Second, many vaccines are only effective for a certain period of time.
It's often not worth keeping adults going on their boosters in the general public
So the caregivers, who have the greatest chance of infecting patients, should be immunized to block that vector.
I have conveniently hacked your response into three main phrases. It is true that many (if not most) vaccinations are only effective temporarily. However, how many people actually know this? How many people understand that the HAV and HBV (HepA and HepB vaccines) are generally effective for up to 20-23 years? Knowing this, where is the logic in not obtaining boosters for HAV and HBV? It is a person's own responsibility to make sure that they are properly protected, whether it is during sex, in regards to personal health (vaccinations and preventive medicine), in person or effects, and so forth.
We live in a society where people simply do not want to take responsibility for themselves. That is why politicians are hailed by the sheeple for passing intrusive (and many times unconstitutional) laws because they just want to "think of the children." That is why sole proprietorships wane to the more "secure and protected" LLC and INC which are "entities of the State." That is why people (literally) get away with murder because some game or program made them do it (even "the Devil" doesn't have as much sway). Because, generally, people do not want to take responsibility for themselves.
If you know that your HBV may not be effective after 23 years, then booster it. The vaccine is available. Doctors are able to do it. Or is it that people don't really have faith in the vaccine? Or possibly, people have too much faith in science, and do not use enough logic and intellect to know that they may have a need to booster? In any case, however, it is still the responsibility of the individual to take care of their own health in this regards. If they choose not to booster their vaccination, then that is their problem. They are no different from the ones who do not vaccinate at all.
And if physicians are not educating their patients about these issues, then what the hell are they being paid so damned much for? This is one point in which it IS someone else's responsibility, because you (or your insurance) are paying them to do so. If a person truly believes that vaccination will keep them from contracting a disease, then let them vaccinate. But do not shift responsibility to another. People need to grow up! Unfortunately, (I think I can safely say) we can both agree that this is not going to happen, and people will continue to shift responsibility on to others.
Although your response does hold merit in the "real world", as what you pointed out is general practice, realistically, people should take responsibility for themselves (especially medically), and when/if they choose not to perform a procedure, take a medication, utilize recommended techniques, or inject various foreign elements (including vaccines), then what happens to their health should fall on them.
Most people take enough responsibility to pay their car insurance every month, because they understand the need to keep their license and the unreasonable requirements of law that force them to support an outdated and otherwise failing industry. Most people understand the need for electricity, and thus pay their municipality their per kw usage tax (I call it a tax because many States require you to pay for generating your own electricity), and are thus responsible in that manner.
Yet, for some reason, people not only seem to believe that "someone else" should be responsible for their health, but also believe that anybody who does not believe in the manner that they do, and act accordingly, that these people are "endangering" others. Well, if the shoe fits...
SHHHH! Don't tell me! (covering ears) LALALALALA!
I'll be sitting outside the USPTO with a pre-dated patent application for methods of performing millions of random WHOIS searches via NSI utilizing thousands of Slashdotters.
If you're not vaccinated for a particular disease then you might catch it. If you're one of those medical people then you tend to come into contact with lots of other people, many of whom aren't the picture of robust health. You could then pass on that disease to them.
The point you make is that a person who chooses not to receive a vaccination opens themselves up to the possibility of contracting said disease. However, isn't that their fundamental human right to practice their religious and philosophical world views? If truly indeed you yourself have your faith in the vaccinations you receive, and you truly indeed believe that these vaccinations will immunize you from said disease, what right is it of yours (the proverbial "yours", not you personally) to force, mandate, or criticize another for holding a different view and choosing not to vaccinate?
That said, you point out that the non-vaccinated individual might carry the said disease to a patient and commute the disease to them. That would require a prerequisite understanding that said patient was not in fact themselves vaccinated for said disease. Is it not then their own doing for contracting said disease? Since that individual did in fact choose not to vaccinate themselves? If it is said that the individual may, however, contract said disease in spite of previous vaccination, then for what remedy was the vaccination originally obtained? That argument in itself would invalidate reasonable claims for vaccinating.
It can be argued back and forth regarding the effectiveness of vaccinations, health concerns and the pros/cons regarding the vaccines, and a whole plethora of debatable material when it comes to vaccinations. Many of these arguments are logical, some scientific, and others more on the philosphical/religious side. The fact remains, however, if you truly have faith in vaccinating, then what the non-vaccinated people do is upon their own heads, and should effectively only apply to their health. If you say it risks the health of those who were vaccinated as well, then there could be no faith in the vaccination process, as that argument already invalidates the claimed reason for vaccination.
The point is, if vaccinations accomplish what is generally touted to the public, in that they create an immunization to the said vaccinated disease, then the individual choice not to vaccinate (for whatever reason there be) should be of no concern to, and certainly not forced upon by, those who do choose to vaccinate. To use an argument that there is the possibility of communicating the disease to those who are vaccinated (and thus showing a distrust and ill-faith towards the reliability of vaccines to begin with) holds, in my opinion, less authority than the clear fact that people smoking in public causes me ill health, or that a person drinking and driving endangers my life, or that bald pony-tailed (I know, oxymoron) men selling flowers and Krishna at the airports violated my privacy.
The point is (I said that already, didn't I), is that if you (the proverbial you, not you personally) truly believe in the effectiveness of your vaccinations, then this is all but a non-issue. When I read through the posts, it is all rather interesting how hot-headed people get on both sides of the issue. Anything like this always seems to become a "science vs. religion" issue when it is far from it. And very little logic is ever seen in the attack posts. People need to step back and look at things objectively. Science is not all logic, and religion is not all faith. There is a little bit of faith in things scientific, and there is a little logic in things religious.
Both sides, when properly argued and debated, have viable pros and cons with regards to the issue of vaccinations. And when one gets down to the core of the issue, logic mandates that neither side has an excuse not to tolerate the other side, and as one side would say, "live and let die."
It's also worth noting that my family member is a practicing nurse, so her refusal to take vaccines isn't just risking her own health, but that of her patients.
Can you please elaborate how her failure to vaccinate herself endangers others?
A real free market shouldn't have the absurd level of protectionism some companies seem to expect.
A real free market will have no protections. That is what makes it free. Supply and demand are the determining factors for profit in a free market. Innovation and quality are the determining factors for success. Competition motivates innovation. In a market where there are protections, there are no motivators for true innovation, since competition is removed. Since the lack of competition (monopoly) guarantees "success", quality and innovation are non-issues.
