"How untracable do you think the internet really is? You do understand how packet routing works, right?"
Actually yes. But consider all of the "public" systems out there. All they are able to do is to track you to a public site and everything is lost. Just like tracing you to a pay phone in the middle of Montana; it dosn't matter unless you can guarantee that you are going to be equating a person on the other end.
""2. Using java makes the whole thing much less cross platform""
"Less than what? Evidence?"
Less than comperable standards that have gnu utilities for them. Say C/C++/pascal/fortran/hell even chill. Support for java under gnu type utilities is rather bad.
Try getting Java compile under something like Minix, Hurd, Qnx, or other old/unsupported platforms that Sun dosn't like.
"Just how tiny is your HDD?? Data will present space problems, not code. "
340Mb for the whole thing. My one (and only linux partition is 240Mb in size that's beacause linux will not autodetect my cdrom drive at all and because I have a swap partition). I really don't like the idea of something like perl but much, more bloated and probably slow to compile/run. The reason I can guess this is because even relatively simple 1 file c++ programs take at least one solid minute to compile. It's almost painful and that's just with errors and the like. Compiling a large project (one of the many ones that require a lot of code off of freshmeat) require more.
Most of the time this is a debate about not what should I put on my computer today. It's what I should delete/not delete today. Having cdroms at least accessible from dos with drivers helps a lot.
"Oh boo hoo. Sometimes data is inaccessible. Live with it."
Seemingly I tried using this reasoning with the DDoS issue when it came out and got flammed about people needing to have data at all times. Hmm.. Well on principal I usually can wait for my data. But then you end up having to go without something because the data disapears. I will not be able to find say maybe ancient Summarian texts or perhaps a special report on the condition of bore beetles in Indonesia. Popularity should not change the fact that I can access something.
"There are no standard protocols! This is not a standard idea! You're asking for the impossible!"
Standards as drafted by ANSI, IEEE, and ISO are what I consider standards. That's what allows you to connect to http://www.microsoft.com with any browser you wish. Standards help everyone.
"They're doing the next best thing - all open source and thus open standards. People can patch Mozilla to use it. If it gets popular, browser support will be no impediment."
I couldn't patch Mozilla. I am familar with basic programming and I can't. I also most likely (assuming I knew what I needed to do and how to do it) wouldn't have the time to do it. What then?
I think that sometimes making everything wizbang is a bad idea.
"Is it just me, or have I seen this phrase far too often relating to many endeavors in this internet age? Basically it translates, "so-and-so is really bad at something, but if it turns out that I'm wrong, then they're redefining it." "
Well because of Bart's test answers we have changed history again. Now America was discovered in 1941 by Some Guy...
"There are certainly a zillion good things that could be done on Freenet - I don't argue with that. My point is that turning a blind eye to what this tool will be used for is reckless."
How can you actually hope to stop it now anyway? I can still do almost anything I want on the internet anyway. I just have to be sneaky about it. I could always setup a page for everything illegal prebuilt at geoshitties every day, again and again, and again and just batch e-mail people through a hotmail account to alert them to the change of URL.
""Ian Clark is quoted on http://freenet.sourceforge.net as saying that he fears that his child may ask what happened to the freedom of the press on the internet. True freedom may have already been distroyed. Freenet is trying to get it back.""
"When has "true freedom" ever really existed? The fact is, there isn't a good-old-days that Freenet is taking us all back to. "
Freedom to say what you want without being killed or suppressed. Perhaps in the early days of the Americas. Usually you could get away with many things.
"Again, idealism is getting in the way of common sense. There is much more freedom of the press on the internet than there is in the conventional media, and Freenet's philosophy of turning a blind eye to specious content is not just irresponsible, but potentially dangerous to the whole issue of internet privacy. Once enough John Q. Public's get outraged by the stuff flying around Freenet, our beloved saviors in Congress will rally to the cause and take action. We've already seen several attempts like this regarding the internet in general, but if Freenet indeed makes this information flow that much more pervasive, then the chorus calling for restrictions will get only louder. "
Could you name me one way in which a person could totally shut down the concept of freenet. Assuming it gets off the ground to the extent you describe how would you be able to actually shut it down. Anonymous RSA say 60,000 bit+ keys, and untraceable in any way? Explain this to me because I would really like to know.
"You want proof ? Follow this sid to Slashdot's infamous warez trading sid"
I mean that you can say upload the files to slashdot's server and have slashdot officially (Say Rob putting a link to the stuff on the main page). That's almost like putting up grafitti on a wall of Bill Gates house and claiming that he supports your statement.
"This reply neatly avoided one question I have - how do you ensure integrity of the files this thing distributes? It's all fine and dandy that you *can* put files out there, but if somebody poisons the thing, there's no way to distinguish slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes from slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes (which happens to have a root compromise in install.sh). "
Perhaps the same way we address security in a nontrusted networked environment get a signed package with md5 or pgp/gpg for the package.
"There are just a *ton* of tech issues to resolve to get this thing off the ground.. only some of them have been addressed. The harder ones are on the human interfacing... you're putting data on a network with no way to ensure integrity. Then again, in an anonymous net what would be the point? Hrrrmmm... "
I see just getting the thing to work and have content to be the biggest issue. I am currently puzzling about exactly how to make this work and what content I can get off it.
"I have my doubts about the viability of Freenet and the like projects because of the ease of denial-of-service attacks against them. "
I then ask you has that stopped the internet in the least?
"Freenet by definition has to accept information from untrusted sources. As the goal is anonymity, it cannot authenticate posters. Thus, at least two DOS attacks: "
Oh no not "untrusted sources". Bad not getting all that authentication.
"(1) Plain-vanilla: rapidly dump (and continue dumping) a lot of random-noise content into Freenet from multiple launch points (DDOS). Soon enough the random noise will crowd out the real information. "
Eventually that information will not exist because it will not be avaible because no one in their right mind would requst random noise.
