Of course, to be able to do this they need to get broadcasters to insert their audio bug in their programming. And short of DC actually paying them to do so, that's not likely to happen.
The audio bug is loud, obvious, and extremely annoying. It has to be loud and obvious so the monitoring software can be absolutely sure of what it is. So the signal can't go through any limiters that would lower the level too much, and automatic gains throw coniption fits when they encounter the bug. The upshot being to piss off engineers in as many ways possible.
And anyway, it's not like you can't unplug your microphone. (Or, Goddess forbid, not install the software.)
It is a bit disconcerting to see notorious processes such as portmap and inetd, but how many of us don't have a dedicated firewall on our internet-connected networks? But then, there's still the opportunity for internal attacks; not all LANs can be trusted, such as one in a school (and where do we often find lots of Apples?).
So yeah, the first item on everyone's list of comments for Apple should be security. But of course, even if Apple changes these things, there's still no excuse for having a properly structured security policy for your own computers. A lot of this has to do with the popular opinion of who is qualified to be a tech -- whoever seems to know more than you do. Until everyone learns to trust the expertise of professionals, and not allow any yahoo who can format a floppy act as a network admin, the networks will be a cracker's paradise.
As for MacOS being secure because there's "no process to hack and no shell escapes to exploit", well... heh. A while back I read about a trip John Norstad (of Disinfectant fame) took to eastern Europe. While there he visited a few hacker groups, many of them notorious for writing PC viruses. He learned that these groups had been financed by the Soviet Union explicitly to find ways to comprimise computers. He asked about the Macintosh and they said that they didn't have any because they were too expensive; if they could have afforded Macs, they would've written viruses for them. So Macs are secure not out of some inherent design, but because of market share. While the mechanisms may not be as obvious, it's folly to think that a remote comprimise of the MacOS is impossible.
In a way, the availability of the more obvious exploit mechanisms in MacOS X are good for security, since it forces people to form a real security plan instead of relying on the relative obscurity of the Mac.
Why, to guard against insomnia, of course. Otherwise they could be sued by someone whose health has suffered because of lack of sleep while hacking at a truly advanced OS.
Plus, unix-style docs are a good source of job security. Can you imagine how many techs would be on the dole if their bosses ever learned how to administrate their own computers? But one glance at unix docs is enough to send any PHB into convulsions.
Yeah, I first saw that headline in a slashbox and thought, "Gee, I don't remember moving SegFault this high on the page?". (It was actually SecurityFocus)
This is all well and fun, except that the second you get almost any bit of matter near it your data is lost. Now if you could apply this to some particle that doesn't interact as promiscuously as the electron (neutrino?). But then, the less it interacts with, the harder it is to read it, much less capture and adjust its properties.
That's Darwin. The Darwin team is working on x86 support because it's good developer PR. And, of course, "because it's there." There's also the need to pay homage to the legacy of OpenStep.
MacOS X, on the other hand, is Darwin + Quartz + Quicktime + Java + Aqua + Carbon + etc-etc, and no one has even accidentally said that MacOS X will ever work on anything other than PPC w/ AltiVec.
On the other hand, Creative has decided to make a first ever appearance at Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin next year. So CeBit is only increasing exposure for this other show. It's funny how a free market works that way.
Don't you all realise that this is really the work of the MPAA trying to cut down on the trading of Hollywood movie scripts over the internet? You better be careful if you turn it off, they might sue you under the DMCA for illegally bypassing a copy-protection feature. (And it's locked with an "Are you sure?" dialog box. Anyone who presses "Ok" is committing a felony.)
hrmm... I wonder how Eudora is doing on fuckedcompany.com. Whoops! I just got a red pepper.
(PS. I kinda like red peppers. Anyone got some guacamole?)
What this stuff should be used in is not making the sinks, but the thermal paste you stick between the sink and the chip to improve the heat transfer between the materials. Current pastes have been frowned upon because they're not as efficient as bare metal. So overclockers have been relying on planing, luck, and only a tiny dab of goo when absolutely necessary. (As witnessed by the recent "Athlon-killing-heatsinks" problem.)
Now we've got a material that's a better heatsink than bare metal. But that doesn't mean we suddenly drop all our metal stock and go 100% nanotube. Notice down at the end of the article where they talk about the weak bonding of the tubes. They point at that this actually improves the heat transfer ability, but it also makes them brittle. So yeah, you could probably build a nice hefty sink entirely out of nanotubes. But one wayward knock from a hard drive and half of it ends up scattered about your mainboard.
