However, you notice that there is no mention made of *where* your traffic goes. The fact that you pay one flat rate to access Google, Slashdot, Youtube, and what have you is due to the FCC's Net Neutrality regulation. Without this regulation, your cable or telephone company would be within its rights to charge you different rates for different web sites. In essence, the Internet would become like cable TV, with websites being broken into various tiers, and you having to pay extra to access other tiers.
Example: if Comcast struck a deal with Yahoo, Yahoo would become the default search engine, and Google would be moved into a "premium" tier, meaning that I'd have to pay extra in order to access Google. I don't have to do this today because of Net Neutrality.
That would work only as long as the other manufacturers couldn't temporarily undercut you for the purpose of driving you out of business. Now, officially they can't do that; each manufacturer is supposed to set his or her price independently. However, if there is an established market price, and you go below that, it would be very possible for the other marketers to undercut you long enough to put you out of business. After all, you are the newcomer to the market and therefore have less capital to burn than the older, more established companies. You could sue under the antitrust provisions of US law, but even a victory would be cold comfort if your business was dead by the time your case got resolved.
>>But no, you're probably right, that this admin is working hard to rise to Nixonian levels.<<
Huh? By many measures of governmental openness, this administration has surpassed Nixonian levels of secrecy. Don't forget that this administration had a long period where they controlled all three branches of government, enabling them to change policies and regulations so that secrecy became institutionalized. Nixon did not have an opportunity to do this.
>>Doesn't Web 2.0 reach a "critical mass" as some point, where busineese will no longer be able to not cooperate?<<
That could happen. However, in order to reach "critical mass" you need to have some number of businesses cooperating (and profiting from the cooperation) so that other businesses see the advantages of following open standards.
On the other hand, if "pioneer" companies like Google, Yahoo, and others fail to cooperate, then the odds of Web2.0 reaching critical mass are much reduced.
>>Remember when the music player was hacked? They fixed it in less than 24 hours, I think the same will happen with these bugs...<<
Not necessarily. The music player was quickly patched because a vulnerability in the music player made it possible to download (read: pirate) music. Its comparable to the DRM vulnerability that Microsoft fixed in three days and issued an out-of-cycle patch for. The bugs uncovered by this project are likely to be more mundane bugs that won't be patched so quickly.
>>Ignorance is not an excuse. Welcome to the Internet... learn the protocols.<<
This argument could also be applied to Archive.org. The fact that they didn't *know* about the license (because their crawler couldn't read it) doesn't mean that the contract doesn't apply to them.
No matter how smart and well trained your middle managers are, you can't escape the fact that our military is still a centralized, hierarchical force that will always be outmaneuvered by loose conglomerations of insurgents using low-tech hard to intercept methods of communications and guerrilla tactics.
The US Army doesn't have to worry about other armies. Even as far back as Vietnam, we were confident that we could beat the Soviets (who were only other power close to us in terms of conventional military strength) in a conventional land war. Its been the unconventional, guerrilla style warfare that has defeated us.
"If I do trust it's legit, do I trust the people running it to not make critical mistakes that could compromise my data?"
I can ask the same of whatever data network the cell phone companies provide. What's their standard on encryption, authentication and other security matters?
Question for you: If you're that concerned about security, why don't use you a VPN or a SSH tunnel?
>>As far as I know, The exploits in mac or linux don't really have automation in them. And i'm not talking about getting a tool to let some scipt kiddie pown your system. I'm talking about every infection requires some human intervention to be succesful.<<
Windows Vista has the same sort of protection built in as well. However, the protection is triggered so many times by non-malicious programs that users quickly become used to clicking "Yes" to every dialog prompt that pops up. This behavior can then be exploited by virus writers.
The key difference between Linux/Mac and Windows is the quality of the applications written for them. Linux and Mac applications do not normally require root access to function. Therefore, the system almost never has to ask the user to give root permission. And for the rare times that the system does ask for root permission, the event is sufficiently unique that the user takes a close look at what they're trying to do before making a decision.
Windows will be vulnerable to viruses as long as everyday applications require root access to perform.