"(2) Targeted: let's say there is a Freenet file, e.g. '/us/politics/ClintonBlowsGoats' that you want to suppress. Just make your own file with the same net and inject it into Freenet. Again, use multiple launch points and repeat injection at will. Again, the bogus file will crowd out the "real" file very quickly. "
A read over the mailing list freenet-dev will show you that in fact these things are being addressed. If you feel the need to discuss these things with people who know sign up.
I think this is one of the first things that is being addressed.
"Note that the threat model for Freenet must assume that large corporations and governments will be trying to suppress info. It's clearly within reason for them to be able to inject false/misleading/random information into Freenet from 100s and 1000s of geographically distributed machines. "
There is no historic prcedent for information dumping and the like (I may be wrong). References?
"An accompanying problem is non-uniqueness of keys. There could be dozens of different info chunks floating around Freenet, each tagged with a '/foo/bar/qux' key. Which one you'll get depends on the node through which you access the Freenet -- not a very desirable dependency. Try to get the same thing a day later and you may well get a different info chunk for the same key. "
The server is supposed to prevent you injecting something with the same key. It is true that you will go along a different route to request the same data but the node may actually remain the same for a while.
"To summarize, this is a key vulnerability of Freenet -- it can be saturated with bogus/misleading information quickly and easily. "
This will eventually be addressed in it's full form. What I think is that despite the possibility for random information good information will always win in the end.
You might be able to say block information from someone you suspect to be an evil source of said information. Or you could filter information from requests on your node. That is entirely possible. Eventually the data will dissapear.
"The fact that Freenet will not just tolerate, but actually provide an easier means to anonymously distribute illicit material (copyright violations, kiddie porn, etc.) will be the doom of this project. "
I very, very, seriously doubt this in any way. The people who are doing the work are in disperate locations, and because of this access is difficult to curtail. Not to mention that even people like me are probably mirroring the data for no apparent reason. Doom censoring at all.
"Idealism can be a nice thing, but there is such a thing as focusing so strongly on a central idea that all perspective is lost. Is the world crying out for a means to anonymously share information via the internet? No, not really. "
Maybe not now but what about tomorrow? Ian Clark is quoted on http://freenet.sourceforge.net as saying that he fears that his child may ask what happened to the freedom of the press on the internet. True freedom may have already been distroyed. Freenet is trying to get it back.
""The problem with this technology is that while Americans are used to freedom of speech, and for the most part use it responsibly (see this very forum for examples) the less developed parts of the world (and I am thinking mainly of Europe here) do not have the tradition of free speech that we Americans do, and so may abuse the privelege this technology has bestowed upon them ""
"Look, fuck you. I'm from the UK, and I know that I have *more* rights than you idiot yanks (and where do you think that nickname came from?). We don't need some flimsy piece of paper to tell us what we can and cannot do: our legal system is firmly based on the tried and tested traditional Common Law system. "
I would think that there is some problem with the English system in that rights are not explicitely guaranteed but followed by "tradition". And anyone who watched Fiddler on the Roof knows what happens when tranditions change.
"Since you're a bloddy ignorant Amerikkkan, I can only assume that you lack the legal knoweldge to know what it is I'm talking about. Let me spell it out for you: Here in England, we have these people, see. And their ancestors 1000 years ago were rich. So we think that's cool and gave them fancy wigs and their own little room in a little building on the Thames (that's 'Temmz') where they make our laws for us. For example, his Excelency Lord Sir Rev Dr. Winfred Snafflpoose, Twentieth Earl of Glastonbury-upon-Googlmush, OBE recently encacted a new law in his domain requiring all peasants (that's us now) to increase grain production from 20 bushels per annum to 30. Obviously, this will strain us a bit, but we need to count on his protection should the Black Prince William attempt to conquer our territory again and confiscate our Robbie Williams CDs. "
This must be sarcasm. Well I know that England is more democratic than that.
"I love it! I can trade mp3s, warez, pr0n, almost anything with anyone around the world! "
Anyone who chooses to run the client.
"Fortunately, this is not only a post-Microsoft, but a post-Copyright world. Copyrights are meaningless unless you have the ability to protect it. Sure, there are laws, but they don't mean anything to me. It's sort of like the Vice President: a nice sounding title, but basically worthless. Ok, your sound recording is copyrighted. Big deal. Try and stop me from sending to all my friends or making it available on FreeNet, Gnutella, or Napster. Heh. "
I don't believe you. Unfounded calls of revolution and such. Sounds like a really crappy version of the French revolution.
Speaking of the Vice President he actually does have power. He also has reputation. Plus he now is going to be featured in, many, many books when he is long dead. How's that for power. I doubt you could say the same.
"Same with software. While Slashdot has it's own trading boards, FreeNet makes it much easier to get the latest cracks for apps (like Corel Office 2000 for Linux!) or games (any Loki game: your choice (I like Civ:CTP, myself. Got it off FreeNet a while back)). This is what FreeNet really excels at. "
Slashdot does not sposor these "boards" and they don't actually store files. I doubt that you could trade files in this manner easily. I would like some actual proof.
Also you forgot to actually read the README file in the distribution. You don't have any anonyminity at all. Oops. I suggest you escape while the getting's good.
"Keep up the good work! Looks like "copys" ain't so "right", after all! "
The use of freenet is not to facilitiate copyright infringment but to facilitiate free speech. Your supposed ability to circumvent copyright is not a goal but a side affect.
"Please start the Java vs. Perl flamewar now. Extra credit for dragging in Python, C/C++, Lisp, Scheme, Tcl/Tk, assembler, the existence of God, and/or gun control. "
I wasn't saying that perl was evil and java was good I said that they were both evil.
1.Well for starters I really don't know a whit of Java so that renders me almost useless same for perl because I haven't been formally taught either.
2. Using java makes the whole thing much less cross platform ( I guess that's where the perl client comes in).
3. The size of the java compiler and "runtime environment" limits access. g++ can fit quite well on my small hd. Java could not.
4. Concept of having information residing on a changing number of systems prevents total 100% access of that data.
5. Specialized clients are also a pain. Intelgration with standard protocols would be a nice thing. I can hardly see this getting popular unless popular browsers support it.
