A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms--14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.
This is perfectly in line with what i've heard from copyright experts and people who
_used_ to work for copyright protection groups/organizations.
What you said about the US contribution has some merit, but it is not the only factor in deciding things. The problem is that the rest of the world is subjected to the US in this matter, which is bad, history can tell you about it. The whole concept that one government is dependent on another one's intentions in operating a vital infrastructure in the economy is highly repulsive. I'm sure that the US doesn't mind that role, but you have to realise that it is _NOT_ working on the long term. Don't think today or yesterday, think tomorrow.
Parallel example: How do you think electronic banking works? Is the relative biggest bank operating the network? No. The banks united and created a company for the specific purpose of operating that network. They have a share in that company based on market size and economic power, because that was the only way they've seen it ensured that their interests are neutrally and objectively held. I don't see how that situation is different given the very same hierarchical state (there are 5-6 "root" banking servers in the world).
Of course i don't accuse people of being bad just because they are americans. I got a lot of friends in the USA, but let me tell you: it is _really_ stereotypical of the USA govt. and some people over there, that they want to handle most things themselves without realising that they NEED to trust the world to handle things, because the world is heading towards a globalised economy and eventually a global authority (if some disaster does not struck in the meantime).
I wasn't trying to convince people, i was just trying to describe the current situation as i see it, as accurately as possible.
I agree with that last paragraph of yours, i probably should have described how i think or feel in a less rude way. If that means anything, i didn't realise that its that harsh.
Why do you think that what you think is best for everyone is really the best for everyone or that it is what people want?
How would you feel, if the dns would be controlled for example in China, regardless how neutrally they do it? The fact is, that the significance of the internet grows, and with it the DNS system's importance grows aswell, which means that the responsibility and power of those controlling it grows aswell. I believe, that no single government is qualified to be that dominant on the world, be it military or economy or a vital part of the internet. This isn't just about operating it well enough, it's about international cooperation, it's about being part of the world and sharing responsibility aswell.
So, the USA thinks he doesn't need the world? Think of the dollar, the world keeps the economy of the USA running, not the USA by itself. The USA should realise that even though it's a big country, it cannot dictate to the world, because he's relatively superior, not absolutely superior.
It's like saying there is nothing prohibiting people from forming an alternative government, holding cabinet meetings in a garage. It's pointless unless people accept it, and sadly the only way to achieve acceptance is to press it through politics. I don't like this, i bet neither you do, but at the moment it's like this.
I believe the only normal way to handle this situation is to create a new international body or modify ICAAN, creating a fair representation of the current internet.
Let's give control over that given organization to governments reflecting the share they use (userbase) and contribute (research and equipment) to the internet. So the USA still has it's say, but it cannot play hostage tactics with DNS. This is the only way to achieve neutrality. It is true that the USA has a hist(o|e)rical control over the DNS system, but that doesn't mean anything, it's power is much bigger on the DNS system than it's userbase or contribution would warrant, something kind of similar to the case with the dollar and world economy.
The ISP nameserver has a huge cache with a timeout. If a record cannot be found (because it hasn't been cached before or it has been discarded because of the timeout) then it goes to resolve the domain. To resolve the domain, you actually go backwards (from a higher hierarchy to lower), thus:
root -> country level -> domain level
...not the other way around. The whole thing starts with the dns servers, they are Archimedes' one (13) fixed points the whole dns revolves around.
Yeah, the best step would be for ICANN and supporting countries to just donate money to set up alternative root dns servers. Redundancy never hurts, but there is the problem changing the hardcoded ips of root nameservers too (i guess it's inevitable to change those sometimes, so why not start sooner?).
with the idiotic patriotic dick waving really...why is the US so afraid to cooperate with international organizations?
What is the reasoning behind this step, apart from making more money for some corporations? Is it really a viable threat that ICANN is some Al-Quaeda offspring organization?
Mod me as you like, but please think at least for a second about what i said.
"...the built in Windows XP firewall (enabled by default on SP2 and assuming you don't have any other services enabled or open) and/or have a $30 personal firewall/router, there is a 100% chance you won't get compromised."
Sheer ignorance. You _will_ get compromised. Personally i believe that apart from tracking cookies, everything else infecting your system means that something is wrong with your system either on design or coding level. The problem is, that even if you run a software firewall, a realtime spyware scanner and try to filter bad sites through a proxy, even then you're not safe, but you've just installed a bunch of resource-stealing applications. The underlaying problem is, that these programs try to fix design flaws, which is obviously not fully possible.