This is one of the biggest problems with the U.S. patent (monopoly) structure, in that, even sometimes innovative ideas become stagnant and do not become improved upon because there is no motivation to do so since the monopoly is guaranteed by the government. If there were no monopoly protections, then there would be true motivation for quality and innovation.
That is not to say that "copyright" in its purest form as true original works of art, should not afford some sort of protection, but even a lifetime is almost a lifetime too long.
I'm not sure the judge will or should accept a tu quoque ("you're one too") argument.
Although the fact that Viacom's iFilm also has others' copyrighted material on it, there are other ways of using that information in court. Google could use this information to strengthen their position of the safe harbor provisions by pointing out the "fact" that Viacom currently uses such provisions on its own competing service. I very seriously doubt that Viacom would admit on record that it intentionally violated another's copyright, as this could be used in criminal charges against Viacom, could it not?
And, if Viacom claimed that the presence of such material on their service was not known to them, and that their policy would be to remove it when the fact of infringement has been verified, then Google could use the same argument in the court that they uphold similar policies and that Viacom did not utilize due diligence in notifying Google/YouTube of the existence of such material on their service.
I'm not saying Viacom has to defend its IP to keep its rights.
I believe my above statement touches upon this. Google is protected under the safe harbor provisions provided that they do three things. The safe harbor requirements are and provisions, not or provisions. Thus, Google/YouTube must meet all three requirements of the safe harbor provision to be protected. These provisions are:
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
C. if Viacom did not issue a take down notice, then Google/YouTube has met with the DMCA requirements and Viacom did not conduct due diligence in protecting its IP under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. If Viacom did send the takedown and it met with the requirements in paragraph 3 of section 512, then Google is doomed.
A. if Viacom, again, did not send a take down notice, then Google is in the clear through their non-policing policy, thus they would not be aware of such activity without due diligence on behalf of the copyright owner.
Here is where Viacom is evidently making its claim:
B. Google/YouTube has in fact received financial gain through its service. I believe that this fact will not be disputed. However, the provision requires that the service provider must have the right to control the infringement (which they do). This may be defended, however, by the lack of due diligence of Viacom with regards to provision A. But, there is a second AND requirement to fall outside the safe harbor provision. The service provider must also have the ability to control the infringing activity. Because of Google's policies of non-policing the users' uploads, Google/YouTube is reliant upon Viacom's due diligence in policing it's own copyrighted works. The DMCA already contains the legal provisions for a rights holder to protect and police its works. However, again, Viacom seems to show a lack of due diligence.
I believe this is where the case will ride: whether or not an OSP is required to police its users' activities. As far as I know, the DMCA
I can barely get by in my office without two or more physical desks, let alone one desktop for my computer! I use Enlightenment running the kicker task/menu bar. I have three desktops, each with 15 virtual desktops, conveniently placed at the bottom right portion of the screen for easy access. to the left is the enlightenmnet iconbox (which usually has 10-20 minimized apps), followed by the kicker bar.
I use the first desktop for current work production, the second for my writing and secondary research, and the third for long running processes that just "get in the way" and emulators. I don't like using alt-tab, so I try to spread each working process out to the virtual desktops, but sometimes I have to stack, but not more than 4 or 5 windows on top of eachother.
If I'm *really* busy, I will have up to 90 apps open with about 6 browsers of no more than 12 tabs each (too many tabs makes it hard to navigate them, so I just open a new browser instance instead.
Really, I do not see how anybody gets anything done with an M$ type desktop setup. I have used virtual desktops on M$ Windows, but it was very slow and not easily navigated. the most number of processes I've been able to get a Windows OS to run foreground anyway was limited to 9, so it's not even worth booting one up.
The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"
If I'm not mistaken, this is exactly what USC 17 1201(i) is for. Not EVERYTHING in the DMCA is bad. Then again, it would have to be upheld by a court of law first. Knowing our legal system, the judge would somehow find this one provision unconstitutional and in violation of corporations' rights to profit.
A Trademark is "intellectual property" in the U.S. Just like any IP, you can license it to whom you want under whatever conditions you want. If the owner of the BitTorrent trademark wants to offer an open license of use (no difference from what the GPL does), but restrict licensing to specific sectors or industries (no difference from the proposed DRM restrictions of the GPLv3), then that is their right as the owner of that intellectual property.
You as the owner of the trademark are under NO obligation to offer "all-or-none" licensing of your property. Use of someone else's property is a priviledge, not a right. Only when you have bought that property (such as DVDs, CDs, VHS, books, etc.) may you "do as you please" with it, but are still under constraints (by law) of what you may or may not do with the "intellectual property" contained in the tangible media (for instance, you may NOT legally display a DVD to the public just because you "bought" the media the movie is on).
And if I'm not mistaken, the licensing of the BitTorrent trademark seems that it will be alot more open than the Linux trademark requirements.
A judge can do whatever the hell he wants in his court... A judge cannot be prosecuted for anything he does wrong luike that in court...
Let's remember that this is from the U.K. I do not know much about their justice system, so this may be entirely true. In the U.S., however, the People hold the Power (though extremely rarely ever excerted), and there are means to discipline and, yes, prosecute judges in the U.S. Here in Wyoming, we have the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics which may investigate and take disciplinary action, including removal from bench.
And depending on the situation, the judge may also be investigated by the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Civil Rights Division for criminal prosecution. NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers. People simply need to stand up absolutely for their rights and utilize the representatives and agencies that exist for the purpose of excerting your powers and rights in whatever country you reside in.
Since when is pr0n free speech or part of the press?
You misunderstand here. The "Bill of Rights" is not a listing of the rights protecting entities or professions, per se, but the Rights of the People. WE are the Poeple, not individuals of certain industries. The Right of "the press" is not a "Right" of the network and satellite news channels. Nor is it the "Right" of the local and national newspapers.
Yes, these entities do enjoy the "right" to publish, but that is only residual from the Individual owners' Right of the press. EVERY individual is covered by this right. This Right protects authors allowing them to publish works criticizing the government, or presenting alternate views contrary to the majority view.
So, yes, pornography falls under this Amendment as a protected right to publish a work, sad as it is. But, are you willing to give up your own "rights" to limit the rights of others? Because if you say it's ok to restrict individuals based on their views, it will be used against you when you fall in the minority.
This is seen not only with pornography, but also issues such as gambling. Again, this is a LOCAL issue and is therefore out of the bounds of the Federal Government. The Federal government has specific restrictions outlined what they can or cannot do within the U.S. Constitution. All other "rights" and powers are subject to the respective States and the People.