It says here (http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/): >>Schwartz appealed the conviction. A decision by the State of Oregon Court of Appeals in April 2001 upheld the convictions on all counts, but reversed the restitution order and sent this issue back to the original court for reconsideration.<<
So it looks like the restitution was either reduced or eliminated, as the original restitution order was overturned on appeal.
>>Presidents can't veto every bill that comes across their desk you know.
Sure they can. The President is free to veto whatever he wants to. And Congress is free to overrride the President's veto with a 2/3 majority. In this case, I don't think the DMCA had the necessary level of Congressional support needed to override a veto. The highly technical nature of they bill also would have made it difficult to gin up a huge public outcry against the veto.
>>Presidents don't create bills. Legislature does, and both houses were controlled by republicans back then.<<
First of all, anyone can draft a bill, but only a Congressperson can introduce a bill into their legislative body.
>>Why are you talking about Clinton?<<
He could have vetoed the DMCA. The Republicans did not have the two-thirds majorities they needed to overrride. And, given the highly technical nature of the DMCA, I don't think there would have been any general public outcry if that bill had been quietly killed off.
I support most of Clinton's policies, but in this case I disagree strongly.
First, there is a previous reference. Second, this doesn't affect the scientology case in any way. The text posted in the scientology thread is copyrighted, and the Church of Scientology sued under the DMCA, which this ruling does not affect.
This case just affects libel, in which you falsely allege wrongdoing against someone for the purpose of destroying their reputation.
Re:How Many Nodes Do You Need to Own?
on
Tor Open To Attack
·
· Score: 1
"Tor scales to a few hundred nodes, but it doesn't scale indefinitely"
Okay. I understand now. Because Tor can only scale up to a few hundred nodes, you only need ten or twenty compromised nodes to effectively monitor the entire network.
How Many Nodes Do You Need to Own?
on
Tor Open To Attack
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"We show that even if an adversary can control a few malicious nodes -- 3 to 6 with a PlanetLab network of 60 honest servers -- the adversary can still compromise the identity of a significant fraction of the connections from new clients."
3 to 6 servers out of 60 is still 5 to 10 percent. That's fine for small networks, but for a network with hundreds or thousands of nodes, controlling 5 to 10 percent may become infeasible. Does this attack require the number of nodes to scale with network size?
Well, if he wrote bad things about you and published them, that's libel, and its illegal. Under your system, I could put up a website or a Wikipedia entry saying all sorts of terrible things about you, and you'd be powerless to stop my assaults upon your character.
However, if I have reason to believe that the things I wrote were true, then I've got an exemption. This golfer could also be classified as a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity) which would change the rules some more.
To repeat another poster: This guy isn't suing Wikipedia. He's suing someone who edited his Wikipedia page to include information that was allegedly defamatory.
As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.
The entire reason these DJs got as big as they did is because the RIAA affiliated labels sent them tracks and master tapes with the understanding that they would use them for mixtapes. The RIAA set up a kind of alternative advertising channel through these guys by sending them tapes and unreleased tracks for free, and letting them keep the profit from their mixtapes in exchange for word-of-mouth publicity. The DJs are doing viral marketing for the RIAA. However, because these deals are "off the books", the RIAA gets the best of both worlds. They can give these people tracks and songs, but if they ever get popular enough to start threatening the RIAA's main distribution channel a quick raid and a lawsuit will destroy them.
If the DJ's crossed the line, they did so with the tacit permission of the RIAA. The only thing they did wrong in my opinion is that they never got their promises in writing, leaving them open to this kind of tactic later on.
Slashdot Mirror
However, you notice that there is no mention made of *where* your traffic goes. The fact that you pay one flat rate to access Google, Slashdot, Youtube, and what have you is due to the FCC's Net Neutrality regulation. Without this regulation, your cable or telephone company would be within its rights to charge you different rates for different web sites. In essence, the Internet would become like cable TV, with websites being broken into various tiers, and you having to pay extra to access other tiers.
Example: if Comcast struck a deal with Yahoo, Yahoo would become the default search engine, and Google would be moved into a "premium" tier, meaning that I'd have to pay extra in order to access Google. I don't have to do this today because of Net Neutrality.
