual decision. If it is just "they have priority" you have 0 in court. But if you have "it was malicious in nature" that is another story. That in itself is hard to pin on a corporation. For better explanation look here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm - This is the legal definition of Tort. More specifically http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t061.htm which is tortious wrongful interference. Note the difference between them, yet how close they run to malice. Read very carefully this line: businessman has no legal complaint concerning a loss resulting from lawful competition. Therefore if they don't enforce net neutrality 100% (which can cause its own problems), it can be considered completely lawful. If they do enforce it 100%, well VOIP seems to be a good example. Please note I am not a net neutrality expert not even a network tech, but I read up when I can. Please note that if we don't enforce net neutrality that QOS could be abused in order to bypass direct net neutrality abuse.
This engadget article seems to have some good info as well - http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality- and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/ - note that the neutrality mentioned here was the exact same google requested for the wireless spectrum. It was not something they created outright. They simply requested the same fairness on wireless as wired networks are supposed to have. Please note as well another side that I'm guessing applies to the "against" net neutrality side is the blocking of zombie PCs. So I think this is a tough one to say how to feel about it. Of course I prefer net neutrality.
I personally say that if we had the bandwith we are supposed to have that such things would not be an issue. If you have 25mb up/down having even decent quality audio while downloading wouldn't matter. That's my own opinion, though, and I have no factual basis to back that up other than saying that VOIP presumably only needs 128K upload/download range. Which is about 1.5mb or something.
So no, unfortunately, its not a moral issue. It's a question of whether it is something a business is entitled to if it is a municipal business like cable, where common carrier stands, and other things. At least it seems that way to me. The question is whether comcast/etc is private or not it seems? Sorry I think I'm rambling, I'll stop here.
forcing ALL packets to be handled equally would be extreme.
It just doesn't work that way. Nor does it work if you are not forcing most packets to be treated equally. VOIP needs it, games need it, low bandwith applications do not.
There is a need for QOS for certain thing but only when the bandwith is low/slow.
take a look at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/comcast and you will note that plenty of examples of this impersonation exist. They disconnect by impersonation after about 10 seconds of seeding, and it seems to be courtesy of Sandvine. Gotta love lack of net neutrality here, although I am not in favor of extreme net neutrality, some would be, well, nice.
just to compare, what's worse, slashdot + reddit + digg + boingboing, or a DDOS?
from the site: " It turns out that my WordPress installation can handle the Digg Effect, and it can even surive the Digg and Boing Boing Effect simultaneously, but unfortunatley it can't survive the Digg, Boing Boing, Reddit and Slashdot Effects all at once. "
umm to clarify further, a lot of the clients for my business do not have any points of contact other than email, and a physical overseas address. They don't usually have phones (or do business in enough countries and places that phones aren't commonly used), and the transactions are time-critical (24-48 hour). So yeah, "pick up the phone" may sound good, but without a confirmation of a mail not going through or a receipt from the client, we actually are obligated to proceed anyway since the money has been received. Thus the enormous business risk (not to mention working with businesses that are based in the middle east/china/uk from within the US and having to make sure that they are legit companies and not on the SDN list).
Basically with the choice of a: waiting too long and cancelling the work (the volume of the work is in the thousands of orders a day), or b: not getting an email confirmation, and just proceeding with the work and getting a very flagrant response weeks later, you can imagine I'm beyond pissed that I simply "won't know" that an email doesn't go through. On a literal sense, how come the post office, and websites themselves essentially have "bad address/did not send" messages, but email wouldn't? I don't see any reason for an exception.
Also, as lack of technical as I may be, did I not read above comments in the article saying there are technical workarounds?
As someone who doesn't know that much about email,
how am I supposed to know if an email didn't go through correctly now? What if this is a critical business venture? (say a 7-9 figure transaction) Are there other ways to be notified of an email not being delivered?
Also I understand your "things are broken" complaint but what can be done about it?
however illegal they try to make possession, they'd be forced to incriminate the entire public or drop IP as a result. Win win, as you can already see because you know the rules - if enough of the public finds something legal (whether it is or not), it becomes legal. Read about that somewhere, will look for references another day.