6. Evil powers that be might just try to take it. (I get daily CVS snapshots from their page just in case).
"Of what use is a stable app on an unstable platform? You still lose IE when you lose Windows..."
Of theoretical side interest. Isn't there nvram now avaible? You could just save IE's state every say 30 seconds to nvram and prevent the evil windows from distroying your data. Although I don't know where to get the hardware or if there is support for windows but it's just a thought
"In my opinion, those people who most use themes and stuff of that nature are the kind of people who enjoying using their computer for hacking and learning. Those who just see the computer as a tool for typing documents are not going to go mad over a pretty new widget look. Therefore, those that are most likely to use themes are the most likely to adapt to the changes without any problems."
You know I haven't written a single really good program (I think that's the definition of a "hacker") and I like pretty things. I just have a shitty machine that dosn't like me at all. Dosn't like to work well, and generally can't handle all the really cool things that people like to do nowadays.
I figure by the time I actually get a machine to do decent theming and such all of the world will have moved on. One of the things that I notice is that even though I have a 256 color compatable X server I don't get all the nice little effects and such (transparent gizmos, non-grainy pictures, any sound, etc).
This is not for a want of use but because people generally set their sights too high recently.
Computers have I think generally betrayed mankind into forcing various aspects of humanity to become much, more difficult and at the expence of functionality.
Also it seems like people like to also do a lot of configuring out of distribution. That really is bad news. In general to get all of the function out of linux you have to sit there and download 50+ Mb of code because it's not in the standard distribitions. Then you end up eating up your space with that wonderful 100Mb source package that you needed for that one little tic-tac-toe program.
Over at themes.org (as it cited in the abstract of the article on the main page) they are using an alpha/beta version of blackbox that apparently seems to not be in the standard version of debian. Also themes are not really in any distribution except a few basic simple geometric/color combinations.
I do more on my computer than just typing documents (that's why I like xemacs and not vi). And I would like better support for my machine. Personally I like svgatextmode and the like to make the console better (however the author betrayed that little program). I am now able to get a very nice small font on my console (132x80x8) with a gr8x6. Works well except for some wacky problems with long lines that spill over and overwrite the beginning in bash.
Is there a bug database for it? I occasionally use IE 5 at various locations and would like to know more about these security anomalies.
Consequently about the only feature I like about the browser is that when you want to save a slashdot page. The file is already a unique one based on the title header of the page. Very useful.
Just downloaded and tried the newest nightly build for win32 (build id 2000040908) and I can't use those nifty alt right/left arrow combinations, also when viewing slashdot I can't in the poll selection change the format of the comments:(
Well you can take this for what you will but here's most of my background. I started looking at star trek from TNG and thought that Picard did a very decent job with what he did. Star Trek at least tries to cover the fact that the whole idea of FTL travel isn't totally unproven and that at least things can be proven if you don't have a Phd in physics. Most of the stuff I have seen has been well foolish and pathetic. Space Above and beyond: well having people get killed because no one really knows a damn thing about creating either a means of deflecting objects or energy beams and the fact that they can't pilot a damn ship or maybe get robots in there to do the work. Babylon 5: from what little I saw of it a little silly again evil nasties that no one can really kill at all because of incompetience and lack of application. Silly costumes TNG: decent work. People have a nice central government and they follow the rules. When people break the rules the Federation makes them pay. People in general don't get completely screwed. Romulians never get a chance, the Cardassians are a little evil but in general they are bunglers. Stargate SG1: absolute crap. Historical inaccuries out the wazoo. Numerous archeological evidence supports the claims that the Egyptians did everything themselves or with slave help. Wormhole technology again is not provable. Conspiracy on a whole is difficult to cover up. ST DS9: I don't hate Sysco personally but...oh what the hell. He's a bungler. The very first episode he is ordered by a superior officier basically to "do anything short of breaking the prime directive to get Bajor into the Federation". Well from the get go he manages to compeltely screw that. He gets into feeling sorry for a group of people who didn't even bother to really have much of a military and have a deluded concept of reality. Sysco then decides to take this to a whole new level of foolishness and voulenteer and become some sort of resident God for these people (hmm what about that little old prime directive). Then he starts meddling in things that are not Federation business with his motley group of fools and pirates. He discovers a new little toy which everyone and their mother likes because they couldn't build a warp engine to save their life. Well to cut a long story and paste in more story he then gets even more deluded into thinking that perhaps because ther are some uberpowerful aliens in the nice little hole in the sky that means he should do anything including allow for a group of nasties to come into their part of the galaxy. Now not to point fingers *points accusative finger at Sysco* but you don't risk trillions of lives because some third rate agragian small population wants to have fun and never take care of themselves dosn't mean you have the right to risk lives of people who live and work in the rest of the galaxy. In reality a nice thing called a courtmarshal should have occured culminating in a nice public execution or at least a nice place in a supermax facility orbiting some cold dead sun. Voyager: Well at least we have more people following some sort of rules. Although now we have the cheasy Maquis. I tell you some people never learn (think hippie radicals in the 60's in the 24th century). Also we have the little aspect of Chacotay (gotta love the name) and more Bajorians (this time they get to force us to think their way). They manage to prevent the Maquis from murdering and plundering any way they like and do something useful. Yeah the first episodes sucked with the idiot Kazon and everything; not to mention figuring out that their stupid ship needs more power and better internal anti-terrorist devices. The borg were a good touch and rather nice.
Birth of the Federation: Well I have always wanted to know the gap of time from say WWII to maybe 2020 or so. Something about the eugenics wars or something and some nasty outbreak of WWIII however that starts to leave me rather cold. I like consistent and logical plots that still mean we could actually get off this hunk of shitty rock before I turn to dust. One absolute fact: the bad guys will lose and the Federation will almost always win. In various publications about this The Romulians get a serious ass whopping and we (rather stupidly I think in the long run) sign a the Treaty of Algeron which essentially sets up the DMZ called the Neutral Zone and also prevents the federation from developing cloaking technology (meaning we have to do it in secret ala phased cloaking device in TNG with RIker and the admiral or bey it from the romulains/Klingons). Unfortuantely we get to see the equivelent of a Cold War with the Klingons/Russians because of a botched first contact attempt and thus the drafting of the Prime Directive and planet observation similar to Insurections.
