From TFA: And there was an extensive scan of images done by a team from the University of Michigan, looking through millions of internet locations, and then clustering computers together and running password dictionary attacks on anything that looked suspicious, but they never found a single thing.
Given the prevalence of near GB files traversing the internet, and a payload of only a few kB, is there any reasonable expectation that one could find it if it did exist, let alone decrypt it?
Re:ANYTHING has to be better...
on
Ekiga 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
At least with a name like Netmeeting I had some idea what the software did.
Now with names like Ekiga in my menus I won't have a clue.
When a company issues profit forecasts etc. It tends to perpetuate the illusion that things will carry on a steady growth path.
This tends to make the stock more stable in the short term.
However, when the actual performance deviates (as it will) from that simplistic model there comes a point where either:
a) Their forecasts suddenly recognise reality, stock plunges. or b) They start cooking the books, like Enron, then when this comes to light.....
Google are obligated to file their actual historical results, not to provide owners with a warm fuzzy feeling that all is great, and let the analysts have someone to blame when it isn't.
Ever notice that stocks are downgraded immediately after a big drop, and upgraded immediately after a big rise.
I don't see what is incompatible between the various Linux disros at the hardware level.
As long as all the hardware in a computer has linux drivers (preferably open source, but I'll live with things like Nvidia's drivers), then any version of linux with a suitably recent kernel (i.e any current distro) will work with the hardware.
Any incompatibility between the distros is a result of different file structure etc., this isn't a Linux (i.e. kernel) issue.
When I buy a budget computer from Dell I feel that I am gambing on the hardware being operable under Linux (and I've lucked out so far).
> What right do we (heavy interent uses) have to expect light users to subsidize our usage?
None whatsoever, but:
If I pay for faster delivery I expect it irrespective of the destination.
If I pay for a larger volume of delivery the same expectation applies.
There is no intrinsic problem with charging by volume, although it is not a customer winner. Customers like the predictability of what their bill will be, even if they are usually light users.
Of course I may pay more for a higher speed connection. But they should route my packets (and those back to me) with a speed and reliability that is not controlled on the basis of the destination (or source) address.
The purpose of my giving them the delivery address is so they know where to send it, other use of that information is improper.
This is analagous to the Postal Service. If I pay more I can get a packet delivered faster. If the destination is remote it will take longer, of course, but they should not be permitted to treat a packet with lower priority just because they don't like (or haven't got a kickback from) the address to which I am sending it.
When I install commercial software I would generally rather go to have a tooth pulled than phone the company that wrote it.
They will wait on hold, uninstall, reinstall before even starting on any actual problem. There will be a large number of reboots.
Open source stuff, installs, usually without any reboot, If I do need help there is usually better documentation than the commercial stuff provides, and practical help is much easier to get if I should need it.
The source code is, after all, available; even if I'm not an expert at a new (to me) piece of software, there seem to be many people who know it more intimately than it is possible to know closed source software. They are generally very, very helpful.
It's still an impressive technology, re-useability has a great appeal, but what has the cost per launch got to now, and how does it compare with more conventional rocket launches?
It is precisely the people for whom they couldn't get court approval to bug that we care about here.
If there are names of people on this list which are sensitive, then they can redact them. But it seems that the very point of controversy is that the surveilance concerned is a 'fishing expedition' bugging people for whom there is no reasonable cause to bug.
To release page after page of insignificant names, bugged for no good reason, would seem to hold up the case against the buggers.
I suspect that all they mean is attempting to control the flow of information at their borders, thumb their noses at ICANN.
They will only allow access to their own DNS, and will provide portals mapping Internet DNS to their own internal DNS on a selective basis. Thus they can try to allow the internet in on a 'deny then allow' policy.
Will this prevent any tech-savy Chinese users from accessing the real Internet? No.
Will it help to keep the mass of Chinese users from accessing the real Internet? Yes.
I don't think it will present too much of an obstacle to re-integration of the "Chinternet" with the real Internet when they come to their senses.
I'm not that familiar with netnews http://mcntp.sourceforge.net/, but a quick check of the sites shows a rather different architecture.