Issues such as pornography are outside the powers of the Federal government to control, prohibit, or enforce. These powers belong to the States, granted the People issue this power to them. Where the States do not have specific powers in this realm, or where such powers are limited to the States, the residual of such powers are granted to the People.
The People may further relinquish their Power on this issue by granting the authority to the localized city or township goverment to further zone or regulate such items under their municipality.
Quite frankly though, this is a power granted to the People to individually decide upon, and the Federal government has no right or authority to trample in upon it!
You're right! It violates an individual or entity's right to publish and is therefore an abridging of the press. The right to publish a work is deeply embedded in our county's history. And just because something is objectionable to one crowd or another, does not relinquish the right to publish a work AS YOU SEE FIT without violating the rights of another. And in no way does a.xxx TLD violate anyone's rights! Only the deprivation of the.xxx TLD violates rights!
That being said,The first admendment forbids congress from passing a law abirdging the freedom of speech. Congress is not the president - so the president can't violate the first amendment of the united states.
That being said, the President is guilty of a higher crime then of millions of counts of conspiring to violate the civil rights of an individual as outlined in the U.S.C.s, as well as civil liabities as well for such violation. Civil rights, also being defined in the U.S.C., being defined inclusive of matters regarding a discrimination toward religious views (which this certainly is about).
But, in all actuality, your statement is a bit off. Our government is set up in three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Judicial branch is there to make determination whether a law passed by Congress is legal in accordance with powers aportioned through the Constitution, and thus, whether the Executive branch may effectively enforce the law. the Executive branch is there (as well as for military and foreign diplomacy) to execute the Laws passed by Congress. He does not create Laws, per se; he only enforces them through off-braches. It is Congress that passes laws, and thus, effectively grants the Executive branch its authority in matters over the People.
If Congress is prohibitted from passing laws violating the Rights of the Pursuit of Happiness outlined in the First Amendment, he has no authority to enforce any such "law" over those Rights of the People.
To attempt to do so where laws do not exist would not only overstep his authorities, but also make him an actor of the State in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits any State from violating the Rights of the People as afforded through the restrictions on the government placed in the Constitution.
The government is not abridging freedom of speech. It is simply not going out of its way to create a red-light district on the internet. Don't be so sensational.
To abridge means to deprive. My understanding is the the executive branch is placing political pressure on ICANN to NOT institute a formerly intended TLD. This certainly does violate the First Amendment through depriving the freedom of press to publish. Although, there is no "law" giving the executive branch to place this pressure on ICANN, it is still under color of law and statute, and may have effectively deprived certain industries from publishing freely under an intended.xxx TLD.
[re-imphasized]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The simple fact that pornography is, not only readily available, but LEGALLY available (under certain regulation), shows that pornography is an "acceptable" practice in the U.S. The true regulation of pornography in our country is individually based, with respect to the individual morals (and thus, established religious practices) or each individual person.
This is where the violation occurs, in my opinion, is with respecting an established religious practice over another. I do not accept pornography, and I pray against it as a Christian. However, our country (theoritically) does not accept the creation (and thus ENFORCEMENT) of laws respecting any religious practice over another, within the generally "acceptable" moral views of the People as a whole.
That is why murder is not in violation. It is understood under the preamble as well as the Fourteenth Amendment that each citizen in this country has the Right to Life and Liberty. To murder someone is to take this absolute Right away from another, and is therefore not under the First Amendment contraints of "freedom of religion".
On the other hand, the practice and use of pornography is a Right of Liberty, as well as a Right of "expression" as upheld through the tenants of speech and press under the First Amendment. However, in blocking.xxx, the executive branch is effectively enforcing (a non-existent) "law" that it, first of all, has no authority to uphold; and secondly, is in respect to one establishment of religious morality over another.
Pornography does not violate another person's Right to Life. It does not violate another person's Right to Liberty (as the individual continues to be allowed to practice their actions in accordance to their own religious, moral, and ethical practices without restriction). It does, however, violate the Right for the Pursuit of Happiness (protected by the First Amendment), but not that of those opposed to.xxx domains.
Pornography is a social illness and sickenning. But I will not give nor approve power to my Government that will allow them to continue to religiously persecute me for Christian views and practices that are not "predominant" in the area I live. And to approve of violations against people that I have differring views with, allows the government to violate my own moral and ethical rights of practice when they do not coincide with their beliefs, as well.
You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?
This is already the case and has been for years on end already. Only now are we beginning to see the maturity of the ramifications created through inaction by the People for so many years. Now that these branch offs already exist, the only way to repair the social damage is to cut it off at the root...the Constitution.
The Constitution is not the problem with our nation, but rather the tearing and rending of what the Constitution stands for and was meant for...controlling the actions of the Government!
Our "Rights" have already been restricted and stripped based on social/criminal statuses. The Fourth and Second Amendment rights are "automagically" stripped of ANY person who has committed a felony "against the State".
"Commit" a felony, and your probation automatically strips you of your Constitutional Rights by prohibiting you the RIGHT to bear arms (this is NOT a "priviledge" based upon your "good behavior"). Furthermore, your Fourth Amendment Rights are automatically stripped by forcing you to relinquish such rights upon demand by the probation officer or law enforcement under threat of punishment.
The ramifications we see today beginning to bear fruit against the U.S. People is the turning of the People into Government actors, as a whole. It is taught in the schools and our localized governments are passing more and more laws requiring us to become Government actors (and thus further forcing us to relinquish our Rights) against our will, under threat of punishment.
This technician is only doing what he has been raised and taught by our government to do. All of this is our OWN fault, and NOBODY but ourselves are to blame for these occurances. Stop bitching and take action! Demand your rights of your "representatives" or ACTIVELY remove them. We have enough "clout" online to bring whole systems down, let's take down the corrupt U.S. system!
(Sorta off-topic: For those that read my few posts and know what happened to my family last summer, the State of Wyoming institued a new law a few months ago that would make what the State agents did a FELONY and punishable with jail time now! Take action and reform your government!)
... is our Rights! Not only our rights as programmers to express ourselves unhindered by government intervention (guaranteed through the 1st Amendment), but, more importantly, our 9th and 14th amendment rights as parents. The "rating system" as well as any other form of censorship our government attempts to impose upon us in violation of the U.S. Constitution, is primarily (and in fact, exclusively), meant to apply toward our "children", that is to say, people of minority.
