using mod_rewrite we were able to send the right header to solve this problem, but we were using the apache as a file server too and we couldn't modify the content type header for some reason if the content could have changed for that URL.
so again, i wouldn't say all apaches servers would have this problem either... but some would.
i have dealt with ISPs that charge you a fee based on the % CPU time your user on the shared box used. so yes, CPU cycles do directly = more cost in some contracts.
and why did you colo 10 boxes instead of just 1? probably because you ran out of CPU cycles on the rest. so your costs went up 10 times because of more boxes needed. more boxes = more space = more costs. and more heat and more electricity = more fans = more electricity = more heat. if you can't understand even a very simple economic system, then don't respond to my genius insight.
i used gzip with apache at an old job and we ran into a problem with it... some obscure header problem in conjunction with mod-rewrite.
so i wouldn't say ANY site using apache... but probably most. the real problem there is with compression load on the servers... gzip compression doesn't just happen you know, it takes CPU cycles that could be being used to just push data rather than encode it.
i tried tivo desktop out, but the files are usually well over a gig for an hour show... is tivo going to pay for all that bandwidth? this is like a windows update size problem to solve.
am i the only person to click on these articles expecting a damn example picture, only to be disappointed every single time?
if you took this to court and didn't have a sample picture for evidence the case would be thrown out... so media, if you are going to try and present me with the case, how about a god damn sample picture. this is the internet... if it would be too hard to incorporate into your print media, well, i think that's saying something about your print media.
eventually you'll all realize that without proper organization our country will fall behind countries that do properly organize themselves. assuming a non corrupt police force, and changes to the legal system making all victimless acts non-crimes, no one has anything to fear. anyone who has built any sort of organized system of any kind realizes that people need unique identifiers.
this is one of the problems that could be solved if we all had non-duplicatable, non-removable, non-transferable world wide ID cards. the clickers would work using the worldID as a security key.
agreed... but this whole article doesn't even assume a payload. it's like saying that a suitcase bomb could make it through security because you've already proven that an empty suitcase can get through security. again, this is just stupid propeganda.
1) it's a scripting language
2) assume you already have command line access
a "virus" at this point is trivial... just append the code to append itself at the end of every file it assumes is a script for this command line.
this is like batch file viruses that format the drive... it isn't anything special, it's just a matter of getting the mark to run the file. nothing to see here.
a system just as vunerable to attack as their's as well.... if we all don't have unique identifiers as people, no system would be safe from a group of clone users working for the enemy.
1) that there will be more real honest users than fake users created by someone who wants to take the system down.
2) that the fake users will be used more than once and thus you could track them.
a user is nothing more than an entry in a database and if you let the public freely create users, then anyone who wants can create unlimited users. get their reputations up, then send them in for their suicide mission to screw up a few files and make the day 3 seconds harder for your average music pirate... i mean, face it, that is what we're talking about here. we aren't worried about viruses... we have anti-virus software... we're specifically talking about falsely advertised media content files.
but what if i voted exactlly like you on 1,000 items... or 10,000 items... and so did 10,000 users just like me. and then we ALL spammed a bad file and marked it good, and then spammed a good file and marked it bad. such that the ratio of thumbs up votes to thumbs down votes was the same in both cases... you can figure that out by knowing about how many people will vote on each file and how often they will vote correctly.
THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM IS JUST TRYING TO FIND LOOPHOLES AROUND THE RIAA'S INITIAL DEFENSE. there is no other reason for it, and it is doomed to fail if ANYONE chooses to make it fail.
well, just answer this:
i am a spammer who can create 1000 users an hour. all of these users will place 10,000 votes on files. his reputation will be perfect. then 24,000 of these "perfect users" will all give a thumbs up to a bad file. their voting record is 99.99% matching with your ideal user, and the 24,000 thumbs up votes FAR outweigh incoming thumbs down votes. if the thumbs down votes are able to catch up, i'll just increase the pressure to keep them down. how can you systematically stop that? you can't. you can't just discredit people because they voted "wrong" once... you can't figure out when this is happening, because for just as many good files you'll have a symmetrical group of clone users voting thumbs down to those... so you can't default on an action when there is controversy... you have to have a trusted governing body step in and make the ruling. the system has unstopable holes... the only reason the system exists is to stop the people who would exploit these holes, so you can't say it will discourage most people... because it probably will. and it may even work on some files for a while. but the second that it hurts the RIAA they'll step in and spend the time needed to execute the simple defense.