I apologize for the contradiction here but in my personal experience (I live in an upper middle class chicago suburb), only technologically apt individuals (the kind who could understand stuff on slashdot regardless of interest) seem to follow how this case is going. Even a friend of mine who is a lawyer and a video gamer doesn't follow groklaw and/or your website recordingindustryvspeople. For some reason out here people seem more apt that "it's news on the TV it must be true" and "pirating software/movies is evil" and "obviously if a big corporation is getting away with it that must be because they're successful".
I would (with abated optimism) that more people overall paid more attention to things like this so that they understood how it affects their own civil liberties but not everyone has the interest nor the knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Pleasse note that all you have done with Elicense is that instead of having to unwrap the program, you simply have to impersonate Elicense. Done and done. Look up DAMN Elicense Proxy - Sometimes called DAMN Eproxy. All it does is tells your computer to use a local proxy that "automagically" was able to provide the proper E-License authorization. Auth servers somewhere around 192.168.1.1,hmm?
The crack is just as painless as the "install" was.
Therefore, man in the middle attack wins when you cannot have things 100% secure on both ends. Also, DAMN Eproxy/etc has been around since the days of the CRT programs that used it, which no longer do.
welcome our bandwith using, cell phone peering overlords.
In addition, where there's no desire to a view a website due to ads, there's no business. If the user doesn't have an enjoyable experience viewing a website they certainly have even less of an incentive to view something that makes it less enjoyable. I for one, applaud anyone who wants to block firefox, or IE, since it just makes their business die off that much faster.
People should know by now that subscription services (if legitimate), having a shop, things like that provide alternate methods to gain revenue. Just because we don't want to sit through the equivalent of a 5minute TV ad repeated ad nauseum, doesn't mean that we wouldn't perhaps buy something cnet branded.
Just like the RIAA and MPAA, its time to revisit your business model if you live solely on advertising.
Okay, I don't understand the software as well as most people but from what I have read almost every issue here is extremely significant.
First, on a government standard, if you make something a government standard, you damn well better have tested it in every condition that exists due to a: variation (note, that is a concern here) and b: gross incompetence by some cops (most may be smart, but you know how extremes get). If you had read the other comments they clearly state that it does a very unscientific average. Think of it that you could round in your head mentally in a more accurate fashion.
Although I'm glad you read the article, I think your understanding doesn't seem to match the consensus of the other legitimate information offered by people on slashdot.
And a field sobriety test? That thing is subjective. Thats like me watching someone walk down the street and saying "you're drunk". PAH. Not everyone is either a: good with balance, or b: drunk. You know something about late nights? It's called being TIRED. It's been proven thousands of times that being tired is the equivalent of drunk. Should we go all "lets make a law against sleepy drivers?" no, it's damn near impossible (because some people have to drive overnight, it'd be too ambiguous). You want me to find your during your sleepiest hours (lets say thats daytime even, for the 3rd shift workers) and give you a breathalyzer test and make you spend a day down at county just because I "thought" like you might be drunk?
You do realize the basis of law is fact and not in any single way intended or supposed to be opinion. Law does not allow "I think, I feel, in my opinion". In any law case you can object to anything someone says if it is an opinion. The only thing admissable is fact. So yes, when you want to introduce something that is an intuitive "feeling", please note that the law doesn't accept such things. Thats why like 90% of expert witnesses never make it to trial, and also why if you had any legal knowledge you'd know how impossible it is for you to be ticketed for things like speeding (and why lawyers never get speeding tickets). Thats why racial profiling isn't acceptable, even if many people fit a stereotype.
In fact, why do we not have some sort of actual factual study so that we have a real basis (as opposed to the people that scream youtube is 99% of the world's internet and thus must be sued and pay for the bandwith they already paid for). How much would be involved (time-wise), and who would have to be contacted to start such a data collection? I'm not an expert statistician but I think I'd be interested in gathering some of this data.
shh, if you use logic with the department of justice, they'll resort to screaming and stomping their feet
From the article: "If you are running file-sharing software, you are giving criminals the keys to your computer," said assistant U.S. attorney Kathryn Warma. "Criminals are getting access to incredibly valuable information."