That would work only as long as the other manufacturers couldn't temporarily undercut you for the purpose of driving you out of business. Now, officially they can't do that; each manufacturer is supposed to set his or her price independently. However, if there is an established market price, and you go below that, it would be very possible for the other marketers to undercut you long enough to put you out of business. After all, you are the newcomer to the market and therefore have less capital to burn than the older, more established companies. You could sue under the antitrust provisions of US law, but even a victory would be cold comfort if your business was dead by the time your case got resolved.
>>But no, you're probably right, that this admin is working hard to rise to Nixonian levels.<<
Huh? By many measures of governmental openness, this administration has surpassed Nixonian levels of secrecy. Don't forget that this administration had a long period where they controlled all three branches of government, enabling them to change policies and regulations so that secrecy became institutionalized. Nixon did not have an opportunity to do this.
>>Doesn't Web 2.0 reach a "critical mass" as some point, where busineese will no longer be able to not cooperate?<<
That could happen. However, in order to reach "critical mass" you need to have some number of businesses cooperating (and profiting from the cooperation) so that other businesses see the advantages of following open standards.
On the other hand, if "pioneer" companies like Google, Yahoo, and others fail to cooperate, then the odds of Web2.0 reaching critical mass are much reduced.
>>Remember when the music player was hacked? They fixed it in less than 24 hours, I think the same will happen with these bugs...<<
Not necessarily. The music player was quickly patched because a vulnerability in the music player made it possible to download (read: pirate) music. Its comparable to the DRM vulnerability that Microsoft fixed in three days and issued an out-of-cycle patch for. The bugs uncovered by this project are likely to be more mundane bugs that won't be patched so quickly.
>>Ignorance is not an excuse. Welcome to the Internet... learn the protocols.<<
This argument could also be applied to Archive.org. The fact that they didn't *know* about the license (because their crawler couldn't read it) doesn't mean that the contract doesn't apply to them.
>>Though make no mistake, while it is more secure than what the FAA is now proposing, it's not as secure as OO.org would be on a desktop...<<
Why not? Isn't a single server easier to secure than hundreds of desktops?
No matter how smart and well trained your middle managers are, you can't escape the fact that our military is still a centralized, hierarchical force that will always be outmaneuvered by loose conglomerations of insurgents using low-tech hard to intercept methods of communications and guerrilla tactics.
The US Army doesn't have to worry about other armies. Even as far back as Vietnam, we were confident that we could beat the Soviets (who were only other power close to us in terms of conventional military strength) in a conventional land war. Its been the unconventional, guerrilla style warfare that has defeated us.
"If I do trust it's legit, do I trust the people running it to not make critical mistakes that could compromise my data?"
I can ask the same of whatever data network the cell phone companies provide. What's their standard on encryption, authentication and other security matters?
Question for you: If you're that concerned about security, why don't use you a VPN or a SSH tunnel?
Ouch. That sucks that the lower court didn't reverse its decision after the appeals court sent the ruling back for reconsideration.
>>As far as I know, The exploits in mac or linux don't really have automation in them. And i'm not talking about getting a tool to let some scipt kiddie pown your system. I'm talking about every infection requires some human intervention to be succesful.<<
Windows Vista has the same sort of protection built in as well. However, the protection is triggered so many times by non-malicious programs that users quickly become used to clicking "Yes" to every dialog prompt that pops up. This behavior can then be exploited by virus writers.
The key difference between Linux/Mac and Windows is the quality of the applications written for them. Linux and Mac applications do not normally require root access to function. Therefore, the system almost never has to ask the user to give root permission. And for the rare times that the system does ask for root permission, the event is sufficiently unique that the user takes a close look at what they're trying to do before making a decision.
Windows will be vulnerable to viruses as long as everyday applications require root access to perform.
It says here (http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/):
>>Schwartz appealed the conviction. A decision by the State of Oregon Court of Appeals in April 2001 upheld the convictions on all counts, but reversed the restitution order and sent this issue back to the original court for reconsideration.<<
So it looks like the restitution was either reduced or eliminated, as the original restitution order was overturned on appeal.