Using it for paste is much more practical. No matter how flat you make the surfaces, bare metal can never make better contact than if you sandwich some paste in there.
Another potential use is for low-temperature experiments (the micro-kelvin kind, y'know). Since it seems that even a single nanotube can act as a sink you could nestle one right up to whatever you're trying to chill and just suck the heat out of it.
And the protocol specifier has nothing to do with DNS lookup. You'd still use http:// whether you were going to frolic.org or free.tibet or google.search
Why limit this to those who agree with the policy? I firmly believe that every action of public officials, or people acting on behalf of the government, must be made available for public review.
Of course, I also support the death penalty for long-term congressmen. (Offense? What do you mean 'What offense?')
hrmm... Took me a while to find this. Was on a disk that got hosed a while back, so I don't think I managed to save all of it.
In <DDFzt3.Knq@anneli.com>, tim@anneli.com (Tim E. Anderson) writes:
> Simpler one:
>
> Now let me see, I got "n" and want to get "p" and "q". So I just make a
>stab at it:
>
> let p = (sqrt(n)/2) and q = (n/2)
> now lets see if my new p and q is bigger than "n", oh, boy is it ever, so
>then let p=p/2 and q=q/2, is this product bigger then "n", if so I just keep
>halfing p and q till the product is less the "n". Hey I am closer to the
>real "p" and "q". MUCH closer.
> I'll tell you what to do when when the guessed p and q has a product less
>then "n". Hint for now, you go back in the other direction even slower till
>the product is once again greater then "n", Now you are EVEN closer, and
>closer, and..... heck I'm going to read someones PGP. Buy.
Look, Tim, you keep posting all these cutesy factoring systems which, I guess,
are completely unknown to the mathematical community. I doubt anyone here
is interested in your theory, but we'd all be interested in your RESULTS.
Someone here posted a large number, about 250 decimal digits, not long ago.
Instead of posting your factoring system, why not shut all of us up for good
by factoring that number?
As I've mentioned earlier, RSA Data Security has ongoing contests with cash
prizes for factoring big numbers. Why don't you win their next contest?
That would do wonders for your credibility.
^C5*** Quoting Tim E. Anderson to All dated 08-16-95 ***
> I found that using ([sqrt(n) + n]/ [2^x]) {x=1,2,3,4,5,each use} is
> better
> and faster. I also notice that:
(.5)*(sqrt[sqrt(n) + n]) tends to
Is this your new BS algorithm that you dreamed up after you realized that your
old one (brute force) didn't work?
You still haven't been able to decrypt anybody's PGP message yet...Oh wait, I
forgot, you don't give out freebies.. =)
If p < (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
{hum., either p,q are < or they are both >).
Find the first prime number after (1/2)sqrt(n) [like if it was 1,453.9026
the the first prime number would be 1459] and the last prime number
prior to 2*sqrt(n) [like if it was 5,815.6104, the last prime befor it would
be 5813]. Now make a number line and place each prime in its place (1459
to the left of sqrt(n) and 5813 to the right of sqrt(n)). Then find the
next prime number half that distance, and so on.
Now multiply each prime with it's coresponding pair. For example
1459*5813 = 8481167 > N
Since this is greater then N, hold 1459 but drop down to 4357 like thus
1459*4357 = 6,356,863 < N
Notice anything odd between steps (5) and (6) and (7).
(5)2741
8450503
(6)2833
8416843
Yup, the products drops from (5) to (6). Why? cause the real "p" is in
that range (2741-2833). After you pass the range "p" is in, the product
will jump up.
Now when "n" is small, you cann't go halfing, more like 1/16ths, else
you'll miss the dip.
Now PGP likes BIG numbers, meaning the dips are very noticable.
When p>(1/2)sqrt(n) and like so q > 2sqrt(n), you go away form
(1/2)sqrt(n) and 2*sqrt(n).
This is not brute force, it is a binary search for product dips. Find the
dip, and follow it down.
Tim E. Anderson (tim@anneli.com) wrote:
:
If p < (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
: {hum., either p,q are < or they are both >).
Darn, typo again, thats:
If p > (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
if p < then q is >.
sorry.
BTW, if you could 2-D the thing, think of an ant hill with a stick in it.
It has an up slope, a hole and then in the middle of the hole a stick that
is flush with the lip of the hole (that's p*q). The ant hill is more donut
shaped, as if the donut was cut in half an placed on the floor. The hole is
the dip, and in that dip is a spike (p*q).
p ..|..... ...