I see this not only as a 1st amendment violation of my rights to upraise my children after the religious and philosophical beliefs that I hold (freedom of religion), but also my rights as a parent to upbring my children in such a fashion that is unhindered by government (9th amendment, the Consitution does not EXPLICITELY give government the right to upbring after their own political views), as well as bringing them up in such a fashion that encourages and produces "life" and "liberty" in the fashion outlined in my religious and philosophical beliefs (protected by the 14th amendment).
Plain and simple, imposed and "enforced" rating systems by the government IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
This, however, brings out the fact, as well, of the parents' responsibilities. As a father of four, there is not one thing my children have seen, heard, or played that I have not reviewed first, or viewed along with them, to ensure that it was something that I wanted them to see, in accordance with my beliefs. Needless to say, there have been a great number of "G" and "PG" rated "Disney" movies that they won't see in my house, and will have to wait until they are oif the age of majority and gone. On the other hand, there are other movies that I have let them see that are "R" rated because of "violence".
It is not only the parents' SOLE responsibility to ensure what their children do and do not see, but also their RIGHT! And the government simp[ly needs to keep thier nose out of our rights and focus on more important things like cleansing out the corruption that is so rampant in our politics. But, the only way that will happen is for each and every one of us to MAKE our voices heard, and daily email our representatives with this stuff.
If you have time to post here and "slashdot" a site or two every week, you have time to flood your representative's emails and phones with the same.
I think you're a few years behind. People DO get locked up, vanish, and persecuted in the United States because of their use of Constitutional Rights in this country.
For the past year now, I have personally been fighting against the State of Wyoming. Last summer the State kidnapped our children when I had a heart attack. Their main focal point against me was that I held Libertarian veiws, advocated free software (and was thus a violator of federal laws such as the DMCA because I enticed others to commit piracy), they claimed that I was anti-government and anarchist because I enticed people to forcibly demand and enforce their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 14th Amendment Rights against State organizations (such as police on private property without a warrant or due cause, and the C.P.S.), then they blatantly violated my five year old's rights by questioning and coercing her to make recorded statements WITHOUT her ad litem's knowledge, approval, nor presence. (Eventhough, all she would tell them, apparently, was that they were bad people and she wasn't gonna talk to them.)
This all came about because as soon as I came to Wyoming, I began advocating absolute and complete expression and personal enforcement of civil rights (much like I did in California where I had come from). This caused a case load of problems with the DFS and CPS in our area, as many of the people I would talk to were being harrassed by these organizations, and I advised them on Federal agencies that could intervene and investigate the State's activities.
When they came after my family I fought tooth and nail with the prime focus on civil rights. In the past year, 49 criminal charges have been discharged with prejudice, and 13 civil suits had been dismissed, and the State is now out of ammunition, and we still have the ability to sue the State, county and city on over 65 total civil charges, and have more than 50 pages of criminal violations documented ready for submission to the proper federal channels.
The point is: PEOPLE DO NOT FIGHT! They sit back and wallow in self-pity, expecting everyone else to feel sorry for them and do something about it! When you rock the boat in the political arena, expect members of that arena to come after you. And, it is sad that so many people STILL refuse to accept the fact that large corporations ARE a significant part of the political arena. If you rock the financial boat of any big corporation, you have rocked the political boat as well. And the corruption that persists in our government is enough to twist and turn any piece of law to their convenience.
The only way to fight corrupt use of poitical power like this is to remove those corruptions from power. Yet, how many of you even went to the polls last election? And yet you bitch about how corrupt the government is and how they keep stripping rights and now you have to become fearful to write software...
The only ones to blame are yourselves. If there are enough people on even this one site that can crash a mega-server in a moment's notice, imagine what you could do in the political arena if you are forceful about it and focus the political clout you have here, when one person was able to overcome the bruit force of a State. Stop typing and bitching and do something for a change!
I use torrents on a regular basis, and my understanding of it is that the tracker is an individual server of the content holder/provider. Now, I don't use Super Nova, but I do use other "clearinghouses" (I believe that would be the best way to describe them). You simply download (or run) a tracker's.torrent file from the web site, and the "clearinghouse" no longer has any dealing in the "transaction".
Now, I am assuming that Super Nova is a "clearinghouse", otherwise, they would have to have their own tracker pointing to the content on another individual/company's machine, unless they have the content themselves, which I highly doubt. Now, with regards to the true tracker/server, most distributors will only allow the use of the tracker to clients that are utilizing a proper direct connection to the said tracker, verified as "authorized" and set up properly so that the tracker cannot be "hijacked", etc.
No matter how you look at it, the content HAS to be centralized in some way. There has to be some form of packet verification and direction. Imagine having 40 seeds sending the EXACT same packet at once because there is no controlling influence to direct the seeds to send unique packets.
Again, I don't use their "service", but I do highly doubt that they have revised every.torrent they have come across to place on their site to utilize on their OWN trackers. Correct me if I am wrong, but sites like Super Nova are simply "clearinghouses" or holders for OTHER PEOPLES trackers, and the success of a torrent transaction is not dependant on the site the.torrent file is obtained or run from (ie. Super Nova), but on the integrity of the tracker server itself (which there are literally thousands if not millions of them out there.)
So it still eludes me as to why they feel a new "protocol" is needed. It appears to me that this "need" has been spurred, not by the failure of torrent tracker servers to complete transactions, but because a central.torrent database has failed to provide content....again, security, not protocol.
I find it interesting that the focus with regards to DDoS attacks that I have read about is not on proper security and precautions, but rather the client/server applications being attacked. Because your Apache server is DDoS'd, does that mean you distribute your website through ftp? Of course not, you take further security precautions and strengthen your protection against DDoS attacks. Why then should there be a need to "create a new protocol" to "protect" from attacks?
Protocols in and of themselves do not inherently have protection from these kinds of attacks. That is not the purpose of a protocol. The purpose of a protocol is to establish an agreed method of communications between two or more identified systems in a connection. This is where the problem persists: identification.
DDoS is not successful because it overrides the buffers or socket space for connections to a server. It is successful because these sockets are kept open longer than they should be.
What a server needs is not a "secure" protocol, because any protocol (method of communication) can be compromised so long as the attacker can make the protocol believe that an identified, valid entitiy has made a connection and intends to communicate.
Instead, system administrators need to strengthen the rules in their firewalling and subsystem (kernel) to improve the latency of the socket states so that the system will not fail when attacked. I believe GNU/Linux has many tools available as well as kernel modules already available in order to accomplish much of this already.