What does this mean? I think some better material, more logical, slightly predictable, and more information for the people out there who would rather be living there than here and now. Most Sci-fi sucks and just works on crappy social issues and reads almost like a Grimm brothers fairy tale in it's approach. I like a change of pace from forced analysis of all the where s andhowtos that come from some of this stuff.
The people of slashdot (editors). I think are better suited to writing code and doing tech oriented things. I tried that and found that I might just do something else (woe is me). But what I do know is a lack of creativy can be a damaging thing when analyzing something. There just aren't that many ideas that aren't beating a dead horse or that don't have logicial inconsistiencies (Mission from mars) a mile wide. Do you seriously think there is anything that can replace these things? Is ther any proof?
It's based on the idea that your superiors are in fact supposedly smarter, bnetter, and always right within areas like the military. A great deal of organizations are warped into thinking that the reason America sucks is because more people aren't like the military. That is where this comes from. Even if you are a rapist you have a right to at least a decent reputation. People have to live and not have their entire lives totally ruined. If your life is ruined then wehat possible excuse do you have to live? I think that the only one that needs to know about your life is maybe you and a few select people who can be trusted with that information. Now I don't look for ways to help rapists but anyone who commits a crime has a right to be eventually left alone and allowed to be a natural citizen again. I mean what would happen if say you did someone stupid and shoplifted something when you were a kid. What if you were reqired to wear a nice big stylized logo in red that said THIEF on it for the rest of your life? What if most stores except crappy ones wouldn't let you in if you wore the THIEF logo? This means that you are a second class citizen and you have no future. My personal favorite is getting revenge. Say if they did that you could always get a gun and let a few people have an "accident" before I used it on me. I just think that Justice should be used but not to the extent that justice kills mercy or allows life to be a farce.
What about this senario: A group of heavily armed men with assault riffles and such is approached by the police and then an arrest attempt is made. Suppose those people resist and say the cops get gunned down by the guys. Now what if they decide to say use some mussle and take out the HQ of the police? Has this ever happened. Has a group of people ever been that secussful with it?
More to the point I think that full disclosure of data is importnt in any organization where you intersect with "citizens" of any type. Hiding data bsecause you called all people stupid or made systematic quasi-legal concepts in said documents is your problem and should have not but anything in there like that. I have made repeated evidence that the supposed "keeper of rights" that the states seem to be on slashdot are in fact corrupt groups of greedy pigs. The reason why we have a FoIA is because we have people in washington who are actually more concerned with rights than individual states. I would no more trust my local leaders than fly to the moon. However the Bill of rights and the constitution are in a better position to be obeyed by the people who actually run our country than in little feifdoms.
Hmm...your ideas intrigue me and I want to subscribe to your newsletter... What I really believe is that utilitarian concepts are the best to follow. Ultimately if I were desperate enough then my boss would get a nice suprise in his back:) The problem is that it's risky. You have to set up in the bushes wait, and then fire and make sure no one can tell what you did. Now my idea (this may have been done before) is to simply to make a device with a silencer which would be remotely operated and could fire from a distance. It could send a video singal to a remote operator and the operator could then fire the projectile without being in the same general vicinity. Add a nice little cache of thermite to destroy the device when finished and you have secussfully gotten away with it. However that dosn't mean you totally could without any chance of failure at all. Commiting crimes entails risk. Problem with risk is that is usually dosn't work for me. Maybe your the kind of guy who can just pop a quarter into a slot machine in Vega and win a jackpot but I bet I could spend $100 and still not get anything. Most of the time I really don't like to take a risk I know I can't win at all or am not sure of winning. I have this little theory. Life thinks it's in charge of you but if it tries to make a slave of me I will always have a way to opt out.
Yes jail is crummy but I really don't fear the disapproval of a few lone people in a vacuum. I think where it begins to be a problem is where you could get blighted for being a person who is a criminal. I fully intend to cary a nice concentrated cyanide capsule. If the police try to arrest me for anything at all that results in an attempted stay in the big house I will take it. By the way in current toxicology I can't find anything more toxic in small doses that works as well. Quick, easy, and better than having fun in the big house.
Wonder why this is? Well it's not censorship by having access to information seen and heard. Ever wonder why there are people who try and not deliberately say whatever comes into their heads on slashdot? Because of audience. If you have no audience then you have nothing. All of the gret ideas of history dhave essentially been only secussful when others have been able to see/comment on them. Trust me my friend if I could create a more complex system of dynamic information display I would do so but am limited because I have never been formally taught better coding skills that pertain to networked media. A more fine grained system of ratings and continuous ratings and word analysis along with trafic analysis and a few other factors should be employed in this. Not only that but allow for a wider distributon mechanism. People descriminating by type of information is nothing new but it's effects are qite deadly. That's why many people infinitely prefer to get an actual account and more prefer to add a little feather in their cap to gte a +1 score. It has nothing to do with being able to strut but get stuff read from people who are stuff shirted and normally unwilling to look at anything. Slashdot has a style of information analysis and gathering similar to low level military correspondence namely a "trust" based interatione and "reputations" rather interesting but still not good enough.
I think that you have this partly confused. I think most people don't like jail because of a few basic reasons. 1. I like my freedom 2. I don't like getting raped by someone of the same sex 3. Almost always has a negative effect on life and income
I don't think that I would so much feel embarassed as hideously filled with pain and looking for the nearest chance to hang myself in my cell. Crimes are not commited because most people don't like 1-3 and usually don't want to feel the need to end their lives. I think that prison can and most likely does have this effect on people who live through it.
Slashdot Mirror
"How untracable do you think the internet really is? You do understand how packet routing works, right?"
Actually yes. But consider all of the "public" systems out there. All they are able to do is to track you to a public site and everything is lost. Just like tracing you to a pay phone in the middle of Montana; it dosn't matter unless you can guarantee that you are going to be equating a person on the other end.