. |......... .....|.......
.
.
sqrt(n)same for q
yea, I guess, a bow and arrow.and NO it's not the middle finger.
In article <DDHvAn.17M@anneli.com>, tim@anneli.com (Tim E. Anderson) wrote:
>Here is a better, slower, method:
>
Actually, it's fairly quick: it's guaranteed to crash after 12 iterations.
f = f/2 goes from 1024 to zero fairly quickly.
>n = p*q;
>p = sqrt(n)-sqrt(n)/BIG_NUMBER;
>q = sqrt(n)-saqrt(n)/BIG_NUMBER;
>f = 1024/* or smaller yet */
>while ( p*q != n )
>{
>
p = p - p/f;
>
q = q + q/f;
>
f = f/2;
>}
>while ( p*q < n )
>{
>
stuff deleted but obvious
>}
Not sure what the second while loop is there for. If you ever drop out of the
first, you will have achieved your objective.
Just for kicks I tried this with
n = 57102517, and BIG_NUMBER = 1000.
Here's what you get with each iteration:
p = 7549 q = 7549 f = 1024
p = 7542 q = 7556 f = 512
p = 7528 q = 7570 f = 256
p = 7499 q = 7599 f = 128
p = 7441 q = 7658 f = 64
p = 7325 q = 7777 f = 32
p = 7097 q = 8020 f = 16
p = 6654 q = 8521 f = 8
p = 5823 q = 9586 f = 4
p = 4368 q = 11982 f = 2
p = 2184 q = 17973 f = 1
p = 0 q = 35946 f = 0
and of course you crash the next time you execute the statement
p = p - p/f;
Didn't get anywhere near the factors of n.
--
Thank you VERY much!You'll be getting a Handsome Simulfax Copy of your
OWN words in the mail soon (and My Reply).
<Andrew.Spring@ping.be> PGP Print: 0529 C9AF 613E 9E49378E 54CD E232 DF96
Thank you for question, exit left to Funway.
Okay, not having a PRE tag sucks. Not a particularly enlightening exchange, but this was years ago when I was still a dumb young kid and even I realised how full of sh*t this guy was.
I've been using Proxomitron in Windows for some time know. It can parse HTTP headers as well as content. I prefer it to firewall-based solutions since I can bypass the filtering with just a click in the system tray.
For Mac, you can use iCab (as mentioned but not named in the article). To add filtering to any Mac browser, there's WebFree(68k) or WebWasher(PPC)
But if you really want to kill 100% of annoying banner ads, use Lynx, w3m, links, or (Mac only) WannaBe^2.
Well then that's pretty clear. And you're right that the internet defies control of information. It is the situation that the American colonies were in with the printing press. Sure, presses had been around for ages, but by the early 18th century America was prosperous (filthy-stinkin-rich, really) enough that the ability for almost anyone to have a few broadshits printed up and posted around was trivial. Much like the ability to create a web site today. And with a meager (considering the current rate of growth) increase in bandwidth, any kind of media becomes fair game. But that doesn't mean a revolution will occur right away. Being imprisoned for printing seditious material was incredibly common for decades before a number of particularly intelligent and devious men started talking about rebelling. And a lot of people are going to have their asses sued off for sending stuff over the internet for years to come. Whether it will eventually turn into a political movement I can't say. But for anyone attempting to use the internet for technically illegal acts, the trick is to do so in a way that when you are brought to face the wrath of the law, it should be perfectly clear to anyone who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Interesting that you mention the YB, 'cause that's the one colour that Apple has so far not used for the iMac. Word is they wanted to avoid the association with "lemons". Also, I believe Berke Breathed has prior art on the "Banana" computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess BackOrifice is now officially a "feature"
They probably expect people to embed the watermark in the master. So the only way to get a "virgin" recording is to steal it from the studio.
Of course, you will remember that it was someone stealing a pre-master recording from the studio that set Metallica on their little tirade.
Of course, to be able to do this they need to get broadcasters to insert their audio bug in their programming. And short of DC actually paying them to do so, that's not likely to happen.
The audio bug is loud, obvious, and extremely annoying. It has to be loud and obvious so the monitoring software can be absolutely sure of what it is. So the signal can't go through any limiters that would lower the level too much, and automatic gains throw coniption fits when they encounter the bug. The upshot being to piss off engineers in as many ways possible.