Let's imagine a computer scientist who got cast away to an island in the 1980s, before the Microsoft period. What would his reaction be, if he would be found now and tried to look at the computer operating systems? Probably he'd be amazed how much faster computers are today, etc etc. Secondly he'd try operating systems, so he gets a box with "windows" whatever it is because a lot of people are said to be using it. He starts using it for two minutes, but then he concludes that someone is playing a practical joke on him. Why? Because he is reasoning this way: if computers are so much faster now, why is it that this operating system is so slow to start up, if operating systems in the 1980s knew how to remain virus free, why this one has viruses, if operating systems in the 1980s provided more control and better architecture, then why is this "windows" or whatever is going backwards?
Think of it, why do you need to deal with adware, spyware, anti-spyware software, antivirus software, mail worms, firewalls? Because the design is flawed. Firewalls are not supposed to be the only defense in networking, they are supposed to be ANOTHER, optional line of defense, IN CASE a particular daemon or tcp stack is buggy in MISSION CRITICAL environments or merely a privacy tool (ignoring new incoming connections instead of the standard rfc "refused" reply). Antivirus? If a virus managed to write itself on the system, your whole system is already compromised, it is unreasonable to assume that given a smart virus writer, antivirus software can do anything at all. If you're not already compromised, then why do you need an antivirus software in the first place?
I decided 3-4 years ago that i don't want to deal with all this. I switched to linux, and since i'm using a desktop, i'm not running any daemons. So well, this means i don't need a firewall. Just to be on the safe side, i got one line in iptables, to drop all new connections initiated from outside. See, here a firewall is, what it's supposed to be: another line of defense, not a necessity. I almost forgot, I'm running as a non-priviledged user, using sudo if i need to do some root task. I have a simple backup script backing up my user's directory in/home every week, just to be on the safe side. I do not run untrusted binaries, since the chance of someone hacking a debian apt repository and generating the appropriate hash for it is much more remote than running a binary from "somewhere" which is practically a gamble. Life is much easier if you don't have to deal with broken architectures. That said, linux can do with a lot of coding improvements (like everything), but the overall design and philosophy is FINE. I also think it came a long way in the last 4 years.
Btw, GP is a blatantly obvious troll, i don't get how moderators can't see that. The "nothing works on linux" and "i returned to windows $someversion after $while" are dead giveaways.
Re:Obvious oversimplification (Score:-1, Redundant)
by Moderatbastard (808662) on 2005-06-30 17:49 (#12950737)
About 5 posts saying more or less the same thing within about a 2 minute interval.
Let the 'redundant' modding and subsequent bitching begin.
There is no traditional chain reaction going in fusion reactors. IF the reaction gets out of control, temperature probably increases, which means the reaction shuts down itself. Imagine the reaction (energy output / temperature) wise like a parabole, rather than the exponential chain reaction of fission reactors.
The important factor in the reactor is the size, which essentially tells us how much energy can the fusion reactor produce. The ones in existence operate at an energy loss atm, because the energy needed to sustain the reaction is greater at the moment than the energy produced. ITER would be the first reactor capable of producing energy in the traditional sense.
The thing i haven't seen mentioned anywhere, that there is an already working test reactor in Great Britain.
Since it's only a test tokamak reactor it actually consumes power instead of producing it, but i believe that it's today's technology. The only limiting power about fusion reactors is size: there has to be a certain size reached when building these reactors to have actually self-sustaining reaction and energy output instead of requiring energy. I believe there was a slashdot story about this last year, but i cba to look up what i've posted it there about it.
This seems to be a bot, judging by the posting history.
Good thing. At least now i don't have to wait for someone linkify things in case of slashdotting. Couldn't we get this thing included into 'Related links'?
Yeah. Most of the time my english is quite good though, the only visible signs are these little mistakes and my accent. On the other hand, i'm better at grammar than a lot of people whose first language is english, since i actually learned it thoroughly.
Realistically maybe, although i'm not sure how law applies in this case, it is possible that the musician also has to live abroad.
I know one hole in the law: you are allowed to bring cds/dvds from abroad (blank ones) without paying the Artisjus tax. Basically this Artisjus tax is killing the raw dvd market in Hungary, because noone buys them in the store, when you can get them illegally at every street for half the price. And i don't mean, that its a different dvd, it is the exact same thing, the only difference is that the Artisjus holo-sticker is missing.
Slashdot Mirror
A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms--14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.
This is perfectly in line with what i've heard from copyright experts and people who _used_ to work for copyright protection groups/organizations.
What you said about the US contribution has some merit, but it is not the only factor in deciding things. The problem is that the rest of the world is subjected to the US in this matter, which is bad, history can tell you about it. The whole concept that one government is dependent on another one's intentions in operating a vital infrastructure in the economy is highly repulsive. I'm sure that the US doesn't mind that role, but you have to realise that it is _NOT_ working on the long term. Don't think today or yesterday, think tomorrow.