Rather than wasting time in creating YAP (Yet Another Protocol), the time and effort may be better utilized creating the system and firewalling tools needed to combat DDoS at its root.
This brings it even further to the point of not necessarily even having to reconfigure and install and reconfigure again the varied tools needed for server-side protection, but even look as close as the router itself and the built-in firewalls there.
I believe even Cisco has given some hardware advice for DDoS here.
We don't necessarily need to be creating so much as we should be perfecting and improving.
Slashdot Mirror
I have conveniently hacked your response into three main phrases. It is true that many (if not most) vaccinations are only effective temporarily. However, how many people actually know this? How many people understand that the HAV and HBV (HepA and HepB vaccines) are generally effective for up to 20-23 years? Knowing this, where is the logic in not obtaining boosters for HAV and HBV? It is a person's own responsibility to make sure that they are properly protected, whether it is during sex, in regards to personal health (vaccinations and preventive medicine), in person or effects, and so forth.
We live in a society where people simply do not want to take responsibility for themselves. That is why politicians are hailed by the sheeple for passing intrusive (and many times unconstitutional) laws because they just want to "think of the children." That is why sole proprietorships wane to the more "secure and protected" LLC and INC which are "entities of the State." That is why people (literally) get away with murder because some game or program made them do it (even "the Devil" doesn't have as much sway). Because, generally, people do not want to take responsibility for themselves.
If you know that your HBV may not be effective after 23 years, then booster it. The vaccine is available. Doctors are able to do it. Or is it that people don't really have faith in the vaccine? Or possibly, people have too much faith in science, and do not use enough logic and intellect to know that they may have a need to booster? In any case, however, it is still the responsibility of the individual to take care of their own health in this regards. If they choose not to booster their vaccination, then that is their problem. They are no different from the ones who do not vaccinate at all.
And if physicians are not educating their patients about these issues, then what the hell are they being paid so damned much for? This is one point in which it IS someone else's responsibility, because you (or your insurance) are paying them to do so. If a person truly believes that vaccination will keep them from contracting a disease, then let them vaccinate. But do not shift responsibility to another. People need to grow up! Unfortunately, (I think I can safely say) we can both agree that this is not going to happen, and people will continue to shift responsibility on to others.
Although your response does hold merit in the "real world", as what you pointed out is general practice, realistically, people should take responsibility for themselves (especially medically), and when/if they choose not to perform a procedure, take a medication, utilize recommended techniques, or inject various foreign elements (including vaccines), then what happens to their health should fall on them.
Most people take enough responsibility to pay their car insurance every month, because they understand the need to keep their license and the unreasonable requirements of law that force them to support an outdated and otherwise failing industry. Most people understand the need for electricity, and thus pay their municipality their per kw usage tax (I call it a tax because many States require you to pay for generating your own electricity), and are thus responsible in that manner.
Yet, for some reason, people not only seem to believe that "someone else" should be responsible for their health, but also believe that anybody who does not believe in the manner that they do, and act accordingly, that these people are "endangering" others. Well, if the shoe fits...
If you're (not you personally again...that
SHHHH! Don't tell me! (covering ears) LALALALALA! I'll be sitting outside the USPTO with a pre-dated patent application for methods of performing millions of random WHOIS searches via NSI utilizing thousands of Slashdotters.
The point you make is that a person who chooses not to receive a vaccination opens themselves up to the possibility of contracting said disease. However, isn't that their fundamental human right to practice their religious and philosophical world views? If truly indeed you yourself have your faith in the vaccinations you receive, and you truly indeed believe that these vaccinations will immunize you from said disease, what right is it of yours (the proverbial "yours", not you personally) to force, mandate, or criticize another for holding a different view and choosing not to vaccinate?
That said, you point out that the non-vaccinated individual might carry the said disease to a patient and commute the disease to them. That would require a prerequisite understanding that said patient was not in fact themselves vaccinated for said disease. Is it not then their own doing for contracting said disease? Since that individual did in fact choose not to vaccinate themselves? If it is said that the individual may, however, contract said disease in spite of previous vaccination, then for what remedy was the vaccination originally obtained? That argument in itself would invalidate reasonable claims for vaccinating.
It can be argued back and forth regarding the effectiveness of vaccinations, health concerns and the pros/cons regarding the vaccines, and a whole plethora of debatable material when it comes to vaccinations. Many of these arguments are logical, some scientific, and others more on the philosphical/religious side. The fact remains, however, if you truly have faith in vaccinating, then what the non-vaccinated people do is upon their own heads, and should effectively only apply to their health. If you say it risks the health of those who were vaccinated as well, then there could be no faith in the vaccination process, as that argument already invalidates the claimed reason for vaccination.
The point is, if vaccinations accomplish what is generally touted to the public, in that they create an immunization to the said vaccinated disease, then the individual choice not to vaccinate (for whatever reason there be) should be of no concern to, and certainly not forced upon by, those who do choose to vaccinate. To use an argument that there is the possibility of communicating the disease to those who are vaccinated (and thus showing a distrust and ill-faith towards the reliability of vaccines to begin with) holds, in my opinion, less authority than the clear fact that people smoking in public causes me ill health, or that a person drinking and driving endangers my life, or that bald pony-tailed (I know, oxymoron) men selling flowers and Krishna at the airports violated my privacy.
The point is (I said that already, didn't I), is that if you (the proverbial you, not you personally) truly believe in the effectiveness of your vaccinations, then this is all but a non-issue. When I read through the posts, it is all rather interesting how hot-headed people get on both sides of the issue. Anything like this always seems to become a "science vs. religion" issue when it is far from it. And very little logic is ever seen in the attack posts. People need to step back and look at things objectively. Science is not all logic, and religion is not all faith. There is a little bit of faith in things scientific, and there is a little logic in things religious.
Both sides, when properly argued and debated, have viable pros and cons with regards to the issue of vaccinations. And when one gets down to the core of the issue, logic mandates that neither side has an excuse not to tolerate the other side, and as one side would say, "live and let die."
A real free market will have no protections. That is what makes it free. Supply and demand are the determining factors for profit in a free market. Innovation and quality are the determining factors for success. Competition motivates innovation. In a market where there are protections, there are no motivators for true innovation, since competition is removed. Since the lack of competition (monopoly) guarantees "success", quality and innovation are non-issues.