And anyway, it's not like you can't unplug your microphone. (Or, Goddess forbid, not install the software.)
Well, if it works for Linux....
It is a bit disconcerting to see notorious processes such as portmap and inetd, but how many of us don't have a dedicated firewall on our internet-connected networks? But then, there's still the opportunity for internal attacks; not all LANs can be trusted, such as one in a school (and where do we often find lots of Apples?).
So yeah, the first item on everyone's list of comments for Apple should be security. But of course, even if Apple changes these things, there's still no excuse for having a properly structured security policy for your own computers. A lot of this has to do with the popular opinion of who is qualified to be a tech -- whoever seems to know more than you do. Until everyone learns to trust the expertise of professionals, and not allow any yahoo who can format a floppy act as a network admin, the networks will be a cracker's paradise.
As for MacOS being secure because there's "no process to hack and no shell escapes to exploit", well... heh. A while back I read about a trip John Norstad (of Disinfectant fame) took to eastern Europe. While there he visited a few hacker groups, many of them notorious for writing PC viruses. He learned that these groups had been financed by the Soviet Union explicitly to find ways to comprimise computers. He asked about the Macintosh and they said that they didn't have any because they were too expensive; if they could have afforded Macs, they would've written viruses for them. So Macs are secure not out of some inherent design, but because of market share. While the mechanisms may not be as obvious, it's folly to think that a remote comprimise of the MacOS is impossible.
In a way, the availability of the more obvious exploit mechanisms in MacOS X are good for security, since it forces people to form a real security plan instead of relying on the relative obscurity of the Mac.
Why, to guard against insomnia, of course. Otherwise they could be sued by someone whose health has suffered because of lack of sleep while hacking at a truly advanced OS.
Plus, unix-style docs are a good source of job security. Can you imagine how many techs would be on the dole if their bosses ever learned how to administrate their own computers? But one glance at unix docs is enough to send any PHB into convulsions.
Just out of curiosity, where did you guys go to college?
uhh... We are talking about MIT, right?
Yeah, I first saw that headline in a slashbox and thought, "Gee, I don't remember moving SegFault this high on the page?". (It was actually SecurityFocus)
This is all well and fun, except that the second you get almost any bit of matter near it your data is lost. Now if you could apply this to some particle that doesn't interact as promiscuously as the electron (neutrino?). But then, the less it interacts with, the harder it is to read it, much less capture and adjust its properties.
That's Darwin. The Darwin team is working on x86 support because it's good developer PR. And, of course, "because it's there." There's also the need to pay homage to the legacy of OpenStep.
MacOS X, on the other hand, is Darwin + Quartz + Quicktime + Java + Aqua + Carbon + etc-etc, and no one has even accidentally said that MacOS X will ever work on anything other than PPC w/ AltiVec.
Oh, haven't you heard? The Steve says we should support Microsoft apps on MacOS.
On the other hand, Creative has decided to make a first ever appearance at Internationale Funkausstellung in Berlin next year. So CeBit is only increasing exposure for this other show. It's funny how a free market works that way.
Don't you all realise that this is really the work of the MPAA trying to cut down on the trading of Hollywood movie scripts over the internet? You better be careful if you turn it off, they might sue you under the DMCA for illegally bypassing a copy-protection feature. (And it's locked with an "Are you sure?" dialog box. Anyone who presses "Ok" is committing a felony.)
hrmm... I wonder how Eudora is doing on fuckedcompany.com. Whoops! I just got a red pepper.
(PS. I kinda like red peppers. Anyone got some guacamole?)
Great for novices, eh? Well, that's perfect then. I mean, Goddess forbid anyone would actually learn something at a university.
What this stuff should be used in is not making the sinks, but the thermal paste you stick between the sink and the chip to improve the heat transfer between the materials. Current pastes have been frowned upon because they're not as efficient as bare metal. So overclockers have been relying on planing, luck, and only a tiny dab of goo when absolutely necessary. (As witnessed by the recent "Athlon-killing-heatsinks" problem.)
Now we've got a material that's a better heatsink than bare metal. But that doesn't mean we suddenly drop all our metal stock and go 100% nanotube. Notice down at the end of the article where they talk about the weak bonding of the tubes. They point at that this actually improves the heat transfer ability, but it also makes them brittle. So yeah, you could probably build a nice hefty sink entirely out of nanotubes. But one wayward knock from a hard drive and half of it ends up scattered about your mainboard.