>>I'm just saying that you can't blame Clinton or the dems exclusively, because it was introduced into and passed by a wholly Republican Congress.<<
I'm not saying that the Democrats are *wholly* to blame. I'm just saying that they're not *free* from blame.
>>Presidents can't veto every bill that comes across their desk you know.
Sure they can. The President is free to veto whatever he wants to. And Congress is free to overrride the President's veto with a 2/3 majority. In this case, I don't think the DMCA had the necessary level of Congressional support needed to override a veto. The highly technical nature of they bill also would have made it difficult to gin up a huge public outcry against the veto.
Clinton should have vetoed the DMCA.
>>Presidents don't create bills. Legislature does, and both houses were controlled by republicans back then.<<
First of all, anyone can draft a bill, but only a Congressperson can introduce a bill into their legislative body.
>>Why are you talking about Clinton?<<
He could have vetoed the DMCA. The Republicans did not have the two-thirds majorities they needed to overrride. And, given the highly technical nature of the DMCA, I don't think there would have been any general public outcry if that bill had been quietly killed off.
I support most of Clinton's policies, but in this case I disagree strongly.
First, there is a previous reference. Second, this doesn't affect the scientology case in any way. The text posted in the scientology thread is copyrighted, and the Church of Scientology sued under the DMCA, which this ruling does not affect.
This case just affects libel, in which you falsely allege wrongdoing against someone for the purpose of destroying their reputation.
"Tor scales to a few hundred nodes, but it doesn't scale indefinitely"
Okay. I understand now. Because Tor can only scale up to a few hundred nodes, you only need ten or twenty compromised nodes to effectively monitor the entire network.
"We show that even if an adversary can control a few malicious nodes -- 3 to 6 with a PlanetLab network of 60 honest servers -- the adversary can still compromise the identity of a significant fraction of the connections from new clients."
3 to 6 servers out of 60 is still 5 to 10 percent. That's fine for small networks, but for a network with hundreds or thousands of nodes, controlling 5 to 10 percent may become infeasible. Does this attack require the number of nodes to scale with network size?
I always find it ironic when a grammar Nazi post has a grammatical error. In your case, shouldn't it be, "School could, *teach* you some grammar"?
Nope. This is a reinvention of Radix Sort, which is O(n).
Well, if he wrote bad things about you and published them, that's libel, and its illegal. Under your system, I could put up a website or a Wikipedia entry saying all sorts of terrible things about you, and you'd be powerless to stop my assaults upon your character.
However, if I have reason to believe that the things I wrote were true, then I've got an exemption. This golfer could also be classified as a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity) which would change the rules some more.
IANAL btw.
To repeat another poster: This guy isn't suing Wikipedia. He's suing someone who edited his Wikipedia page to include information that was allegedly defamatory.
As I see it, he's doing the right thing here. Mr. Zoeller's quarrel isn't with Wikipedia, its with the guy who edited his entry. That's the way that Mr. Zoeller is pursuing it. He's filing a "John Doe" lawsuit (the kind made famous by the RIAA) against the person associated with the IP address source of the edit.
Are they going to use the interplanetary internet to upload this?
No replies and its already Slashdotted. And I thought nobody RTFAs.
The entire reason these DJs got as big as they did is because the RIAA affiliated labels sent them tracks and master tapes with the understanding that they would use them for mixtapes. The RIAA set up a kind of alternative advertising channel through these guys by sending them tapes and unreleased tracks for free, and letting them keep the profit from their mixtapes in exchange for word-of-mouth publicity. The DJs are doing viral marketing for the RIAA. However, because these deals are "off the books", the RIAA gets the best of both worlds. They can give these people tracks and songs, but if they ever get popular enough to start threatening the RIAA's main distribution channel a quick raid and a lawsuit will destroy them.
If the DJ's crossed the line, they did so with the tacit permission of the RIAA. The only thing they did wrong in my opinion is that they never got their promises in writing, leaving them open to this kind of tactic later on.