and are so used to it that it doesn't stand out when they use it in other contexts.
I KNOW JUST WHAT YOU MEAN. I USED TO PROGRAM IN FORTRAN AND COBOL WHERE YOU HAD TO TYPE IN ALL UPPER CASE WHICH WAS HARD ON THE EYES BUT I DON'T THINK THOSE LANGUAGES HAVE HAD A LASTING EFFECT ON MY WRITING
(slashdot insists that I don't use so many uppercase letters because it's like yelling, but I like to say that it's like programming).
Here's a brief recap: by looking at {mean value, variance} of {packet size, interpacket delays} going {up, down} and packet entropy for a specific flow, you get a point in a nine-dimensional space. Encrypted protocols tend to cluster together.
So here's the ISP algorithm: Measure a flow, find its nearest cluster, guess that behind the encryption is traffic of the protocol belonging in that cluster. If bittorrent, kill.
Note that Rob & Dohit don't look at how many simultaneous connections you make. That also tends to give away P2P traffic.
So the ISP can see you're P2P'ing. They can't detect whether it's illegal, or who should sue you, but they can (probably) see it's bittorrent.
Guys at FSF, if you want your message to reach the public, take some web design lessons.
Do you know and remember the old gnu.org site? You know, the one with black text on white and blue links [probably because that was the browser default]? Where the only document structure was h1 and p, with an em or two thrown about for, well, emphasis?
That was actually a good design (for a particular subset of parameters). It was viewable with any browser (almost including netcat:D), it handled just about any window size well [as well as possible, at least], it was friendly for the colorblind, the structure was quite simple with no sidebars, no top-bars... no clutter.
But then someone went and changed it, and now there are all the colors, and double-column layout (with long columns), and... meh.
I think the FSF is using some ineffective rhetoric.
The first sin:
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.
I think this rhetoric only works if the reader already is at least somewhat suspicious of Microsoft.
To someone whose only experience with non-MS OSes is watching 90's movies (remember the Apple product placement) and maybe using a Mac at a friend's house once or twice; to someone whose only complaint about Microsoft software is that it crashes a bit too often and thinks this is just the way computers are; to someone who thinks that Windows and Office is the "standard" software and that it's useful to use what everyone else uses; to someone who doesn't think (rightly or wrongly) that the MS monopoly is causing bad things to happen to them---
What is the FSF saying? That schools should teach children how to use another OS that very few people use, and that might not work well together with what everyone uses? "Yeah, sure, monopolies aren't great, but I want my kids to learn something useful instead of what some ideologue thinks is right."
I don't agree with "the common man"'s interpretation, but I think that's what it is.
I think a much more powerful message could be sent by pounding (hard) on the fact that Microsoft is costing you more money that they have to. But they don't make a big fuss out of that:
4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
That really hasn't been my experience when I was using Windows: I wanted faster boxes such that I could play better games. How many people have upgraded computers to run newer versions of Windows/Office? In any case, why doesn't the FSF say in big, nasty, red letters: "Microsoft is making you spend money (excessively)!"? [add an OMGBBQROFL and exclamation marks if you think it makes the message more convincing].
Oh well... I think it's good of the FSF to try*, although I doubt the effectiveness of their methods.
[* I happen to use (GNU/)Linux, but if the FSF was advocating Haiku or OpenVMS or $NOT_LINUX as their main Windows alternative, I'd still be happy: I want more competition in the OS market, and a more fragmented platform base that'll encourage software vendors to write portable code; when you ignore 40% of the market instead of 5%, you might rethink not porting. Maybe this'll just shift apps even more onto the web, though...]
they can drag a "Person of Interest" to the border, search him, and bring him back.
But isn't that in some sense forcibly throwing someone out of the country? Isn't there some law against that?
Does the executive (i.e. police) have the power to do that? Isn't it the case that they can merely detain you until you get put in front of a judge, and the judge can then decide which privacy violations are acceptable in the name of gathering evidence?
Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?
Yes, but it's imperative to give up the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure to capture the dumb terrorists!
(At least that's the only way I can make an argument for what happens that's halfway sensible. It could also be a bald-faced power grab from a people who is thought to either not care or feel it can't do anything about it.)
You should pay for people who spend tons of [time creating?] it, or just not use it like any other product. Just because it can be digitized on your computer doesn't mean you should be able to get it for free.
Well, as a matter of fact it does mean you should get it for free.
But "should" according to which principle? The principle that we as a (world-wide) society should try to maximize our material well-being (all other kinds of well-being being equal).