This woman sure adds some emotions to her wordings! It's not like she's added any media spin! never! . Sheesh. This woman must be aiming for a job with microsoft. From the last link I just provided: "We know that Robert Soloway is one of the most prolific spammers in the world," Warma said before the hearing. "He has condemned them (his victims) to perpetual spam hell" unless they escape by canceling their domain names or changing their Internet protocol addresses.
Spam Hell? Although the woman does seem to prosecute for some good causes (people who use botnet attacks, etc), why does it seem like there's an excess of spin in her quotes to people? Seems like she wants to just scream "EEEVILLL" or something.
only if she has a lovely bunch of coconuts
semantics semantics. I understand, and anytime someone teaches me something I welcome it. Why some people don't is beyond me. As much as I have my days of stupids someone willing to correct me with fact will always get an apology/open ear at all times. And yes, I was taking mean as more of a median/mode, I guess I forgot the million styles. Now, given that the "last result has the highest impact", how much of a theoretical difference are we talking?
as I said to the other poster, I apologize for the lack of ability to edit posts and correct myself. Alas, slashdot :) Read my response to the other person who replied for my thoughts on the rest :) I don't want to repeat self.
I retract and apologize for misunderstanding. However, a mean is not an average. I'm not about to open that can of worms. Regardless, you are correct, but my statement was as well. Although I was incorrect on the math, would that not be as I said that the more times you blow could average the readings higher or lower? Just checking.
Robb, I'm always that way. horrible expression, good thoughts. You might recognize me as the guy that provided you with the log :) I only speak off firsthand knowledge.
In a firmware object temporary code should not and will not make it in, as such. That is not even remotely acceptable. Thats why there are betas and there are releases. The beta isn't a release until its finalized. I saw nothing incorrect. Did you even read the link I provided? It seems not. Here was the entire #2, as you interpreted it (pun intended). .06 and ended at .30 (as an extreme example) or started at .15 and ended at .03.
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings. Nonetheless, the comments say that the values should be averaged, and they are not. Please read more carefully before you make incorrect phrases. The last reading has the least weight, as the first one determines the average. It's basically using a mean instead of an average. What this means is each reading could increase or decrease the score, as opposed to being consistant. If you take 3-4 tests each one could show you as "more drunk" when you might have started at
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled
5. Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.
6. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low.
7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substitute d: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations.
8. Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value.
9. Code Does Not Detect Data Variations
10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times
11. Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment.
12. Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't see it listed anywhere that I could tell up front. If you note that list is pretty serious. They picked a "top 5" type thing for the other link, but this one is pretty accurate. Note these guys were called in as expert witnesses and their information on their website shows they have extensive experience working with government. If these guys find flaws that is definitely pretty serious.
The article states that the opposite is what occurs.y zer-software-finally-revealed/ - 10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported...
. So yes, they did look over the source code, they had a judge approved expert witness (aka someone who works with this stuff as their job)
from http://www.duiblog.com/2007/09/04/secret-breathal
There's a tough part of that issue though. When it comes to a legal standpoint they can't look at it as an opinionated issue, which is a problem. It's like a legal grey area that has to be defined in black in white-law is about strictly facts, not opinions (although the latter sways some parts of trials).- and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/ - note that the neutrality mentioned here was the exact same google requested for the wireless spectrum. It was not something they created outright. They simply requested the same fairness on wireless as wired networks are supposed to have. Please note as well another side that I'm guessing applies to the "against" net neutrality side is the blocking of zombie PCs. So I think this is a tough one to say how to feel about it. Of course I prefer net neutrality.
Morally - I/most of us don't like it. Factually, if they choose to degrade service, they can do so. The problem is that they might not allow a law to be partial to certain situations. Many companies already do it but how is part of the issue. If everyone's packets but mine have higher priority then the question is whether it can be considered an emotional non-factual decision. If it is just "they have priority" you have 0 in court. But if you have "it was malicious in nature" that is another story. That in itself is hard to pin on a corporation. For better explanation look here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm - This is the legal definition of Tort. More specifically http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t061.htm which is tortious wrongful interference. Note the difference between them, yet how close they run to malice. Read very carefully this line: businessman has no legal complaint concerning a loss resulting from lawful competition. Therefore if they don't enforce net neutrality 100% (which can cause its own problems), it can be considered completely lawful. If they do enforce it 100%, well VOIP seems to be a good example. Please note I am not a net neutrality expert not even a network tech, but I read up when I can. Please note that if we don't enforce net neutrality that QOS could be abused in order to bypass direct net neutrality abuse.