Using it for paste is much more practical. No matter how flat you make the surfaces, bare metal can never make better contact than if you sandwich some paste in there.
Another potential use is for low-temperature experiments (the micro-kelvin kind, y'know). Since it seems that even a single nanotube can act as a sink you could nestle one right up to whatever you're trying to chill and just suck the heat out of it.
What do you mean "if"? This is why we have the Open Root Server Confederation
And the protocol specifier has nothing to do with DNS lookup. You'd still use http:// whether you were going to frolic.org or free.tibet or google.search
Why limit this to those who agree with the policy? I firmly believe that every action of public officials, or people acting on behalf of the government, must be made available for public review.
Of course, I also support the death penalty for long-term congressmen. (Offense? What do you mean 'What offense?')
s/KDE/Python/g
hrmm... Took me a while to find this. Was on a disk that got hosed a while back, so I don't think I managed to save all of it.
..... heck I'm going to read someones PGP. Buy.
..|.. ...
...
. | .... .....
.... .|. ......
In <DDFzt3.Knq@anneli.com>, tim@anneli.com (Tim E. Anderson) writes:
> Simpler one:
>
> Now let me see, I got "n" and want to get "p" and "q". So I just make a
>stab at it:
>
> let p = (sqrt(n)/2) and q = (n/2)
> now lets see if my new p and q is bigger than "n", oh, boy is it ever, so
>then let p=p/2 and q=q/2, is this product bigger then "n", if so I just keep
>halfing p and q till the product is less the "n". Hey I am closer to the
>real "p" and "q". MUCH closer.
> I'll tell you what to do when when the guessed p and q has a product less
>then "n". Hint for now, you go back in the other direction even slower till
>the product is once again greater then "n", Now you are EVEN closer, and
>closer, and
Look, Tim, you keep posting all these cutesy factoring systems which, I guess,
are completely unknown to the mathematical community. I doubt anyone here
is interested in your theory, but we'd all be interested in your RESULTS.
Someone here posted a large number, about 250 decimal digits, not long ago.
Instead of posting your factoring system, why not shut all of us up for good
by factoring that number?
As I've mentioned earlier, RSA Data Security has ongoing contests with cash
prizes for factoring big numbers. Why don't you win their next contest?
That would do wonders for your credibility.
^C5*** Quoting Tim E. Anderson to All dated 08-16-95 ***
> I found that using ([sqrt(n) + n]/ [2^x]) {x=1,2,3,4,5,each use} is
> better
> and faster. I also notice that: (.5)*(sqrt[sqrt(n) + n]) tends to
Is this your new BS algorithm that you dreamed up after you realized that your
old one (brute force) didn't work?
You still haven't been able to decrypt anybody's PGP message yet...Oh wait, I
forgot, you don't give out freebies.. =)
If p < (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
{hum., either p,q are < or they are both >).
Find the first prime number after (1/2)sqrt(n) [like if it was 1,453.9026
the the first prime number would be 1459] and the last prime number
prior to 2*sqrt(n) [like if it was 5,815.6104, the last prime befor it would
be 5813]. Now make a number line and place each prime in its place (1459
to the left of sqrt(n) and 5813 to the right of sqrt(n)). Then find the
next prime number half that distance, and so on.
2797*3023 = 8455331
sqrt(n)= 2907
(step x) * (step x)
(1) (2) 1459
(3)2203
(4)2557 8333263
(5)2741 8450503
(6)2833 8416843
(7)2879 8501687
sqrt(n)2907
(7)2953
(6)2971
(5)3083
(4)3259
(3)3631
(2)4357
(1)5813
Now multiply each prime with it's coresponding pair. For example
1459*5813 = 8481167 > N
Since this is greater then N, hold 1459 but drop down to 4357 like thus
1459*4357 = 6,356,863 < N
Notice anything odd between steps (5) and (6) and (7).
(5)2741 8450503
(6)2833 8416843
Yup, the products drops from (5) to (6). Why? cause the real "p" is in
that range (2741-2833). After you pass the range "p" is in, the product
will jump up.
Now when "n" is small, you cann't go halfing, more like 1/16ths, else
you'll miss the dip.
Now PGP likes BIG numbers, meaning the dips are very noticable.
When p>(1/2)sqrt(n) and like so q > 2sqrt(n), you go away form
(1/2)sqrt(n) and 2*sqrt(n).
This is not brute force, it is a binary search for product dips. Find the
dip, and follow it down.