This seems more targeted towards RSS type feeds, and looks like one of those rather simple and clever ideas that strike one as:
"This looks like the way it should have been done from the beginning"
It addresses a very real problem with current RSS news feeds, and has what looks like simple (that's a complement), complete, compatible, easy to install software for a reasonable variety of platforms.
>your subconscious mind is a better decision maker
Maybe this is because when we weigh the pros and cons of a decision conciously we deceive oursleves and weigh it by criteria that we think OUGHT to be important.
Our subconcious will weigh it by what we really care about, and to hell with whether we OUGHT to care about it.
I was looking into a provider for VoIP, Skype was reccomended to me, with this news Skype is out. (Even though most of my computers have Intel processors.)
Not because of the 10 v 5 way conferencing (I don't care) but because of the mentality it conveys.
Can anyone name some competitors to Skype that offer world wide POTS access?
Let people know that they can be tapped, and if they are notify them.
I had always assumed that any packet of information launched onto the internet was available for anyone to sniff at. There is no 'expetation of privacy' here.
Encryption allows my information to be unreadable, anonymity and avoidance of traffic analysis are only a little harder to achieve.
What the hell are they doing with this HUGE volume of data?
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
And there was an extensive scan of images done by a team from the University of Michigan,
looking through millions of internet locations, and then clustering computers together and
running password dictionary attacks on anything that looked suspicious, but they never found
a single thing.
Given the prevalence of near GB files traversing the internet, and a payload of only a few kB,
is there any reasonable expectation that one could find it if it did exist, let alone decrypt it?
At least with a name like Netmeeting I had some idea what
the software did.
Now with names like Ekiga in my menus I won't have a clue.
One of the commonly percieved risks of viruses is that
'they will delete your files'.
In one fell swoop it seems as though McAfee may have deleted more files
than all the viruses it has removed would have.
Why is it we have so many 'Czar' titles nowadays?
.......
What about other titles for potentates?
'Chief' 'King' 'Master' 'Commander' 'Lord'
When a company issues profit forecasts etc. It tends to perpetuate the
illusion that things will carry on a steady growth path.
This tends to make the stock more stable in the short term.
However, when the actual performance deviates (as it will) from that
simplistic model there comes a point where either:
a) Their forecasts suddenly recognise reality, stock plunges.
or
b) They start cooking the books, like Enron, then when this comes to light.....
Google are obligated to file their actual historical results, not to
provide owners with a warm fuzzy feeling that all is great, and let
the analysts have someone to blame when it isn't.
Ever notice that stocks are downgraded immediately after a big drop, and
upgraded immediately after a big rise.
You'll have to wait for that answer,
I'm still scanning throught the first 1.6 million.
I don't see what is incompatible between the various Linux disros at the hardware level.
As long as all the hardware in a computer has linux drivers (preferably open source, but
I'll live with things like Nvidia's drivers), then any version of linux with a suitably
recent kernel (i.e any current distro) will work with the hardware.
Any incompatibility between the distros is a result of different file structure etc.,
this isn't a Linux (i.e. kernel) issue.
When I buy a budget computer from Dell I feel that I am gambing on the hardware being
operable under Linux (and I've lucked out so far).
I think it's highly doubtful that their filesystem is patented (see how quickly it was reverse engineered)
If it had been patented then it wouldn't need to be reverse engineered. One would just have to read the patent.
> What right do we (heavy interent uses) have to expect light users to subsidize our usage?
None whatsoever, but:
If I pay for faster delivery I expect it irrespective of the destination.
If I pay for a larger volume of delivery the same expectation applies.
There is no intrinsic problem with charging by volume, although it is not a customer
winner. Customers like the predictability of what their bill will be, even if they
are usually light users.
Pro business and consumer.
Of course I may pay more for a higher speed connection. But they should
route my packets (and those back to me) with a speed and reliability that
is not controlled on the basis of the destination (or source) address.
The purpose of my giving them the delivery address is so they know where
to send it, other use of that information is improper.