""2. Using java makes the whole thing much less cross platform""
"Less than what? Evidence?"
Less than comperable standards that have gnu utilities for them. Say C/C++/pascal/fortran/hell even chill. Support for java under gnu type utilities is rather bad.
Try getting Java compile under something like Minix, Hurd, Qnx, or other old/unsupported platforms that Sun dosn't like.
"Just how tiny is your HDD?? Data will present space problems, not code.
"
340Mb for the whole thing. My one (and only linux partition is 240Mb in size that's beacause linux will not autodetect my cdrom drive at all and because I have a swap partition). I really don't like the idea of something like perl but much, more bloated and probably slow to compile/run. The reason I can guess this is because even relatively simple 1 file c++ programs take at least one solid minute to compile. It's almost painful and that's just with errors and the like. Compiling a large project (one of the many ones that require a lot of code off of freshmeat) require more.
Most of the time this is a debate about not what should I put on my computer today. It's what I should delete/not delete today. Having cdroms at least accessible from dos with drivers helps a lot.
"Oh boo hoo. Sometimes data is inaccessible. Live with it."
Seemingly I tried using this reasoning with the DDoS issue when it came out and got flammed about people needing to have data at all times. Hmm.. Well on principal I usually can wait for my data. But then you end up having to go without something because the data disapears. I will not be able to find say maybe ancient Summarian texts or perhaps a special report on the condition of bore beetles in Indonesia. Popularity should not change the fact that I can access something.
"There are no standard protocols! This is not a standard idea! You're asking for the impossible!"
Standards as drafted by ANSI, IEEE, and ISO are what I consider standards. That's what allows you to connect to http://www.microsoft.com with any browser you wish. Standards help everyone.
"They're doing the next best thing - all open source and thus open standards. People can patch Mozilla to use it. If it gets popular, browser support will be no impediment."
I couldn't patch Mozilla. I am familar with basic programming and I can't. I also most likely (assuming I knew what I needed to do and how to do it) wouldn't have the time to do it. What then?
I think that sometimes making everything wizbang is a bad idea.
"Is it just me, or have I seen this phrase far too often relating to many endeavors in this internet age? Basically it translates, "so-and-so is really bad at something, but if it turns out that I'm wrong, then they're redefining it." "
Well because of Bart's test answers we have changed history again. Now America was discovered in 1941 by Some Guy...
"There are certainly a zillion good things that could be done on Freenet - I don't argue with that. My point is that turning a blind eye to what this tool will be used for is reckless."
How can you actually hope to stop it now anyway?
I can still do almost anything I want on the internet anyway. I just have to be sneaky about it. I could always setup a page for everything illegal prebuilt at geoshitties every day, again and again, and again and just batch e-mail people through a hotmail account to alert them to the change of URL.
""Ian Clark is quoted on http://freenet.sourceforge.net as saying that he fears that his child may ask what happened to the freedom of the press on the internet. True freedom may have already been distroyed. Freenet is trying to get
it back.""
"When has "true freedom" ever really existed? The fact is, there isn't a good-old-days that Freenet is taking us all back to.
"
Freedom to say what you want without being killed or suppressed. Perhaps in the early days of the Americas. Usually you could get away with many things.
"Again, idealism is getting in the way of common sense. There is much more freedom of the press on the internet than there is in the conventional media, and Freenet's philosophy of turning a blind eye to specious content is not just
irresponsible, but potentially dangerous to the whole issue of internet privacy. Once enough John Q. Public's get outraged by the stuff flying around Freenet, our beloved saviors in Congress will rally to the cause and take action.
We've already seen several attempts like this regarding the internet in general, but if Freenet indeed makes this information flow that much more pervasive, then the chorus calling for restrictions will get only louder. "
Could you name me one way in which a person could totally shut down the concept of freenet. Assuming it gets off the ground to the extent you describe how would you be able to actually shut it down. Anonymous RSA say 60,000 bit+ keys, and untraceable in any way? Explain this to me because I would really like to know.
"You want proof ? Follow this sid to Slashdot's infamous warez trading sid"
I mean that you can say upload the files to slashdot's server and have slashdot officially (Say Rob putting a link to the stuff on the main page). That's almost like putting up grafitti on a wall of Bill Gates house and claiming that he supports your statement.
"This reply neatly avoided one question I have - how do you ensure integrity of the files this thing distributes? It's all fine and dandy that you *can* put files out there, but if somebody poisons the thing, there's no way to distinguish
slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes from slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes (which happens to have a root compromise in install.sh). "
Perhaps the same way we address security in a nontrusted networked environment get a signed package with md5 or pgp/gpg for the package.
"There are just a *ton* of tech issues to resolve to get this thing off the ground.. only some of them have been addressed. The harder ones are on the human interfacing... you're putting data on a network with no way to ensure
integrity. Then again, in an anonymous net what would be the point? Hrrrmmm... "
I see just getting the thing to work and have content to be the biggest issue. I am currently puzzling about exactly how to make this work and what content I can get off it.
"I have my doubts about the viability of Freenet and the like projects because of the ease of denial-of-service attacks against them. "
I then ask you has that stopped the internet in the least?
"Freenet by definition has to accept information from untrusted sources. As the goal is anonymity, it cannot authenticate posters. Thus, at least two DOS attacks: "
Oh no not "untrusted sources". Bad not getting all that authentication.
"(1) Plain-vanilla: rapidly dump (and continue dumping) a lot of random-noise content into Freenet from multiple launch points (DDOS). Soon enough the random noise will crowd out the real information. "
Eventually that information will not exist because it will not be avaible because no one in their right mind would requst random noise.
"(2) Targeted: let's say there is a Freenet file, e.g. '/us/politics/ClintonBlowsGoats' that you want to suppress. Just make your own file with the same net and inject it into Freenet. Again, use multiple launch points and repeat injection
at will. Again, the bogus file will crowd out the "real" file very quickly. "
A read over the mailing list freenet-dev will show you that in fact these things are being addressed. If you feel the need to discuss these things with people who know sign up.