Parallel example: How do you think electronic banking works? Is the relative biggest bank operating the network? No. The banks united and created a company for the specific purpose of operating that network. They have a share in that company based on market size and economic power, because that was the only way they've seen it ensured that their interests are neutrally and objectively held. I don't see how that situation is different given the very same hierarchical state (there are 5-6 "root" banking servers in the world).
Of course i don't accuse people of being bad just because they are americans. I got a lot of friends in the USA, but let me tell you: it is _really_ stereotypical of the USA govt. and some people over there, that they want to handle most things themselves without realising that they NEED to trust the world to handle things, because the world is heading towards a globalised economy and eventually a global authority (if some disaster does not struck in the meantime).
I wasn't trying to convince people, i was just trying to describe the current situation as i see it, as accurately as possible.
I agree with that last paragraph of yours, i probably should have described how i think or feel in a less rude way. If that means anything, i didn't realise that its that harsh.
Politics is _already_ involved, and tbh I'd pick international politics any day over the USA-specific politics.
This thing with you americans again.
Why do you think that what you think is best for everyone is really the best for everyone or that it is what people want?
How would you feel, if the dns would be controlled for example in China, regardless how neutrally they do it? The fact is, that the significance of the internet grows, and with it the DNS system's importance grows aswell, which means that the responsibility and power of those controlling it grows aswell. I believe, that no single government is qualified to be that dominant on the world, be it military or economy or a vital part of the internet. This isn't just about operating it well enough, it's about international cooperation, it's about being part of the world and sharing responsibility aswell.
So, the USA thinks he doesn't need the world? Think of the dollar, the world keeps the economy of the USA running, not the USA by itself. The USA should realise that even though it's a big country, it cannot dictate to the world, because he's relatively superior, not absolutely superior.
It's like saying there is nothing prohibiting people from forming an alternative government, holding cabinet meetings in a garage. It's pointless unless people accept it, and sadly the only way to achieve acceptance is to press it through politics. I don't like this, i bet neither you do, but at the moment it's like this.
I believe the only normal way to handle this situation is to create a new international body or modify ICAAN, creating a fair representation of the current internet.
Let's give control over that given organization to governments reflecting the share they use (userbase) and contribute (research and equipment) to the internet. So the USA still has it's say, but it cannot play hostage tactics with DNS. This is the only way to achieve neutrality. It is true that the USA has a hist(o|e)rical control over the DNS system, but that doesn't mean anything, it's power is much bigger on the DNS system than it's userbase or contribution would warrant, something kind of similar to the case with the dollar and world economy.
You got it almost right, but it works like this:
...not the other way around. The whole thing starts with the dns servers, they are Archimedes' one (13) fixed points the whole dns revolves around.
The ISP nameserver has a huge cache with a timeout. If a record cannot be found (because it hasn't been cached before or it has been discarded because of the timeout) then it goes to resolve the domain. To resolve the domain, you actually go backwards (from a higher hierarchy to lower), thus:
root -> country level -> domain level
At least the brits got the authority part right from the authoritive domain name service server thing ;)
In Soviet Star Trek Matter starts YOU!
Yeah, the best step would be for ICANN and supporting countries to just donate money to set up alternative root dns servers. Redundancy never hurts, but there is the problem changing the hardcoded ips of root nameservers too (i guess it's inevitable to change those sometimes, so why not start sooner?).
with the idiotic patriotic dick waving really...why is the US so afraid to cooperate with international organizations?
What is the reasoning behind this step, apart from making more money for some corporations? Is it really a viable threat that ICANN is some Al-Quaeda offspring organization?
Mod me as you like, but please think at least for a second about what i said.
" ...the built in Windows XP firewall (enabled by default on SP2 and assuming you don't have any other services enabled or open) and/or have a $30 personal firewall/router, there is a 100% chance you won't get compromised."
/home every week, just to be on the safe side. I do not run untrusted binaries, since the chance of someone hacking a debian apt repository and generating the appropriate hash for it is much more remote than running a binary from "somewhere" which is practically a gamble. Life is much easier if you don't have to deal with broken architectures. That said, linux can do with a lot of coding improvements (like everything), but the overall design and philosophy is FINE. I also think it came a long way in the last 4 years.