Tim E. Anderson (tim@anneli.com) wrote:
: If p < (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
: {hum., either p,q are < or they are both >).
Darn, typo again, thats:
If p > (1/2)sqrt(n), then so will be q < 2*sqrt(n).
if p < then q is >.
sorry.
BTW, if you could 2-D the thing, think of an ant hill with a stick in it.
It has an up slope, a hole and then in the middle of the hole a stick that
is flush with the lip of the hole (that's p*q). The ant hill is more donut
shaped, as if the donut was cut in half an placed on the floor. The hole is
the dip, and in that dip is a spike (p*q).
p
. . sqrt(n)same for q
yea, I guess, a bow and arrow.and NO it's not the middle finger.
In article <DDHvAn.17M@anneli.com>, tim@anneli.com (Tim E. Anderson) wrote:
>Here is a better, slower, method:
>
Actually, it's fairly quick: it's guaranteed to crash after 12 iterations.
f = f/2 goes from 1024 to zero fairly quickly.
>n = p*q;
>p = sqrt(n)-sqrt(n)/BIG_NUMBER;
>q = sqrt(n)-saqrt(n)/BIG_NUMBER;
>f = 1024/* or smaller yet */
>while ( p*q != n )
>{
> p = p - p/f;
> q = q + q/f;
> f = f/2;
>}
>while ( p*q < n )
>{
> stuff deleted but obvious
>}
Not sure what the second while loop is there for. If you ever drop out of the
first, you will have achieved your objective.
Just for kicks I tried this with
n = 57102517, and BIG_NUMBER = 1000.
Here's what you get with each iteration:
p = 7549 q = 7549 f = 1024
p = 7542 q = 7556 f = 512
p = 7528 q = 7570 f = 256
p = 7499 q = 7599 f = 128
p = 7441 q = 7658 f = 64
p = 7325 q = 7777 f = 32
p = 7097 q = 8020 f = 16
p = 6654 q = 8521 f = 8
p = 5823 q = 9586 f = 4
p = 4368 q = 11982 f = 2
p = 2184 q = 17973 f = 1
p = 0 q = 35946 f = 0
and of course you crash the next time you execute the statement
p = p - p/f;
Didn't get anywhere near the factors of n.
--
Thank you VERY much!You'll be getting a Handsome Simulfax Copy of your
OWN words in the mail soon (and My Reply).
<Andrew.Spring@ping.be> PGP Print: 0529 C9AF 613E 9E49378E 54CD E232 DF96
Thank you for question, exit left to Funway.
Okay, not having a PRE tag sucks. Not a particularly enlightening exchange, but this was years ago when I was still a dumb young kid and even I realised how full of sh*t this guy was.
The real irony is the number of stories posted to /. about something that violates the laws of physics.
I've been using Proxomitron in Windows for some time know. It can parse HTTP headers as well as content. I prefer it to firewall-based solutions since I can bypass the filtering with just a click in the system tray.
For Mac, you can use iCab (as mentioned but not named in the article). To add filtering to any Mac browser, there's WebFree(68k) or WebWasher(PPC)
But if you really want to kill 100% of annoying banner ads, use Lynx, w3m, links, or (Mac only) WannaBe^2.
(I mean, not as if I knew the guy or have any standing to be presuming to talk for him, but...)
"I really would have preferred some jam in those jars."
(and no, not with the brain in it too, you sick bastards)
Well then that's pretty clear. And you're right that the internet defies control of information. It is the situation that the American colonies were in with the printing press. Sure, presses had been around for ages, but by the early 18th century America was prosperous (filthy-stinkin-rich, really) enough that the ability for almost anyone to have a few broadshits printed up and posted around was trivial. Much like the ability to create a web site today. And with a meager (considering the current rate of growth) increase in bandwidth, any kind of media becomes fair game. But that doesn't mean a revolution will occur right away. Being imprisoned for printing seditious material was incredibly common for decades before a number of particularly intelligent and devious men started talking about rebelling. And a lot of people are going to have their asses sued off for sending stuff over the internet for years to come. Whether it will eventually turn into a political movement I can't say. But for anyone attempting to use the internet for technically illegal acts, the trick is to do so in a way that when you are brought to face the wrath of the law, it should be perfectly clear to anyone who the good guys and the bad guys are.
Interesting that you mention the YB, 'cause that's the one colour that Apple has so far not used for the iMac. Word is they wanted to avoid the association with "lemons". Also, I believe Berke Breathed has prior art on the "Banana" computer.