I think this is one of the first things that is being addressed.
"Note that the threat model for Freenet must assume that large corporations and governments will be trying to suppress info. It's clearly within reason for them to be able to inject false/misleading/random information into Freenet from
100s and 1000s of geographically distributed machines. "
There is no historic prcedent for information dumping and the like (I may be wrong). References?
"An accompanying problem is non-uniqueness of keys. There could be dozens of different info chunks floating around Freenet, each tagged with a '/foo/bar/qux' key. Which one you'll get depends on the node through which you access
the Freenet -- not a very desirable dependency. Try to get the same thing a day later and you may well get a different info chunk for the same key. "
The server is supposed to prevent you injecting something with the same key. It is true that you will go along a different route to request the same data but the node may actually remain the same for a while.
"To summarize, this is a key vulnerability of Freenet -- it can be saturated with bogus/misleading information quickly and easily. "
This will eventually be addressed in it's full form. What I think is that despite the possibility for random information good information will always win in the end.
You might be able to say block information from someone you suspect to be an evil source of said information. Or you could filter information from requests on your node. That is entirely possible. Eventually the data will dissapear.
"The fact that Freenet will not just tolerate, but actually provide an easier means to anonymously distribute illicit material (copyright violations, kiddie porn, etc.) will be the doom of this project.
"
I very, very, seriously doubt this in any way. The people who are doing the work are in disperate locations, and because of this access is difficult to curtail. Not to mention that even people like me are probably mirroring the data for no apparent reason. Doom censoring at all.
"Idealism can be a nice thing, but there is such a thing as focusing so strongly on a central idea that all perspective is lost. Is the world crying out for a means to anonymously share information via the internet? No, not really. "
Maybe not now but what about tomorrow? Ian Clark is quoted on http://freenet.sourceforge.net as saying that he fears that his child may ask what happened to the freedom of the press on the internet. True freedom may have already been distroyed. Freenet is trying to get it back.
""The problem with this technology is that while Americans are used to freedom of speech, and for the most part use it responsibly (see this very forum for examples) the less developed parts of the world (and I am thinking mainly of
Europe here) do not have the tradition of free speech that we Americans do, and so may abuse the privelege this technology has bestowed upon them ""
"Look, fuck you. I'm from the UK, and I know that I have *more* rights than you idiot yanks (and where do you think that nickname came from?). We don't need some flimsy piece of paper to tell us what we can and cannot do: our
legal system is firmly based on the tried and tested traditional Common Law system. "
I would think that there is some problem with the English system in that rights are not explicitely guaranteed but followed by "tradition". And anyone who watched Fiddler on the Roof knows what happens when tranditions change.
"Since you're a bloddy ignorant Amerikkkan, I can only assume that you lack the legal knoweldge to know what it is I'm talking about. Let me spell it out for you: Here in England, we have these people, see. And their ancestors 1000
years ago were rich. So we think that's cool and gave them fancy wigs and their own little room in a little building on the Thames (that's 'Temmz') where they make our laws for us. For example, his Excelency Lord Sir Rev Dr.
Winfred Snafflpoose, Twentieth Earl of Glastonbury-upon-Googlmush, OBE recently encacted a new law in his domain requiring all peasants (that's us now) to increase grain production from 20 bushels per annum to 30. Obviously,
this will strain us a bit, but we need to count on his protection should the Black Prince William attempt to conquer our territory again and confiscate our Robbie Williams CDs. "
This must be sarcasm. Well I know that England is more democratic than that.
"Obviously, England is superior in every way. "
I would logically doubt that.
"I love it! I can trade mp3s, warez, pr0n, almost anything with anyone around the world! "
Anyone who chooses to run the client.
"Fortunately, this is not only a post-Microsoft, but a post-Copyright world. Copyrights are meaningless unless you have the ability to protect it. Sure, there are laws, but they don't mean anything to me. It's sort of like the Vice
President: a nice sounding title, but basically worthless. Ok, your sound recording is copyrighted. Big deal. Try and stop me from sending to all my friends or making it available on FreeNet, Gnutella, or Napster. Heh. "
I don't believe you. Unfounded calls of revolution and such. Sounds like a really crappy version of the French revolution.
Speaking of the Vice President he actually does have power. He also has reputation. Plus he now is going to be featured in, many, many books when he is long dead. How's that for power. I doubt you could say the same.
"Same with software. While Slashdot has it's own trading boards, FreeNet makes it much easier to get the latest cracks for apps (like Corel Office 2000 for Linux!) or games (any Loki game: your choice (I like Civ:CTP, myself. Got it
off FreeNet a while back)). This is what FreeNet really excels at. "
Slashdot does not sposor these "boards" and they don't actually store files. I doubt that you could trade files in this manner easily. I would like some actual proof.
Also you forgot to actually read the README file in the distribution. You don't have any anonyminity at all. Oops. I suggest you escape while the getting's good.
"Keep up the good work! Looks like "copys" ain't so "right", after all! "
The use of freenet is not to facilitiate copyright infringment but to facilitiate free speech. Your supposed ability to circumvent copyright is not a goal but a side affect.
"Please start the Java vs. Perl flamewar now. Extra credit for dragging in Python, C/C++, Lisp, Scheme, Tcl/Tk, assembler, the existence of God, and/or gun control. "
I wasn't saying that perl was evil and java was good I said that they were both evil.
There is a big difference.
Who will run these servers? Who will actually do it? How can a small group of even dedicated people run a service comperable to the internet?
1.Well for starters I really don't know a whit of Java so that renders me almost useless same for perl because I haven't been formally taught either.
2. Using java makes the whole thing much less cross platform ( I guess that's where the perl client comes in).
3. The size of the java compiler and "runtime environment" limits access. g++ can fit quite well on my small hd. Java could not.
4. Concept of having information residing on a changing number of systems prevents total 100% access of that data.
5. Specialized clients are also a pain. Intelgration with standard protocols would be a nice thing. I can hardly see this getting popular unless popular browsers support it.