Sheer ignorance. You _will_ get compromised. Personally i believe that apart from tracking cookies, everything else infecting your system means that something is wrong with your system either on design or coding level. The problem is, that even if you run a software firewall, a realtime spyware scanner and try to filter bad sites through a proxy, even then you're not safe, but you've just installed a bunch of resource-stealing applications. The underlaying problem is, that these programs try to fix design flaws, which is obviously not fully possible.
Let's imagine a computer scientist who got cast away to an island in the 1980s, before the Microsoft period. What would his reaction be, if he would be found now and tried to look at the computer operating systems? Probably he'd be amazed how much faster computers are today, etc etc. Secondly he'd try operating systems, so he gets a box with "windows" whatever it is because a lot of people are said to be using it. He starts using it for two minutes, but then he concludes that someone is playing a practical joke on him. Why? Because he is reasoning this way: if computers are so much faster now, why is it that this operating system is so slow to start up, if operating systems in the 1980s knew how to remain virus free, why this one has viruses, if operating systems in the 1980s provided more control and better architecture, then why is this "windows" or whatever is going backwards?
Think of it, why do you need to deal with adware, spyware, anti-spyware software, antivirus software, mail worms, firewalls? Because the design is flawed. Firewalls are not supposed to be the only defense in networking, they are supposed to be ANOTHER, optional line of defense, IN CASE a particular daemon or tcp stack is buggy in MISSION CRITICAL environments or merely a privacy tool (ignoring new incoming connections instead of the standard rfc "refused" reply). Antivirus? If a virus managed to write itself on the system, your whole system is already compromised, it is unreasonable to assume that given a smart virus writer, antivirus software can do anything at all. If you're not already compromised, then why do you need an antivirus software in the first place?
I decided 3-4 years ago that i don't want to deal with all this. I switched to linux, and since i'm using a desktop, i'm not running any daemons. So well, this means i don't need a firewall. Just to be on the safe side, i got one line in iptables, to drop all new connections initiated from outside. See, here a firewall is, what it's supposed to be: another line of defense, not a necessity. I almost forgot, I'm running as a non-priviledged user, using sudo if i need to do some root task. I have a simple backup script backing up my user's directory in
"Where men are men, women are women, and young 14y old girls are FBI agents"
...or something like that.
What about the other side? http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/20 33216
Btw, GP is a blatantly obvious troll, i don't get how moderators can't see that. The "nothing works on linux" and "i returned to windows $someversion after $while" are dead giveaways.
Well said mate, well said!
See, there you have it!
Do not forget the link with his name (in the article). I believe that generates a few clickthroughs aswell.
Mod parent up.
There is no traditional chain reaction going in fusion reactors. IF the reaction gets out of control, temperature probably increases, which means the reaction shuts down itself. Imagine the reaction (energy output / temperature) wise like a parabole, rather than the exponential chain reaction of fission reactors.
The important factor in the reactor is the size, which essentially tells us how much energy can the fusion reactor produce. The ones in existence operate at an energy loss atm, because the energy needed to sustain the reaction is greater at the moment than the energy produced. ITER would be the first reactor capable of producing energy in the traditional sense.
The thing i haven't seen mentioned anywhere, that there is an already working test reactor in Great Britain.
Since it's only a test tokamak reactor it actually consumes power instead of producing it, but i believe that it's today's technology. The only limiting power about fusion reactors is size: there has to be a certain size reached when building these reactors to have actually self-sustaining reaction and energy output instead of requiring energy. I believe there was a slashdot story about this last year, but i cba to look up what i've posted it there about it.
Try turning the book upside down... the letters may seem more familiar that way.
Something about Mission Impossible.
After viewing the video: "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds".
This seems to be a bot, judging by the posting history.
Good thing. At least now i don't have to wait for someone linkify things in case of slashdotting. Couldn't we get this thing included into 'Related links'?
Yeah. Most of the time my english is quite good though, the only visible signs are these little mistakes and my accent. On the other hand, i'm better at grammar than a lot of people whose first language is english, since i actually learned it thoroughly.
Realistically maybe, although i'm not sure how law applies in this case, it is possible that the musician also has to live abroad.
I know one hole in the law: you are allowed to bring cds/dvds from abroad (blank ones) without paying the Artisjus tax. Basically this Artisjus tax is killing the raw dvd market in Hungary, because noone buys them in the store, when you can get them illegally at every street for half the price. And i don't mean, that its a different dvd, it is the exact same thing, the only difference is that the Artisjus holo-sticker is missing.
You have to pay for Artisjus for things like:
- Giving a concert in a park
- Putting a TV in a pub
- Handing out cassette tapes
- Setting up a music archive from long forgotten music from 50ies (this is why its not happening here)
Also, there is a fee on every cd/dvd and flash memory card, which doubles their price. Talk about law-supported robbery.