There was a recent discussion about quantum computers (QCs) on sci.crypt. The consensus is, given a powerful enough QC, all public-key methods (RSA, Diffe-Helman, Elliptic Curve systems, etc) are badly broken by Shor's algorithm.
But symmetric ciphers (AES, DES, Blowfish, Serpent, etc) only have their effective key length cut in half, as a consequence of Grover's algorithm for searching an unordered list in O(sqrt(N)) time. So 64-bit keys become crackable with 2^32 work, and 128-bit keys in 2^64 work. Using 256-bit symmetric keys is considered sufficient to negate the threat of QCs.
I'm not sure about other cryptographic constructs such as PRNGs (Yarrow, ANSI X9.17) or hash functions (SHA-1, MD5), but I'm guessing at worst you would just have to double the size of the internal state to achieve security levels comparable to today.
Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) but I do know quite a few.
The guy mentioned in the article wouldn't be the same Jon Katz who used to write rants^H^H^H^H^Heditorials for Slashdot, would it? I thought he died 3 years ago. Right about the time I discovered the Slashdot story filters.
While very generous, it was much easier for Franklin to not patent his inventions than it would be for most people. By the time he started doing serious scientific work around age 40, he had already retired with a vast fortune.
Don't get me wrong, his decision was extremely admirable. Many lesser men would've been greedy and tried to profit even though they were already wealthy. But it's hard for a working joe* to pass up the potential to make money off his inventions.
* Yes most patent holders by far are greedy evil corporations. I'm restricting my discussion to individual inventors.
If you want to enforce liability, just limit the amount that can be recovered to twice the amount paid for the software or some such. Any factor times free is still nothing. Boom, free-as-in-beer software has no problems.
Not that I agree that liability is the way to go. It certainly sounds appealing, but computers really are a different sort of beast. I haven't made up my mind yet.
I'm surprised that [generics] didn't come into this top ten; it's a major language deficiency.
Indeed, the same can be said for operator overloading. What's clearer for a numeric type,
a.add(b).multiply(c.add(d))
or
(a + b) * (c + d)?
The typical Java arguments against operator overloading smack of paternalism. "Overloading is bad, it leads to bad code. Trust us, we know what's good for you." You don't outlaw rope just people can hang themselves with it. You teach them how to use it properly.
In any event, there is absolutely no reason for one's web browsing experience to be the kind of popup hell described here... a small modicum of knowledge and willingness to stand out from the herd is all that is required.
Knowledge? Nonconformity? We're talking about AOLusers here!
My point was, there are MATURE ways of combating the legislation... Using "mob rule" strategies will just make it worse
Right. I'm glad most people are reasonable enough that the "high road" always works. I mean, it's a good thing the Sons of Liberty never launched any violent protests against the Stamp and Townshend Acts back in the 1760s. Oh wait, I guess they marched through towns beating tax collectors, smashing warehouses, and hanging the governor in effigy. Bad example.
Well it's a good thing the colonial non-importation agreements worked when the British shut down Boston harbor. Yeah, those British sure caved! Wait a minute, no they didn't. They laughed in our faces.
Ok, but at least when we'd had enough and declared independence from Britian they just let us go peacefully on our way. It would've been a shame if we had to go to war to get them to listen to us. What's that? Oh, um... nevermind.
This is where the bloodthirsty license agreement is supposed to go, explaining that Interactive Easyflow is a copyrighted package licensed for use by a single person, and sternly warning you not to pirate copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory consequences if you do.
We know that you are an honest person, and are not going to go around pirating copies of Interactive Easyflow; this is just as well with us since we worked hard to perfect it and selling copies of it is our only method of making anything out of all the hard work.
If, on the other hand, you are one of those few people who do go around pirating copies of software you probably aren't going to pay much attention to a license agreement, bloodthirsty or not. Just keep your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.
SWM, 26, non-smoker, seeks nubile SF 19-24 (all races) into programming, FPS and RTS games, and The Simpsons for casual sex. Must have porn star looks. Serious inquiries only. (661) 397-3030.
Would it be possible to launch a reverse DOS attack on the RIAA by storing hundreds of thousands of fake mp3 files with song names on a 200 gig hard drive
If you do that, the RIAA ought to send you a thank you card. All you've done is decreased the signal-to-noise ratio on the P2P system. People doing legitimate searches will encounter your files instead of what they're looking for. You are, in effect, launching the RIAA's DOS attack for them.