6. Evil powers that be might just try to take it. (I get daily CVS snapshots from their page just in case).
"Of what use is a stable app on an unstable platform? You still lose IE when you lose Windows..."
Of theoretical side interest. Isn't there nvram now avaible? You could just save IE's state every say 30 seconds to nvram and prevent the evil windows from distroying your data. Although I don't know where to get the hardware or if there is support for windows but it's just a thought
"In my opinion, those people who most use themes and stuff of that nature are the kind of people who enjoying using their computer for hacking and learning. Those who just see the computer as a tool for typing documents are not
going to go mad over a pretty new widget look. Therefore, those that are most likely to use themes are the most likely to adapt to the changes without any problems."
You know I haven't written a single really good program (I think that's the definition of a "hacker") and I like pretty things. I just have a shitty machine that dosn't like me at all. Dosn't like to work well, and generally can't handle all the really cool things that people like to do nowadays.
I figure by the time I actually get a machine to do decent theming and such all of the world will have moved on. One of the things that I notice is that even though I have a 256 color compatable X server I don't get all the nice little effects and such (transparent gizmos, non-grainy pictures, any sound, etc).
This is not for a want of use but because people generally set their sights too high recently.
Computers have I think generally betrayed mankind into forcing various aspects of humanity to become much, more difficult and at the expence of functionality.
Also it seems like people like to also do a lot of configuring out of distribution. That really is bad news. In general to get all of the function out of linux you have to sit there and download 50+ Mb of code because it's not in the standard distribitions. Then you end up eating up your space with that wonderful 100Mb source package that you needed for that one little tic-tac-toe program.
Over at themes.org (as it cited in the abstract of the article on the main page) they are using an alpha/beta version of blackbox that apparently seems to not be in the standard version of debian. Also themes are not really in any distribution except a few basic simple geometric/color combinations.
I do more on my computer than just typing documents (that's why I like xemacs and not vi). And I would like better support for my machine. Personally I like svgatextmode and the like to make the console better (however the author betrayed that little program). I am now able to get a very nice small font on my console (132x80x8) with a gr8x6. Works well except for some wacky problems with long lines that spill over and overwrite the beginning in bash.
Is there a bug database for it? I occasionally use IE 5 at various locations and would like to know more about these security anomalies.
Consequently about the only feature I like about the browser is that when you want to save a slashdot page. The file is already a unique one based on the title header of the page. Very useful.
Just downloaded and tried the newest nightly build for win32 (build id 2000040908) and I can't use those nifty alt right/left arrow combinations, also when viewing slashdot I can't in the poll selection change the format of the comments :(
Well you can take this for what you will but here's most of my background.
I started looking at star trek from TNG and thought that Picard did a very decent job with what he did. Star Trek at least tries to cover the fact that the whole idea of FTL travel isn't totally unproven and that at least things can be proven if you don't have a Phd in physics. Most of the stuff I have seen has been well foolish and pathetic.
Space Above and beyond: well having people get killed because no one really knows a damn thing about creating either a means of deflecting objects or energy beams and the fact that they can't pilot a damn ship or maybe get robots in there to do the work.
Babylon 5: from what little I saw of it a little silly again evil nasties that no one can really kill at all because of incompetience and lack of application. Silly costumes
TNG: decent work. People have a nice central government and they follow the rules. When people break the rules the Federation makes them pay. People in general don't get completely screwed. Romulians never get a chance, the Cardassians are a little evil but in general they are bunglers.
Stargate SG1: absolute crap. Historical inaccuries out the wazoo. Numerous archeological evidence supports the claims that the Egyptians did everything themselves or with slave help. Wormhole technology again is not provable. Conspiracy on a whole is difficult to cover up.
ST DS9: I don't hate Sysco personally but...oh what the hell. He's a bungler. The very first episode he is ordered by a superior officier basically to "do anything short of breaking the prime directive to get Bajor into the Federation". Well from the get go he manages to compeltely screw that. He gets into feeling sorry for a group of people who didn't even bother to really have much of a military and have a deluded concept of reality. Sysco then decides to take this to a whole new level of foolishness and voulenteer and become some sort of resident God for these people (hmm what about that little old prime directive).
Then he starts meddling in things that are not Federation business with his motley group of fools and pirates. He discovers a new little toy which everyone and their mother likes because they couldn't build a warp engine to save their life.
Well to cut a long story and paste in more story he then gets even more deluded into thinking that perhaps because ther are some uberpowerful aliens in the nice little hole in the sky that means he should do anything including allow for a group of nasties to come into their part of the galaxy.
Now not to point fingers *points accusative finger at Sysco* but you don't risk trillions of lives because some third rate agragian small population wants to have fun and never take care of themselves dosn't mean you have the right to risk lives of people who live and work in the rest of the galaxy.
In reality a nice thing called a courtmarshal should have occured culminating in a nice public execution or at least a nice place in a supermax facility orbiting some cold dead sun.
Voyager: Well at least we have more people following some sort of rules. Although now we have the cheasy Maquis. I tell you some people never learn (think hippie radicals in the 60's in the 24th century).
Also we have the little aspect of Chacotay (gotta love the name) and more Bajorians (this time they get to force us to think their way). They manage to prevent the Maquis from murdering and plundering any way they like and do something useful.
Yeah the first episodes sucked with the idiot Kazon and everything; not to mention figuring out that their stupid ship needs more power and better internal anti-terrorist devices. The borg were a good touch and rather nice.
Birth of the Federation: Well I have always wanted to know the gap of time from say WWII to maybe 2020 or so. Something about the eugenics wars or something and some nasty outbreak of WWIII however that starts to leave me rather cold. I like consistent and logical plots that still mean we could actually get off this hunk of shitty rock before I turn to dust.
One absolute fact: the bad guys will lose and the Federation will almost always win. In various publications about this The Romulians get a serious ass whopping and we (rather stupidly I think in the long run) sign a the Treaty of Algeron which essentially sets up the DMZ called the Neutral Zone and also prevents the federation from developing cloaking technology (meaning we have to do it in secret ala phased cloaking device in TNG with RIker and the admiral or bey it from the romulains/Klingons).