This engadget article seems to have some good info as well - http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality
I personally say that if we had the bandwith we are supposed to have that such things would not be an issue. If you have 25mb up/down having even decent quality audio while downloading wouldn't matter. That's my own opinion, though, and I have no factual basis to back that up other than saying that VOIP presumably only needs 128K upload/download range. Which is about 1.5mb or something. So no, unfortunately, its not a moral issue. It's a question of whether it is something a business is entitled to if it is a municipal business like cable, where common carrier stands, and other things. At least it seems that way to me. The question is whether comcast/etc is private or not it seems? Sorry I think I'm rambling, I'll stop here.
wait though....this is like microscopic/hacking, so wouldn't it be minjas?
forcing ALL packets to be handled equally would be extreme. It just doesn't work that way. Nor does it work if you are not forcing most packets to be treated equally. VOIP needs it, games need it, low bandwith applications do not. There is a need for QOS for certain thing but only when the bandwith is low/slow.
take a look at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/comcast and you will note that plenty of examples of this impersonation exist. They disconnect by impersonation after about 10 seconds of seeding, and it seems to be courtesy of Sandvine. Gotta love lack of net neutrality here, although I am not in favor of extreme net neutrality, some would be, well, nice.
just to compare, what's worse, slashdot + reddit + digg + boingboing, or a DDOS?
from the site: " It turns out that my WordPress installation can handle the Digg Effect, and it can even surive the Digg and Boing Boing Effect simultaneously, but unfortunatley it can't survive the Digg, Boing Boing, Reddit and Slashdot Effects all at once. "
umm to clarify further, a lot of the clients for my business do not have any points of contact other than email, and a physical overseas address. They don't usually have phones (or do business in enough countries and places that phones aren't commonly used), and the transactions are time-critical (24-48 hour). So yeah, "pick up the phone" may sound good, but without a confirmation of a mail not going through or a receipt from the client, we actually are obligated to proceed anyway since the money has been received. Thus the enormous business risk (not to mention working with businesses that are based in the middle east/china/uk from within the US and having to make sure that they are legit companies and not on the SDN list). Basically with the choice of a: waiting too long and cancelling the work (the volume of the work is in the thousands of orders a day), or b: not getting an email confirmation, and just proceeding with the work and getting a very flagrant response weeks later, you can imagine I'm beyond pissed that I simply "won't know" that an email doesn't go through. On a literal sense, how come the post office, and websites themselves essentially have "bad address/did not send" messages, but email wouldn't? I don't see any reason for an exception. Also, as lack of technical as I may be, did I not read above comments in the article saying there are technical workarounds?
As someone who doesn't know that much about email,
how am I supposed to know if an email didn't go through correctly now? What if this is a critical business venture? (say a 7-9 figure transaction)
Are there other ways to be notified of an email not being delivered?
Also I understand your "things are broken" complaint but what can be done about it?
however illegal they try to make possession, they'd be forced to incriminate the entire public or drop IP as a result. Win win, as you can already see because you know the rules - if enough of the public finds something legal (whether it is or not), it becomes legal. Read about that somewhere, will look for references another day.
I apologize for the contradiction here but in my personal experience (I live in an upper middle class chicago suburb), only technologically apt individuals (the kind who could understand stuff on slashdot regardless of interest) seem to follow how this case is going. Even a friend of mine who is a lawyer and a video gamer doesn't follow groklaw and/or your website recordingindustryvspeople. For some reason out here people seem more apt that "it's news on the TV it must be true" and "pirating software/movies is evil" and "obviously if a big corporation is getting away with it that must be because they're successful". I would (with abated optimism) that more people overall paid more attention to things like this so that they understood how it affects their own civil liberties but not everyone has the interest nor the knowledge.
In addition, DX10 is already being backported to XP whether microsoft wants it or not over at http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/