See, bits cost roughly nothing to copy (the price is so small that practically everyone is willing to pay it). That means that society loses out if someone would want a copy of those bits (more than they want the money they use to pay for the electricity used to copy them).
Therefore, all bits (that have been published) should be available for free.
The problem is then how to motivate people to create those bits in the first place.
In a "normal" market, with a non-trivial marginal (re)production cost, prices both encourage production ("ooh, I can make monies!") and optimal allocation (those who want stuff most badly, in terms of how much money they're willing to pay, get the stuff). With a trivial marginal production cost (bits and ideas), prices impede the optimal allocation ("give one to everyone") but no prices impede the motivation.
It's an interesting economic question to ponder: how to motivate without impeding the optimal allocation.
But the optimal allocation is "everybody gets one", so that's what should happen. You should be able to get it for free.
[Which probably won't be completely "for free" if it's, say, tax-paid scientific research published with no strings attached]
It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's fulfilled by the external factor that not enough Linux users are buying games. For it to be self-fulfilling would indicate circularity -- that Linux users aren't buying games because they aren't being put out.
I think it's in part a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Part of the reason Linux users don't buy Linux games is the lack of Linux games (which means there's insufficient revenue in releasing for Linux, which drives away the offers of Linux games).
Why? Well, if a large portion of your PC games are for Windows only, it means you have to have a Windows machine around. As long as you have that, you won't mind buying one more Windows game. Since porting to Linux costs money and those who sell games can get the same amount of your money without porting, why should they?
Now, let's assume that 95% of games were available for Linux. Enough people would stop having a Windows machine around and buy only those games available for Linux. That means there's a real return to porting to Linux.
That's part of the explanation. There's probably also an element of this: I got my OS for free, I got my applications for free, I get my movies and music for free (offa' legaltorrents.com of course:D), why should I pay for games? That's not self-fulfilling. But some of the explanation is.
[if my assumptions about what's really an empirical question are correct.]
Some people have been found to use the internet despite the negative consequences. This list includes loss of family, freinds, financial standing, helath and even death.
While loss of death sounds really cool, I'm worried about the impact of Internet use on my grammar and spelling.
Within the next 25 years, cellphones will become at least twice as fast.
At least one person, someone, somewhere, who has the power to decide these things, will get the brilliant and innovative idea of putting a frigging NTP client on a phone so I don't have to set the clock myself [and adjust for DST]. Heck, maybe it can be NTP++ that uses GPS info to determine my timezone too.
We will all move to using skype instead of voice calls and twitter instead of SMS. Or perhaps Google Talk and email, but that's probably just me being naive and wishful.
I believe the main giveaway that stormtroopers are clones is Princess Leia's line ["Aren't you a little short?"]
Could be a hiring policy---tall people exude more authority, which is kinda' useful if your job includes shooting people who don't subject themselves to your, well, authority.
I think this clue has multiple interpretations, none of which can be completely ruled out.
When you want to use statistics you have to use a truly random sample if you want your results to be interpreted as valuable.
The sample has to be a truly* random subset of which set, though?
Maybe you want to know stuff about the xbox brokenness experience of heavy gamers, as opposed to that of the general population.
Why might you want that? Well, if you're trying to sell research to a crowd of heavy gamers, you want to sell them something that's says something about them specifically (since heavy usage probably predicts increased breakage level, i.e. what makes that group special actually influences the numbers). It narrows the applicability of the statistics, but also makes it more useful for the narrower set of people. Better or worse? Depends.
Consider this: if you wanted to know how likely you were to get hit with lung cancer, would you look at its prevalence among a random subset of the population, or would you want to look at smokers or non-smokers only (depending on whether or not you smoke)?
* By the way, I assume that in your dictionary "truly random" implies a uniform distribution, which happens to maximize the shannon entropy of the stochastic variable (i.e. the uniform distribution is the "most" random one).
When you feel the temptation to say "your numbers don't mean anything", consider whether you really should be saying "your numbers don't prove that" instead.
In this particular case, self-selection and sample bias for heavy users probably increases the breakage numbers. One should adjust the conclusion accordingly.
[500 from Seattle/Tacoma, WA] is a very small set from a very small region
I agree with you on the region part---I don't know that people are equally happy in all places of the world (or the US).
But as for using more people---based on what statistical calculations do you say that the number of people is insufficient? Is the observed variance absurdly unrealistic?
[BMI is] not accurate in the 'overweight' range
BMI is not great to measure individuals, but it can work reasonably well to measure populations---there's a distribution of people heavy with muscle vs. heavy with fat, and if you select random people those two groups cancel out. Do you know that this isn't the case here? How do you know?
