Just because I don't personally check it does not make the source meaningless.
I trust that there are other users of the software who are better at doing things like this than I am. I know that the codebase is watched and studied by many programmers who would notice something fishy, and who have no financial incentive to trick me.
I don't have that luxury with proprietary software. I have to take the word of a company, rather than the word of a large heterogeneous community, that the software is safe. That is not nearly as trustworthy.
The first crowd is a different class of user from the general public. It's a small subset of the Facebook usership that forwards almost everything they receive to everyone they know. Pandering to that particular crowd is a Facebook developer's foremost goal, because they are the ones who will drive exponential growth, if it's going to happen at all.
I think market research will show that this core group of irritating people are just as capricious with the "block app" button as with the "forward". So assuming your idea is good enough to spread among the primary group, your first chance is generally the only one you get.
In that case, I think it would make more sense to wire your community with a redundant power grid (2 separate power sources for every domicile) rather than maintain an obsolete comm. protocol just because it was designed with a +45v wire.
But that's just the beginning. Java has a codebase made of prefabulated ammulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the pentametric fan.
In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.
If the phone company DID try to defend itself by providing any evidence one way or the other, it would be committing a federal crime.
How unfortunate for them. Then they must lose their court case for being unable to provide evidence to defend themselves, and they may in turn sue the government for exposing them to this liability in the first place.
On aside note, assuming computing power is no problem, wouldn't it be better to distribute multiple MD5 hashes of 128kb chunks of a given file. Then through brute force reassemble the file by solving for what the MD5 represents. Not only are you drastically cutting way down on bandwidth, but arguably you are not committing copyright infringement by transferring hashes.
Perhaps MD5 is not even the best for this, maybe a hash that has a lot of collisions and then you need a primer (like a URL for OFFS) to reassemble the file correctly. Otherwise, you may reassemble the file to represent something else that had a collision with the hashes you have.
Unfortunately, all hashes have lots of collisions when the hashes are shorter than the data being hashed. The Pigeonhole principle guarantees this. You can't brute-force a checksum back to the plaintext it came from because there are fantastically many other plaintexts that will give the same checksum.
"I saw my stolen car speed by and it had someone else's plates on it! I wrote down the plate number but I need you to subpoena the info from the licensing authority for me."
You can't possibly always know when you're presenting the computer an "obvious" decison, because the computer always knows something you don't: its own hand. The "optimal" move may be the move which avoids giving that secret away.
By the by, a table full of people can also team up to bully another human around by pulling him into expensive showdowns all the time. That a computer can be beaten by a table full of humans colluding is not really evidence of a weakness.
These semantic games are our smartassed way of showing the world that the spirit of copyright law is at its very core unenforceable without resorting to measures which are devastating to speech.
Free culture advocates should be spending more time picking these laws apart, finding the inconsistencies in them, and exploiting these inconsistencies to force the most absurd legal results we can.
What the smartassed teenager was actually doing was using an IRL reductio ad absurdum to show that the rule was flawed.
Information can be encoded and obfuscated as much as we like with absolutely no loss of meaning. A code can be devised to store any copyrighted work in a format that is as readable or unreadable as you want.
An encoding scheme could be set up with the property that when encoded, a PDF of War And Peace turns into a byte-perfect copy of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and when decoded becomes Dostoevsky again. There is no robust way to tell the difference between one and the other. This much is guaranteed by Turing et. al.
A set of rules which tries to make this distinction is simply inconsistent with what information is.
The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, jam the TCP timeout way down low. That will do wonders.
Just because I don't personally check it does not make the source meaningless.
I trust that there are other users of the software who are better at doing things like this than I am. I know that the codebase is watched and studied by many programmers who would notice something fishy, and who have no financial incentive to trick me.
I don't have that luxury with proprietary software. I have to take the word of a company, rather than the word of a large heterogeneous community, that the software is safe. That is not nearly as trustworthy.
There's Gobuntu as well.
The Debian team isn't afraid to have its work checked by its users.
Click to give her a greater more pleasure load of k.um!
I lol'd.
The first crowd is a different class of user from the general public. It's a small subset of the Facebook usership that forwards almost everything they receive to everyone they know. Pandering to that particular crowd is a Facebook developer's foremost goal, because they are the ones who will drive exponential growth, if it's going to happen at all.
I think market research will show that this core group of irritating people are just as capricious with the "block app" button as with the "forward". So assuming your idea is good enough to spread among the primary group, your first chance is generally the only one you get.
I think you overestimate the attention span of the type of people who compulsively install Facebook apps.
I am a misogynist, you insensitive clod!
In that case, I think it would make more sense to wire your community with a redundant power grid (2 separate power sources for every domicile) rather than maintain an obsolete comm. protocol just because it was designed with a +45v wire.
Actually, the Arris Touchstone 502G (among other VoIP MTAs) has a built-in battery backup.
If your cableco is also running a UPS at their headend, VoIP service should survive a power outage.
So, the failure of the market to solve a problem helped science to figure out what that problem was.
I would say that's exactly what's happening to the Internet.
But that's just the beginning. Java has a codebase made of prefabulated ammulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the pentametric fan.
In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.
How unfortunate for them. Then they must lose their court case for being unable to provide evidence to defend themselves, and they may in turn sue the government for exposing them to this liability in the first place.
That is how this would work if we made sense.
Someone's been reading Lessig.
I am in this thread too!
Unfortunately, all hashes have lots of collisions when the hashes are shorter than the data being hashed. The Pigeonhole principle guarantees this. You can't brute-force a checksum back to the plaintext it came from because there are fantastically many other plaintexts that will give the same checksum.
"I saw my stolen car speed by and it had someone else's plates on it! I wrote down the plate number but I need you to subpoena the info from the licensing authority for me."
How about Global Thermonuclear War?
You can't possibly always know when you're presenting the computer an "obvious" decison, because the computer always knows something you don't: its own hand. The "optimal" move may be the move which avoids giving that secret away.
By the by, a table full of people can also team up to bully another human around by pulling him into expensive showdowns all the time. That a computer can be beaten by a table full of humans colluding is not really evidence of a weakness.
These semantic games are our smartassed way of showing the world that the spirit of copyright law is at its very core unenforceable without resorting to measures which are devastating to speech.
Free culture advocates should be spending more time picking these laws apart, finding the inconsistencies in them, and exploiting these inconsistencies to force the most absurd legal results we can.
What the smartassed teenager was actually doing was using an IRL reductio ad absurdum to show that the rule was flawed.
HAY GUYZ, the problem here is pretty simple.
Information can be encoded and obfuscated as much as we like with absolutely no loss of meaning. A code can be devised to store any copyrighted work in a format that is as readable or unreadable as you want.
An encoding scheme could be set up with the property that when encoded, a PDF of War And Peace turns into a byte-perfect copy of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and when decoded becomes Dostoevsky again. There is no robust way to tell the difference between one and the other. This much is guaranteed by Turing et. al.
A set of rules which tries to make this distinction is simply inconsistent with what information is.
Pedagogical purposes.
Bomb designs are useful learning tools for military, enforcement, and industrial applications.
The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Can you blame them?
"Sir, I'd like to take a moment of your time to ask some questions about your Internet service..."