At first take the idea sounds preposterous. Moms in general never have been and never will be computer saavy. My mom can't even change channels on the cable box properly (somehow she always ends up hitting the tv/vcr button, or changing the tv channel instead, or any number of other inconceivable screwups that leave her bewildered).
But then maybe that's part of the point. My mom runs Windows on her pc, and she's taken to it like a fish to a bicycle. She hasn't caught on to the concept of "directories" yet. If it's not in the first folder she opens, she tells me her files anre missing and I need to find them. When I give her tech support, it always devolves into excruciating detail: "Choose Save As from the File menu and save it with the name you want... Alright click on File... Now click on Save As... Now type in the file name... in the box that says "file name" next to it... yeah now click 'OK'".
Given these conditions, what is the difference between my mom running linux and Windows? Absolutely none. She can't even figure out that her email "isn't working" because she forgot to dial in to earthlink first, much less install a printer or an application. Anything she does, she needs to be shown exactly how to do first. If the slightest deviation from how it was shown to her occurs, she's completely lost and calls for help. She'd be just as lost on a Mac. Her problems have nothing to do with the operating system she uses.
Linux wouldn't make her life any easier, but then it wouldn't make it any worse either. However her running linux would make my life significantly better. If things don't work, I can login and fix the problem... remotely. I can set up a firewall and update the rules when necessary... remotely. I can install a new application or security updates... remotely. It's a hell of a lot easier to administer a linux machine remotely than a windows machine.
Install linux on your mother's machine. Don't do it for her. Do it for you.
If advertising is really about 'informing' the public to make 'rational' decisions, then why do advertises need to:
Your viewpoint is entirely predicated on advertising in American culture. Each country has its own advertising preferences, and what works well here usually fails miserably overseas.
In Germany for instance there are strict laws against comparing your product to a competitor's. The outrageous hyperbole we're accustomed too is frowned on as fluff. Consumers demand detailed technical specs about a product in the ad and dismiss anything less.
French advertising OTOH is completely about style. Not hyperbole and cheap flashiness like American ads, but elegant ones with emotional appeal. Calvin Klein perfume ads are probably the closest thing to French advertising we have here.
In any case, I share your dismay over the state of American advertising, but realize that your statements are not universally applicable.
It's not a huge leap from going from "software that adds popups to a certain page without actually modifying the page is illegal" to "software that modifies the page is illegal", meaning any proxy software that blocks ads, for example, is suddenly outlawed...
Actually it is a huge leap. In the latter case, your right remove parts of content for your own personal use is protected by fair use rights. In the former, assuming the new/replacement ads are being sold, the software in question is modifying someone else's content and reselling it as their own. Fair use rights do not allow you to profit from altering a work.
If the replacement ads were distributed without charge, then perhaps fair use rights would again apply.
It's not that it changes the 'surfing experience', it's that it does it with intent to deceive that's the problem.
The intent to deceive is one major issue. However Gator can defend themselves by saying they asked for people's consent. Yes they do it in a particularly devious and slimy way, but in court the decision is ultimately left up to the judge/jury, who can be swayed by less-then-stellar logic.
IANAL, but I think there's a better basis for such a lawsuit, one which Gator can't even mount a defense against. As others have stated, once you download a web page onto your computer you have the right to alter its content in any way you see fit (just like a magazine). What that argument omits, though, is the important addendum for your own non-commercial use.
Fair use laws (mostly) apply to non-commercial uses of material. You can cut Jar-Jar out of your own personal copy of Episode I, but (unfortunately) you can't sell it to others. But clearly this is what Gator did. Unlike banner ad blockers that simply delete ads, Gator profited from selling the ad space to other companies. Not only is this (I think) completely illegal, but Gator can't even mount any defense against this charge.
I hope my IANAL legal reasoning is sound. Gator could go down hard on this.
>Imagine a really simple programming environment for excellent web applications, running on a database that is as easy to use as Access, with as many widgets as you can dream of.
>The Federalist Papers is a book that contains the letters of our founding fathers during the writing of the constitution.
Furthermore, if these are the same Federalist papers I'm familiar with, it's a very biased sample. Three authors do NOT compromise the sum total of our founding fathers' beliefs. Hamilton and Jay were committed monarchists for christ's sake! Hardly good role models for American principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like I'm taking any labor management advice from Charles Montgomery Burns...
Now if only we could get Java to return the favor...
There was a recent discussion about quantum computers (QCs) on sci.crypt. The consensus is, given a powerful enough QC, all public-key methods (RSA, Diffe-Helman, Elliptic Curve systems, etc) are badly broken by Shor's algorithm.