Unfortuantely we get to see the equivelent of a Cold War with the Klingons/Russians because of a botched first contact attempt and thus the drafting of the Prime Directive and planet observation similar to Insurections.
What does this mean? I think some better material, more logical, slightly predictable, and more information for the people out there who would rather be living there than here and now.
Most Sci-fi sucks and just works on crappy social issues and reads almost like a Grimm brothers fairy tale in it's approach. I like a change of pace from forced analysis of all the where s andhowtos that come from some of this stuff.
The people of slashdot (editors). I think are better suited to writing code and doing tech oriented things. I tried that and found that I might just do something else (woe is me). But what I do know is a lack of creativy can be a damaging thing when analyzing something. There just aren't that many ideas that aren't beating a dead horse or that don't have logicial inconsistiencies (Mission from mars) a mile wide.
Do you seriously think there is anything that can replace these things? Is ther any proof?
I am not French and I can't see how you post is revelent to mine in any way.
It's based on the idea that your superiors are in fact supposedly smarter, bnetter, and always right within areas like the military.
A great deal of organizations are warped into thinking that the reason America sucks is because more people aren't like the military. That is where this comes from. Even if you are a rapist you have a right to at least a decent reputation. People have to live and not have their entire lives totally ruined. If your life is ruined then wehat possible excuse do you have to live? I think that the only one that needs to know about your life is maybe you and a few select people who can be trusted with that information.
Now I don't look for ways to help rapists but anyone who commits a crime has a right to be eventually left alone and allowed to be a natural citizen again. I mean what would happen if say you did someone stupid and shoplifted something when you were a kid. What if you were reqired to wear a nice big stylized logo in red that said THIEF on it for the rest of your life? What if most stores except crappy ones wouldn't let you in if you wore the THIEF logo?
This means that you are a second class citizen and you have no future.
My personal favorite is getting revenge. Say if they did that you could always get a gun and let a few people have an "accident" before I used it on me.
I just think that Justice should be used but not to the extent that justice kills mercy or allows life to be a farce.
What about this senario:
A group of heavily armed men with assault riffles and such is approached by the police and then an arrest attempt is made. Suppose those people resist and say the cops get gunned down by the guys. Now what if they decide to say use some mussle and take out the HQ of the police?
Has this ever happened. Has a group of people ever been that secussful with it?
More to the point I think that full disclosure of data is importnt in any organization where you intersect with "citizens" of any type. Hiding data bsecause you called all people stupid or made systematic quasi-legal concepts in said documents is your problem and should have not but anything in there like that.
I have made repeated evidence that the supposed "keeper of rights" that the states seem to be on slashdot are in fact corrupt groups of greedy pigs.
The reason why we have a FoIA is because we have people in washington who are actually more concerned with rights than individual states. I would no more trust my local leaders than fly to the moon. However the Bill of rights and the constitution are in a better position to be obeyed by the people who actually run our country than in little feifdoms.
Hmm...your ideas intrigue me and I want to subscribe to your newsletter... :)
What I really believe is that utilitarian concepts are the best to follow. Ultimately if I were desperate enough then my boss would get a nice suprise in his back
The problem is that it's risky. You have to set up in the bushes wait, and then fire and make sure no one can tell what you did.
Now my idea (this may have been done before) is to simply to make a device with a silencer which would be remotely operated and could fire from a distance. It could send a video singal to a remote operator and the operator could then fire the projectile without being in the same general vicinity. Add a nice little cache of thermite to destroy the device when finished and you have secussfully gotten away with it. However that dosn't mean you totally could without any chance of failure at all.
Commiting crimes entails risk. Problem with risk is that is usually dosn't work for me. Maybe your the kind of guy who can just pop a quarter into a slot machine in Vega and win a jackpot but I bet I could spend $100 and still not get anything.
Most of the time I really don't like to take a risk I know I can't win at all or am not sure of winning. I have this little theory. Life thinks it's in charge of you but if it tries to make a slave of me I will always have a way to opt out.
Yes jail is crummy but I really don't fear the disapproval of a few lone people in a vacuum. I think where it begins to be a problem is where you could get blighted for being a person who is a criminal. I fully intend to cary a nice concentrated cyanide capsule. If the police try to arrest me for anything at all that results in an attempted stay in the big house I will take it. By the way in current toxicology I can't find anything more toxic in small doses that works as well.
Quick, easy, and better than having fun in the big house.
Wonder why this is? Well it's not censorship by having access to information seen and heard. Ever wonder why there are people who try and not deliberately say whatever comes into their heads on slashdot? Because of audience. If you have no audience then you have nothing. All of the gret ideas of history dhave essentially been only secussful when others have been able to see/comment on them.
Trust me my friend if I could create a more complex system of dynamic information display I would do so but am limited because I have never been formally taught better coding skills that pertain to networked media. A more fine grained system of ratings and continuous ratings and word analysis along with trafic analysis and a few other factors should be employed in this. Not only that but allow for a wider distributon mechanism.
People descriminating by type of information is nothing new but it's effects are qite deadly. That's why many people infinitely prefer to get an actual account and more prefer to add a little feather in their cap to gte a +1 score. It has nothing to do with being able to strut but get stuff read from people who are stuff shirted and normally unwilling to look at anything.
Slashdot has a style of information analysis and gathering similar to low level military correspondence namely a "trust" based interatione and "reputations" rather interesting but still not good enough.
I think that you have this partly confused. I think most people don't like jail because of a few basic reasons.
1. I like my freedom
2. I don't like getting raped by someone of the same sex
3. Almost always has a negative effect on life and income
I don't think that I would so much feel embarassed as hideously filled with pain and looking for the nearest chance to hang myself in my cell.
Crimes are not commited because most people don't like 1-3 and usually don't want to feel the need to end their lives.
I think that prison can and most likely does have this effect on people who live through it.
"Damn what I could do with a 100 GB/s download speed. What are some of the things you'd do?"
Isn't that just internal transfers? I mean you will not be able to download at 100GB/s with a 56k modem.