This is one of the biggest problems with the U.S. patent (monopoly) structure, in that, even sometimes innovative ideas become stagnant and do not become improved upon because there is no motivation to do so since the monopoly is guaranteed by the government. If there were no monopoly protections, then there would be true motivation for quality and innovation.
That is not to say that "copyright" in its purest form as true original works of art, should not afford some sort of protection, but even a lifetime is almost a lifetime too long.
I'm not sure the judge will or should accept a tu quoque ("you're one too") argument.
Although the fact that Viacom's iFilm also has others' copyrighted material on it, there are other ways of using that information in court. Google could use this information to strengthen their position of the safe harbor provisions by pointing out the "fact" that Viacom currently uses such provisions on its own competing service. I very seriously doubt that Viacom would admit on record that it intentionally violated another's copyright, as this could be used in criminal charges against Viacom, could it not?
And, if Viacom claimed that the presence of such material on their service was not known to them, and that their policy would be to remove it when the fact of infringement has been verified, then Google could use the same argument in the court that they uphold similar policies and that Viacom did not utilize due diligence in notifying Google/YouTube of the existence of such material on their service.
I'm not saying Viacom has to defend its IP to keep its rights.
I believe my above statement touches upon this. Google is protected under the safe harbor provisions provided that they do three things. The safe harbor requirements are and provisions, not or provisions. Thus, Google/YouTube must meet all three requirements of the safe harbor provision to be protected. These provisions are:
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
C. if Viacom did not issue a take down notice, then Google/YouTube has met with the DMCA requirements and Viacom did not conduct due diligence in protecting its IP under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. If Viacom did send the takedown and it met with the requirements in paragraph 3 of section 512, then Google is doomed.
A. if Viacom, again, did not send a take down notice, then Google is in the clear through their non-policing policy, thus they would not be aware of such activity without due diligence on behalf of the copyright owner.
Here is where Viacom is evidently making its claim:
B. Google/YouTube has in fact received financial gain through its service. I believe that this fact will not be disputed. However, the provision requires that the service provider must have the right to control the infringement (which they do). This may be defended, however, by the lack of due diligence of Viacom with regards to provision A. But, there is a second AND requirement to fall outside the safe harbor provision. The service provider must also have the ability to control the infringing activity. Because of Google's policies of non-policing the users' uploads, Google/YouTube is reliant upon Viacom's due diligence in policing it's own copyrighted works. The DMCA already contains the legal provisions for a rights holder to protect and police its works. However, again, Viacom seems to show a lack of due diligence.
I believe this is where the case will ride: whether or not an OSP is required to police its users' activities. As far as I know, the DMCA
I can barely get by in my office without two or more physical desks, let alone one desktop for my computer! I use Enlightenment running the kicker task/menu bar. I have three desktops, each with 15 virtual desktops, conveniently placed at the bottom right portion of the screen for easy access. to the left is the enlightenmnet iconbox (which usually has 10-20 minimized apps), followed by the kicker bar.
I use the first desktop for current work production, the second for my writing and secondary research, and the third for long running processes that just "get in the way" and emulators. I don't like using alt-tab, so I try to spread each working process out to the virtual desktops, but sometimes I have to stack, but not more than 4 or 5 windows on top of eachother.
If I'm *really* busy, I will have up to 90 apps open with about 6 browsers of no more than 12 tabs each (too many tabs makes it hard to navigate them, so I just open a new browser instance instead.
Really, I do not see how anybody gets anything done with an M$ type desktop setup. I have used virtual desktops on M$ Windows, but it was very slow and not easily navigated. the most number of processes I've been able to get a Windows OS to run foreground anyway was limited to 9, so it's not even worth booting one up.
If I'm not mistaken, this is exactly what USC 17 1201(i) is for. Not EVERYTHING in the DMCA is bad. Then again, it would have to be upheld by a court of law first. Knowing our legal system, the judge would somehow find this one provision unconstitutional and in violation of corporations' rights to profit.
A Trademark is "intellectual property" in the U.S. Just like any IP, you can license it to whom you want under whatever conditions you want. If the owner of the BitTorrent trademark wants to offer an open license of use (no difference from what the GPL does), but restrict licensing to specific sectors or industries (no difference from the proposed DRM restrictions of the GPLv3), then that is their right as the owner of that intellectual property.
You as the owner of the trademark are under NO obligation to offer "all-or-none" licensing of your property. Use of someone else's property is a priviledge, not a right. Only when you have bought that property (such as DVDs, CDs, VHS, books, etc.) may you "do as you please" with it, but are still under constraints (by law) of what you may or may not do with the "intellectual property" contained in the tangible media (for instance, you may NOT legally display a DVD to the public just because you "bought" the media the movie is on).
And if I'm not mistaken, the licensing of the BitTorrent trademark seems that it will be alot more open than the Linux trademark requirements.
Let's remember that this is from the U.K. I do not know much about their justice system, so this may be entirely true. In the U.S., however, the People hold the Power (though extremely rarely ever excerted), and there are means to discipline and, yes, prosecute judges in the U.S. Here in Wyoming, we have the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics which may investigate and take disciplinary action, including removal from bench.
And depending on the situation, the judge may also be investigated by the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Civil Rights Division for criminal prosecution. NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers. People simply need to stand up absolutely for their rights and utilize the representatives and agencies that exist for the purpose of excerting your powers and rights in whatever country you reside in.
You misunderstand here. The "Bill of Rights" is not a listing of the rights protecting entities or professions, per se, but the Rights of the People. WE are the Poeple, not individuals of certain industries. The Right of "the press" is not a "Right" of the network and satellite news channels. Nor is it the "Right" of the local and national newspapers.
Yes, these entities do enjoy the "right" to publish, but that is only residual from the Individual owners' Right of the press. EVERY individual is covered by this right. This Right protects authors allowing them to publish works criticizing the government, or presenting alternate views contrary to the majority view.
So, yes, pornography falls under this Amendment as a protected right to publish a work, sad as it is. But, are you willing to give up your own "rights" to limit the rights of others? Because if you say it's ok to restrict individuals based on their views, it will be used against you when you fall in the minority.
This is seen not only with pornography, but also issues such as gambling. Again, this is a LOCAL issue and is therefore out of the bounds of the Federal Government. The Federal government has specific restrictions outlined what they can or cannot do within the U.S. Constitution. All other "rights" and powers are subject to the respective States and the People.
Issues such as pornography are outside the powers of the Federal government to control, prohibit, or enforce. These powers belong to the States, granted the People issue this power to them. Where the States do not have specific powers in this realm, or where such powers are limited to the States, the residual of such powers are granted to the People.