But symmetric ciphers (AES, DES, Blowfish, Serpent, etc) only have their effective key length cut in half, as a consequence of Grover's algorithm for searching an unordered list in O(sqrt(N)) time. So 64-bit keys become crackable with 2^32 work, and 128-bit keys in 2^64 work. Using 256-bit symmetric keys is considered sufficient to negate the threat of QCs.
I'm not sure about other cryptographic constructs such as PRNGs (Yarrow, ANSI X9.17) or hash functions (SHA-1, MD5), but I'm guessing at worst you would just have to double the size of the internal state to achieve security levels comparable to today.
Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) but I do know quite a few.
Why would Putnam want to sponsor a literature course?
The guy mentioned in the article wouldn't be the same Jon Katz who used to write rants^H^H^H^H^Heditorials for Slashdot, would it? I thought he died 3 years ago. Right about the time I discovered the Slashdot story filters.
While very generous, it was much easier for Franklin to not patent his inventions than it would be for most people. By the time he started doing serious scientific work around age 40, he had already retired with a vast fortune.
Don't get me wrong, his decision was extremely admirable. Many lesser men would've been greedy and tried to profit even though they were already wealthy. But it's hard for a working joe* to pass up the potential to make money off his inventions.
* Yes most patent holders by far are greedy evil corporations. I'm restricting my discussion to individual inventors.
If you want to enforce liability, just limit the amount that can be recovered to twice the amount paid for the software or some such. Any factor times free is still nothing. Boom, free-as-in-beer software has no problems.
Not that I agree that liability is the way to go. It certainly sounds appealing, but computers really are a different sort of beast. I haven't made up my mind yet.
I'm surprised that [generics] didn't come into this top ten; it's a major language deficiency.
Indeed, the same can be said for operator overloading. What's clearer for a numeric type,
a.add(b).multiply(c.add(d))
or
(a + b) * (c + d)?
The typical Java arguments against operator overloading smack of paternalism. "Overloading is bad, it leads to bad code. Trust us, we know what's good for you." You don't outlaw rope just people can hang themselves with it. You teach them how to use it properly.
Damn, where are my moderator points when I need them?!
It's a form of buzzword propulsion.
"Are you getting on the bus, Ed?"
"No, I'm taking this go-cart powered entirely by my own sense of self-satisfaction."
Ed Begley Jr, The Simpsons
In any event, there is absolutely no reason for one's web browsing experience to be the kind of popup hell described here ... a small modicum of knowledge and willingness to stand out from the herd is all that is required.
Knowledge? Nonconformity? We're talking about AOLusers here!
My point was, there are MATURE ways of combating the legislation... Using "mob rule" strategies will just make it worse
Right. I'm glad most people are reasonable enough that the "high road" always works. I mean, it's a good thing the Sons of Liberty never launched any violent protests against the Stamp and Townshend Acts back in the 1760s. Oh wait, I guess they marched through towns beating tax collectors, smashing warehouses, and hanging the governor in effigy. Bad example.
Well it's a good thing the colonial non-importation agreements worked when the British shut down Boston harbor. Yeah, those British sure caved! Wait a minute, no they didn't. They laughed in our faces.
Ok, but at least when we'd had enough and declared independence from Britian they just let us go peacefully on our way. It would've been a shame if we had to go to war to get them to listen to us. What's that? Oh, um... nevermind.
Bloodthirsty License Agreement
This is where the bloodthirsty license agreement is supposed to go,
explaining that Interactive Easyflow is a copyrighted package licensed
for use by a single person, and sternly warning you not to pirate
copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory consequences if you
do.
We know that you are an honest person, and are not going to go around
pirating copies of Interactive Easyflow; this is just as well with us
since we worked hard to perfect it and selling copies of it is our only
method of making anything out of all the hard work.
If, on the other hand, you are one of those few people who do go around
pirating copies of software you probably aren't going to pay much
attention to a license agreement, bloodthirsty or not. Just keep your
doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.
SWM, 26, non-smoker, seeks nubile SF 19-24 (all races) into programming, FPS and RTS games, and The Simpsons for casual sex. Must have porn star looks. Serious inquiries only. (661) 397-3030.
If you do that, the RIAA ought to send you a thank you card. All you've done is decreased the signal-to-noise ratio on the P2P system. People doing legitimate searches will encounter your files instead of what they're looking for. You are, in effect, launching the RIAA's DOS attack for them.