This is analagous to the Postal Service. If I pay more I can get a packet
delivered faster. If the destination is remote it will take longer, of course,
but they should not be permitted to treat a packet with lower priority just
because they don't like (or haven't got a kickback from) the address to which
I am sending it.
It is interesting that an American company are moving data out of China,
in order to make it inaccessible to Chinese law.
At the same time American (and some other countires) law is assuming more
global coverage.
When I install commercial software I would generally rather go
to have a tooth pulled than phone the company that wrote it.
They will wait on hold, uninstall, reinstall before even starting
on any actual problem. There will be a large number of reboots.
Open source stuff, installs, usually without any reboot, If I do need
help there is usually better documentation than the commercial stuff
provides, and practical help is much easier to get if I should need it.
The source code is, after all, available; even if I'm not an expert at
a new (to me) piece of software, there seem to be many people who know
it more intimately than it is possible to know closed source software.
They are generally very, very helpful.
It's still an impressive technology, re-useability has a great appeal,
but what has the cost per launch got to now, and how does it compare
with more conventional rocket launches?
It is precisely the people for whom they couldn't get court approval to
bug that we care about here.
If there are names of people on this list which are sensitive, then they
can redact them. But it seems that the very point of controversy
is that the surveilance concerned is a 'fishing expedition' bugging
people for whom there is no reasonable cause to bug.
To release page after page of insignificant names, bugged for no good reason,
would seem to hold up the case against the buggers.
They will just specify that any ISP provide DNS service that
complies with their wishes, or they are out of business.
I suspect that all they mean is attempting to control the flow of information
at their borders, thumb their noses at ICANN.
They will only allow access to their own DNS, and will provide portals mapping
Internet DNS to their own internal DNS on a selective basis. Thus they can try
to allow the internet in on a 'deny then allow' policy.
Will this prevent any tech-savy Chinese users from accessing the real Internet? No.
Will it help to keep the mass of Chinese users from accessing the real Internet? Yes.
I don't think it will present too much of an obstacle to re-integration of the
"Chinternet" with the real Internet when they come to their senses.
An excellent project, it deserves to become dominant in internet
RSS news distribution.
It's nice to be able to browse the source code.
What can we do to encourage adoption of this, before some wretched
proprietary format tries to muscle in?
I'm not that familiar with netnews http://mcntp.sourceforge.net/,
but a quick check of the sites shows a rather different architecture.
This seems more targeted towards RSS type feeds, and looks like one of
those rather simple and clever ideas that strike one as:
"This looks like the way it should have been done from the beginning"
It addresses a very real problem with current RSS news feeds, and has what
looks like simple (that's a complement), complete, compatible, easy to install
software for a reasonable variety of platforms.
Cudos to Daniel Sandler at Rice.
>your subconscious mind is a better decision maker
Maybe this is because when we weigh the pros and cons of a decision conciously
we deceive oursleves and weigh it by criteria that we think OUGHT to be important.
Our subconcious will weigh it by what we really care about, and to hell with whether
we OUGHT to care about it.
I was looking into a provider for VoIP, Skype was reccomended to me,
with this news Skype is out. (Even though most of my computers have
Intel processors.)
Not because of the 10 v 5 way conferencing (I don't care) but because
of the mentality it conveys.
Can anyone name some competitors to Skype that offer world wide POTS
access?
Mea Culpa.
I did think of referring to it as a quote, but I thought 'reference' more appropriate.
Obviously I didn't check it.
It was what came to mind given the topic and the reference to 'crowd'.
Yet more evidence of the unreliability of one's memory.
Obligatory Monty Python Reference
Brian (Talking to crowd): You need to be independant minded.
Crowd: We are! We are!
Person in crowd: I'm not!
I've seen better proofs that 1 = 0.
Let people know that they can be tapped, and if they are notify them.
I had always assumed that any packet of information launched onto
the internet was available for anyone to sniff at. There is no
'expetation of privacy' here.
Encryption allows my information to be unreadable, anonymity and avoidance of
traffic analysis are only a little harder to achieve.
What the hell are they doing with this HUGE volume of data?
Of course it's up to the developers what license they will
release their code under.
It's still up to Linus what gets into the kernel.