The People may further relinquish their Power on this issue by granting the authority to the localized city or township goverment to further zone or regulate such items under their municipality.
Quite frankly though, this is a power granted to the People to individually decide upon, and the Federal government has no right or authority to trample in upon it!
You're right! It violates an individual or entity's right to publish and is therefore an abridging of the press. The right to publish a work is deeply embedded in our county's history. And just because something is objectionable to one crowd or another, does not relinquish the right to publish a work AS YOU SEE FIT without violating the rights of another. And in no way does a .xxx TLD violate anyone's rights! Only the deprivation of the .xxx TLD violates rights!
That being said, the President is guilty of a higher crime then of millions of counts of conspiring to violate the civil rights of an individual as outlined in the U.S.C.s, as well as civil liabities as well for such violation. Civil rights, also being defined in the U.S.C., being defined inclusive of matters regarding a discrimination toward religious views (which this certainly is about).
But, in all actuality, your statement is a bit off. Our government is set up in three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Judicial branch is there to make determination whether a law passed by Congress is legal in accordance with powers aportioned through the Constitution, and thus, whether the Executive branch may effectively enforce the law. the Executive branch is there (as well as for military and foreign diplomacy) to execute the Laws passed by Congress. He does not create Laws, per se; he only enforces them through off-braches. It is Congress that passes laws, and thus, effectively grants the Executive branch its authority in matters over the People.
If Congress is prohibitted from passing laws violating the Rights of the Pursuit of Happiness outlined in the First Amendment, he has no authority to enforce any such "law" over those Rights of the People.
To attempt to do so where laws do not exist would not only overstep his authorities, but also make him an actor of the State in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits any State from violating the Rights of the People as afforded through the restrictions on the government placed in the Constitution.
To abridge means to deprive. My understanding is the the executive branch is placing political pressure on ICANN to NOT institute a formerly intended TLD. This certainly does violate the First Amendment through depriving the freedom of press to publish. Although, there is no "law" giving the executive branch to place this pressure on ICANN, it is still under color of law and statute, and may have effectively deprived certain industries from publishing freely under an intended .xxx TLD.
[re-imphasized]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The simple fact that pornography is, not only readily available, but LEGALLY available (under certain regulation), shows that pornography is an "acceptable" practice in the U.S. The true regulation of pornography in our country is individually based, with respect to the individual morals (and thus, established religious practices) or each individual person.
This is where the violation occurs, in my opinion, is with respecting an established religious practice over another. I do not accept pornography, and I pray against it as a Christian. However, our country (theoritically) does not accept the creation (and thus ENFORCEMENT) of laws respecting any religious practice over another, within the generally "acceptable" moral views of the People as a whole.
That is why murder is not in violation. It is understood under the preamble as well as the Fourteenth Amendment that each citizen in this country has the Right to Life and Liberty. To murder someone is to take this absolute Right away from another, and is therefore not under the First Amendment contraints of "freedom of religion".
On the other hand, the practice and use of pornography is a Right of Liberty, as well as a Right of "expression" as upheld through the tenants of speech and press under the First Amendment. However, in blocking .xxx, the executive branch is effectively enforcing (a non-existent) "law" that it, first of all, has no authority to uphold; and secondly, is in respect to one establishment of religious morality over another.
Pornography does not violate another person's Right to Life. It does not violate another person's Right to Liberty (as the individual continues to be allowed to practice their actions in accordance to their own religious, moral, and ethical practices without restriction). It does, however, violate the Right for the Pursuit of Happiness (protected by the First Amendment), but not that of those opposed to .xxx domains.
Pornography is a social illness and sickenning. But I will not give nor approve power to my Government that will allow them to continue to religiously persecute me for Christian views and practices that are not "predominant" in the area I live. And to approve of violations against people that I have differring views with, allows the government to violate my own moral and ethical rights of practice when they do not coincide with their beliefs, as well.
You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?
This is already the case and has been for years on end already. Only now are we beginning to see the maturity of the ramifications created through inaction by the People for so many years. Now that these branch offs already exist, the only way to repair the social damage is to cut it off at the root...the Constitution.
The Constitution is not the problem with our nation, but rather the tearing and rending of what the Constitution stands for and was meant for...controlling the actions of the Government!
Our "Rights" have already been restricted and stripped based on social/criminal statuses. The Fourth and Second Amendment rights are "automagically" stripped of ANY person who has committed a felony "against the State".
"Commit" a felony, and your probation automatically strips you of your Constitutional Rights by prohibiting you the RIGHT to bear arms (this is NOT a "priviledge" based upon your "good behavior"). Furthermore, your Fourth Amendment Rights are automatically stripped by forcing you to relinquish such rights upon demand by the probation officer or law enforcement under threat of punishment.
The ramifications we see today beginning to bear fruit against the U.S. People is the turning of the People into Government actors, as a whole. It is taught in the schools and our localized governments are passing more and more laws requiring us to become Government actors (and thus further forcing us to relinquish our Rights) against our will, under threat of punishment.
This technician is only doing what he has been raised and taught by our government to do. All of this is our OWN fault, and NOBODY but ourselves are to blame for these occurances. Stop bitching and take action! Demand your rights of your "representatives" or ACTIVELY remove them. We have enough "clout" online to bring whole systems down, let's take down the corrupt U.S. system!
(Sorta off-topic: For those that read my few posts and know what happened to my family last summer, the State of Wyoming institued a new law a few months ago that would make what the State agents did a FELONY and punishable with jail time now! Take action and reform your government!)