Homer: "Facts are useless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
The box can easily compile a list of what you're watching, and then pop up advertising based on your viewing demographic.
God I hope so. If I have to sit through another tampon or yeast infection commercial, so help me...
At first take the idea sounds preposterous. Moms in general never have been and never will be computer saavy. My mom can't even change channels on the cable box properly (somehow she always ends up hitting the tv/vcr button, or changing the tv channel instead, or any number of other inconceivable screwups that leave her bewildered).
But then maybe that's part of the point. My mom runs Windows on her pc, and she's taken to it like a fish to a bicycle. She hasn't caught on to the concept of "directories" yet. If it's not in the first folder she opens, she tells me her files anre missing and I need to find them. When I give her tech support, it always devolves into excruciating detail: "Choose Save As from the File menu and save it with the name you want... Alright click on File... Now click on Save As... Now type in the file name... in the box that says "file name" next to it... yeah now click 'OK'".
Given these conditions, what is the difference between my mom running linux and Windows? Absolutely none. She can't even figure out that her email "isn't working" because she forgot to dial in to earthlink first, much less install a printer or an application. Anything she does, she needs to be shown exactly how to do first. If the slightest deviation from how it was shown to her occurs, she's completely lost and calls for help. She'd be just as lost on a Mac. Her problems have nothing to do with the operating system she uses.
Linux wouldn't make her life any easier, but then it wouldn't make it any worse either. However her running linux would make my life significantly better. If things don't work, I can login and fix the problem... remotely. I can set up a firewall and update the rules when necessary... remotely. I can install a new application or security updates... remotely. It's a hell of a lot easier to administer a linux machine remotely than a windows machine.
Install linux on your mother's machine. Don't do it for her. Do it for you.
Your post contains zero grammar or spelling errors... You are obviously not a programmer or a sysadmin
Whut are yu trieing to sey? Thet programars kant spill? Prepawsterus!
Your viewpoint is entirely predicated on advertising in American culture. Each country has its own advertising preferences, and what works well here usually fails miserably overseas.
In Germany for instance there are strict laws against comparing your product to a competitor's. The outrageous hyperbole we're accustomed too is frowned on as fluff. Consumers demand detailed technical specs about a product in the ad and dismiss anything less.
French advertising OTOH is completely about style. Not hyperbole and cheap flashiness like American ads, but elegant ones with emotional appeal. Calvin Klein perfume ads are probably the closest thing to French advertising we have here.
In any case, I share your dismay over the state of American advertising, but realize that your statements are not universally applicable.
How many times do I have to tell you, wave your hand at the close of a jedi mind trick?!
Actually it is a huge leap. In the latter case, your right remove parts of content for your own personal use is protected by fair use rights. In the former, assuming the new/replacement ads are being sold, the software in question is modifying someone else's content and reselling it as their own. Fair use rights do not allow you to profit from altering a work.
If the replacement ads were distributed without charge, then perhaps fair use rights would again apply.
It's not that it changes the 'surfing experience', it's that it does it with intent to deceive that's the problem.
The intent to deceive is one major issue. However Gator can defend themselves by saying they asked for people's consent. Yes they do it in a particularly devious and slimy way, but in court the decision is ultimately left up to the judge/jury, who can be swayed by less-then-stellar logic.
IANAL, but I think there's a better basis for such a lawsuit, one which Gator can't even mount a defense against. As others have stated, once you download a web page onto your computer you have the right to alter its content in any way you see fit (just like a magazine). What that argument omits, though, is the important addendum for your own non-commercial use.
Fair use laws (mostly) apply to non-commercial uses of material. You can cut Jar-Jar out of your own personal copy of Episode I, but (unfortunately) you can't sell it to others. But clearly this is what Gator did. Unlike banner ad blockers that simply delete ads, Gator profited from selling the ad space to other companies. Not only is this (I think) completely illegal, but Gator can't even mount any defense against this charge.
I hope my IANAL legal reasoning is sound. Gator could go down hard on this.
>Imagine a really simple programming environment for excellent web applications, running on a database that is as easy to use as Access, with as many widgets as you can dream of.
Already have it. It's called Perl.
>The Federalist Papers is a book that contains the letters of our founding fathers during the writing of the constitution.
Furthermore, if these are the same Federalist papers I'm familiar with, it's a very biased sample. Three authors do NOT compromise the sum total of our founding fathers' beliefs. Hamilton and Jay were committed monarchists for christ's sake! Hardly good role models for American principles.