i understand exactly what it is. if you value someone who votes like you, and we assume you vote perfect, then you will highly respect the vote of someone just like you. so the RIAA creates tons of users that vote perfect. this can be automated and can not be stopped. any sollution to stop creation of fake accounts is just another layer idiocy.
block certain IPs? ok well i'll call up a trojan author and get my account creation program put in his next virus.
require valid email addresses? come on, if this was possible we wouldn't have spam.
if the RIAA is willing to pollute the FILES, then OF COURSE they are willing to pollute the user base, and it is trivial for them to do so.
this is like putting a lock on your screen door after a robber broke the window next door. if he's willing to push through the screen he can still get in. dumb dumb dumb. and you idiots responding are even worse. no, it makes sense, i only trust people that think like me... isn't that how the nazis worked?
actually, no. i am right. the way i said it would work is the RIAA gets users to BE IN YOUR TRUST CIRCLE, and then suicide bomb a bad file with thumbs up.
individual users don't mean anything if you can mold millions of them however you want and then dispose of them. like i said before, if the RIAA is the one distributing the bad files, then they obviously know which ones those are, so they can auto create tons of users who vote PERFECTLY, and thus everyone will value the opinion of extremely highly.
nobody has a vested interest at K5. if corrupting the system will raise it's bottom line, and the only part of the system the RIAA would be corrupting is the part infringing their copyrights, then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
what if there were more "mod-trolls" at K5 than real users "actually participating"? what if there were more "mod-trolls" than actual users?! then how do you make the system work. any system that assumes people will vote correctly is inherently flawed.
buddy, i did read it. let's say i am the RIAA, i pay a kid to vote on tons of files to gain a high reputation level. i record and duplicate that process and create 100,000 user accounts that all have high reputations automatically. now i upload a fake file and give it 100,000 thumbs up votes with my clone army. now because the thumb's up are in the majority, the thumb's down votes will actually result in LOWERING the reputation of the people voting correctly and RAISING the reputation of the people spamming the system. ok, so you ban all those users. ok, now the RIAA runs their user account creation script and has another 100,000 users ready with full reputation in minutes. if you put a delay on how fast users can get reputation then they'll just constantly be creating large sums of users. add some text image verification during user creation? i'll pay someone $10 to type in the text and automate it so i can get 3600 users an hour. do you think you can keep up getting 3600 new REAL users an hour to stop me? i doubt it. YOU CAN NOT run an honest voting system unless every vote can be linked with a unique human. without "barcoding" our nation we can't get anything truly intelligent done.
so how about instead of me reading the fucking article, you sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic. TAFFTOL. TAFFTOL.
Slashdot Mirror
so again, i wouldn't say all apaches servers would have this problem either... but some would.
"no, we can't store 2 copies... then we'll have a sync issue... no no no, we have to decompress realtime to browsers that don't accept gzip"
"uh sir, do you know what 'realtime' even means? and that is just stupid."
"JOHNSON!!#^%!#%!#^ GRRRRRR#@^%#^#^@!#^@"
semantics cost everyone money
(Oh, the semantics.)
i have dealt with ISPs that charge you a fee based on the % CPU time your user on the shared box used. so yes, CPU cycles do directly = more cost in some contracts.
and why did you colo 10 boxes instead of just 1? probably because you ran out of CPU cycles on the rest. so your costs went up 10 times because of more boxes needed. more boxes = more space = more costs. and more heat and more electricity = more fans = more electricity = more heat. if you can't understand even a very simple economic system, then don't respond to my genius insight.
so i wouldn't say ANY site using apache... but probably most. the real problem there is with compression load on the servers... gzip compression doesn't just happen you know, it takes CPU cycles that could be being used to just push data rather than encode it.
i tried tivo desktop out, but the files are usually well over a gig for an hour show... is tivo going to pay for all that bandwidth? this is like a windows update size problem to solve.
skepticism ignored... but emoticons? there is no excuse.