... is our Rights! Not only our rights as programmers to express ourselves unhindered by government intervention (guaranteed through the 1st Amendment), but, more importantly, our 9th and 14th amendment rights as parents. The "rating system" as well as any other form of censorship our government attempts to impose upon us in violation of the U.S. Constitution, is primarily (and in fact, exclusively), meant to apply toward our "children", that is to say, people of minority. I see this not only as a 1st amendment violation of my rights to upraise my children after the religious and philosophical beliefs that I hold (freedom of religion), but also my rights as a parent to upbring my children in such a fashion that is unhindered by government (9th amendment, the Consitution does not EXPLICITELY give government the right to upbring after their own political views), as well as bringing them up in such a fashion that encourages and produces "life" and "liberty" in the fashion outlined in my religious and philosophical beliefs (protected by the 14th amendment). Plain and simple, imposed and "enforced" rating systems by the government IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This, however, brings out the fact, as well, of the parents' responsibilities. As a father of four, there is not one thing my children have seen, heard, or played that I have not reviewed first, or viewed along with them, to ensure that it was something that I wanted them to see, in accordance with my beliefs. Needless to say, there have been a great number of "G" and "PG" rated "Disney" movies that they won't see in my house, and will have to wait until they are oif the age of majority and gone. On the other hand, there are other movies that I have let them see that are "R" rated because of "violence". It is not only the parents' SOLE responsibility to ensure what their children do and do not see, but also their RIGHT! And the government simp[ly needs to keep thier nose out of our rights and focus on more important things like cleansing out the corruption that is so rampant in our politics. But, the only way that will happen is for each and every one of us to MAKE our voices heard, and daily email our representatives with this stuff. If you have time to post here and "slashdot" a site or two every week, you have time to flood your representative's emails and phones with the same.
I think you're a few years behind. People DO get locked up, vanish, and persecuted in the United States because of their use of Constitutional Rights in this country.
For the past year now, I have personally been fighting against the State of Wyoming. Last summer the State kidnapped our children when I had a heart attack. Their main focal point against me was that I held Libertarian veiws, advocated free software (and was thus a violator of federal laws such as the DMCA because I enticed others to commit piracy), they claimed that I was anti-government and anarchist because I enticed people to forcibly demand and enforce their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 14th Amendment Rights against State organizations (such as police on private property without a warrant or due cause, and the C.P.S.), then they blatantly violated my five year old's rights by questioning and coercing her to make recorded statements WITHOUT her ad litem's knowledge, approval, nor presence. (Eventhough, all she would tell them, apparently, was that they were bad people and she wasn't gonna talk to them.)
This all came about because as soon as I came to Wyoming, I began advocating absolute and complete expression and personal enforcement of civil rights (much like I did in California where I had come from). This caused a case load of problems with the DFS and CPS in our area, as many of the people I would talk to were being harrassed by these organizations, and I advised them on Federal agencies that could intervene and investigate the State's activities.
When they came after my family I fought tooth and nail with the prime focus on civil rights. In the past year, 49 criminal charges have been discharged with prejudice, and 13 civil suits had been dismissed, and the State is now out of ammunition, and we still have the ability to sue the State, county and city on over 65 total civil charges, and have more than 50 pages of criminal violations documented ready for submission to the proper federal channels.
The point is: PEOPLE DO NOT FIGHT! They sit back and wallow in self-pity, expecting everyone else to feel sorry for them and do something about it! When you rock the boat in the political arena, expect members of that arena to come after you. And, it is sad that so many people STILL refuse to accept the fact that large corporations ARE a significant part of the political arena. If you rock the financial boat of any big corporation, you have rocked the political boat as well. And the corruption that persists in our government is enough to twist and turn any piece of law to their convenience.
The only way to fight corrupt use of poitical power like this is to remove those corruptions from power. Yet, how many of you even went to the polls last election? And yet you bitch about how corrupt the government is and how they keep stripping rights and now you have to become fearful to write software...
The only ones to blame are yourselves. If there are enough people on even this one site that can crash a mega-server in a moment's notice, imagine what you could do in the political arena if you are forceful about it and focus the political clout you have here, when one person was able to overcome the bruit force of a State. Stop typing and bitching and do something for a change!
I use torrents on a regular basis, and my understanding of it is that the tracker is an individual server of the content holder/provider. Now, I don't use Super Nova, but I do use other "clearinghouses" (I believe that would be the best way to describe them). You simply download (or run) a tracker's .torrent file from the web site, and the "clearinghouse" no longer has any dealing in the "transaction".
Now, I am assuming that Super Nova is a "clearinghouse", otherwise, they would have to have their own tracker pointing to the content on another individual/company's machine, unless they have the content themselves, which I highly doubt. Now, with regards to the true tracker/server, most distributors will only allow the use of the tracker to clients that are utilizing a proper direct connection to the said tracker, verified as "authorized" and set up properly so that the tracker cannot be "hijacked", etc.
No matter how you look at it, the content HAS to be centralized in some way. There has to be some form of packet verification and direction. Imagine having 40 seeds sending the EXACT same packet at once because there is no controlling influence to direct the seeds to send unique packets.
Again, I don't use their "service", but I do highly doubt that they have revised every .torrent they have come across to place on their site to utilize on their OWN trackers. Correct me if I am wrong, but sites like Super Nova are simply "clearinghouses" or holders for OTHER PEOPLES trackers, and the success of a torrent transaction is not dependant on the site the .torrent file is obtained or run from (ie. Super Nova), but on the integrity of the tracker server itself (which there are literally thousands if not millions of them out there.)
So it still eludes me as to why they feel a new "protocol" is needed. It appears to me that this "need" has been spurred, not by the failure of torrent tracker servers to complete transactions, but because a central .torrent database has failed to provide content....again, security, not protocol.
I find it interesting that the focus with regards to DDoS attacks that I have read about is not on proper security and precautions, but rather the client/server applications being attacked. Because your Apache server is DDoS'd, does that mean you distribute your website through ftp? Of course not, you take further security precautions and strengthen your protection against DDoS attacks. Why then should there be a need to "create a new protocol" to "protect" from attacks?
Protocols in and of themselves do not inherently have protection from these kinds of attacks. That is not the purpose of a protocol. The purpose of a protocol is to establish an agreed method of communications between two or more identified systems in a connection. This is where the problem persists: identification.
DDoS is not successful because it overrides the buffers or socket space for connections to a server. It is successful because these sockets are kept open longer than they should be.
What a server needs is not a "secure" protocol, because any protocol (method of communication) can be compromised so long as the attacker can make the protocol believe that an identified, valid entitiy has made a connection and intends to communicate.
Instead, system administrators need to strengthen the rules in their firewalling and subsystem (kernel) to improve the latency of the socket states so that the system will not fail when attacked. I believe GNU/Linux has many tools available as well as kernel modules already available in order to accomplish much of this already.
Rather than wasting time in creating YAP (Yet Another Protocol), the time and effort may be better utilized creating the system and firewalling tools needed to combat DDoS at its root.
This brings it even further to the point of not necessarily even having to reconfigure and install and reconfigure again the varied tools needed for server-side protection, but even look as close as the router itself and the built-in firewalls there.
I believe even Cisco has given some hardware advice for DDoS here.
We don't necessarily need to be creating so much as we should be perfecting and improving.