pro tools le is available on windows XP.
if you took this to court and didn't have a sample picture for evidence the case would be thrown out... so media, if you are going to try and present me with the case, how about a god damn sample picture. this is the internet... if it would be too hard to incorporate into your print media, well, i think that's saying something about your print media.
i have dual screens and it worked fine for me. it played in full screen mode on just my main screen and left the other one alone.
eventually you'll all realize that without proper organization our country will fall behind countries that do properly organize themselves. assuming a non corrupt police force, and changes to the legal system making all victimless acts non-crimes, no one has anything to fear. anyone who has built any sort of organized system of any kind realizes that people need unique identifiers.
this is one of the problems that could be solved if we all had non-duplicatable, non-removable, non-transferable world wide ID cards. the clickers would work using the worldID as a security key.
also, i was referring to old WINDOWS batch file viruses which didn't even have the concept of a root user.
agreed... but this whole article doesn't even assume a payload. it's like saying that a suitcase bomb could make it through security because you've already proven that an empty suitcase can get through security. again, this is just stupid propeganda.
2) assume you already have command line access
a "virus" at this point is trivial... just append the code to append itself at the end of every file it assumes is a script for this command line.
this is like batch file viruses that format the drive... it isn't anything special, it's just a matter of getting the mark to run the file. nothing to see here.
a system just as vunerable to attack as their's as well.... if we all don't have unique identifiers as people, no system would be safe from a group of clone users working for the enemy.
1) that there will be more real honest users than fake users created by someone who wants to take the system down.
2) that the fake users will be used more than once and thus you could track them.
a user is nothing more than an entry in a database and if you let the public freely create users, then anyone who wants can create unlimited users. get their reputations up, then send them in for their suicide mission to screw up a few files and make the day 3 seconds harder for your average music pirate... i mean, face it, that is what we're talking about here. we aren't worried about viruses... we have anti-virus software... we're specifically talking about falsely advertised media content files.
THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM IS JUST TRYING TO FIND LOOPHOLES AROUND THE RIAA'S INITIAL DEFENSE. there is no other reason for it, and it is doomed to fail if ANYONE chooses to make it fail.
well, just answer this: i am a spammer who can create 1000 users an hour. all of these users will place 10,000 votes on files. his reputation will be perfect. then 24,000 of these "perfect users" will all give a thumbs up to a bad file. their voting record is 99.99% matching with your ideal user, and the 24,000 thumbs up votes FAR outweigh incoming thumbs down votes. if the thumbs down votes are able to catch up, i'll just increase the pressure to keep them down. how can you systematically stop that? you can't. you can't just discredit people because they voted "wrong" once... you can't figure out when this is happening, because for just as many good files you'll have a symmetrical group of clone users voting thumbs down to those... so you can't default on an action when there is controversy... you have to have a trusted governing body step in and make the ruling. the system has unstopable holes... the only reason the system exists is to stop the people who would exploit these holes, so you can't say it will discourage most people... because it probably will. and it may even work on some files for a while. but the second that it hurts the RIAA they'll step in and spend the time needed to execute the simple defense.
block certain IPs? ok well i'll call up a trojan author and get my account creation program put in his next virus.
require valid email addresses? come on, if this was possible we wouldn't have spam.
if the RIAA is willing to pollute the FILES, then OF COURSE they are willing to pollute the user base, and it is trivial for them to do so.
this is like putting a lock on your screen door after a robber broke the window next door. if he's willing to push through the screen he can still get in. dumb dumb dumb. and you idiots responding are even worse. no, it makes sense, i only trust people that think like me... isn't that how the nazis worked?
individual users don't mean anything if you can mold millions of them however you want and then dispose of them. like i said before, if the RIAA is the one distributing the bad files, then they obviously know which ones those are, so they can auto create tons of users who vote PERFECTLY, and thus everyone will value the opinion of extremely highly.
THINK.
what if there were more "mod-trolls" at K5 than real users "actually participating"? what if there were more "mod-trolls" than actual users?! then how do you make the system work. any system that assumes people will vote correctly is inherently flawed.
so how about instead of me reading the fucking article, you sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic. TAFFTOL. TAFFTOL.