I don't claim to have answers that contradict yours---or rather, I don't claim to know that those answers are true. It's just that the questions should be asked and answered before I'll agree with your claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Da Da-Da-Da Da Da Da, Da Da, Da Da, Da Da Da
Your "Nyet" is out of tune, comrade.
Yeah, I think it's pretty well established that you can have good security with software that no one would buy or use by choice.
Somehow that makes me think of the name "Theo". I don't know why. Must be some coincidence. ;-)
I think the OP meant to say "There are no myth is of security" =)
and are so used to it that it doesn't stand out when they use it in other contexts.
I KNOW JUST WHAT YOU MEAN. I USED TO PROGRAM IN FORTRAN AND COBOL WHERE YOU HAD TO TYPE IN ALL UPPER CASE WHICH WAS HARD ON THE EYES BUT I DON'T THINK THOSE LANGUAGES HAVE HAD A LASTING EFFECT ON MY WRITING
(slashdot insists that I don't use so many uppercase letters because it's like yelling, but I like to say that it's like programming).
dit dit daw
dit dit dit
dit
daw dit
dit
daw
daw dit daw dit
dit daw
daw
dit dit dit daw dit daw
That's "use netcat"; credits go to morse(6).
Encrypted torrent traffic can - to my knowledge - not be detected by the ISP
See http://www.shmoocon.org/2007/speakers.html for Rob King and Rohit Dhamankar on "Encrypted Protocol Identification via Statistical Analysis".
Here's a brief recap: by looking at {mean value, variance} of {packet size, interpacket delays} going {up, down} and packet entropy for a specific flow, you get a point in a nine-dimensional space. Encrypted protocols tend to cluster together.
So here's the ISP algorithm: Measure a flow, find its nearest cluster, guess that behind the encryption is traffic of the protocol belonging in that cluster. If bittorrent, kill.
Note that Rob & Dohit don't look at how many simultaneous connections you make. That also tends to give away P2P traffic.
So the ISP can see you're P2P'ing. They can't detect whether it's illegal, or who should sue you, but they can (probably) see it's bittorrent.
Guys at FSF, if you want your message to reach the public, take some web design lessons.
Do you know and remember the old gnu.org site? You know, the one with black text on white and blue links [probably because that was the browser default]? Where the only document structure was h1 and p, with an em or two thrown about for, well, emphasis?
That was actually a good design (for a particular subset of parameters). It was viewable with any browser (almost including netcat :D), it handled just about any window size well [as well as possible, at least], it was friendly for the colorblind, the structure was quite simple with no sidebars, no top-bars... no clutter.
But then someone went and changed it, and now there are all the colors, and double-column layout (with long columns), and... meh.
I think the FSF is using some ineffective rhetoric.
The first sin:
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.
I think this rhetoric only works if the reader already is at least somewhat suspicious of Microsoft.
To someone whose only experience with non-MS OSes is watching 90's movies (remember the Apple product placement) and maybe using a Mac at a friend's house once or twice; to someone whose only complaint about Microsoft software is that it crashes a bit too often and thinks this is just the way computers are; to someone who thinks that Windows and Office is the "standard" software and that it's useful to use what everyone else uses; to someone who doesn't think (rightly or wrongly) that the MS monopoly is causing bad things to happen to them---
What is the FSF saying? That schools should teach children how to use another OS that very few people use, and that might not work well together with what everyone uses? "Yeah, sure, monopolies aren't great, but I want my kids to learn something useful instead of what some ideologue thinks is right."
I don't agree with "the common man"'s interpretation, but I think that's what it is.
I think a much more powerful message could be sent by pounding (hard) on the fact that Microsoft is costing you more money that they have to. But they don't make a big fuss out of that:
4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
That really hasn't been my experience when I was using Windows: I wanted faster boxes such that I could play better games. How many people have upgraded computers to run newer versions of Windows/Office? In any case, why doesn't the FSF say in big, nasty, red letters: "Microsoft is making you spend money (excessively)!"? [add an OMGBBQROFL and exclamation marks if you think it makes the message more convincing].
Oh well... I think it's good of the FSF to try*, although I doubt the effectiveness of their methods.
[* I happen to use (GNU/)Linux, but if the FSF was advocating Haiku or OpenVMS or $NOT_LINUX as their main Windows alternative, I'd still be happy: I want more competition in the OS market, and a more fragmented platform base that'll encourage software vendors to write portable code; when you ignore 40% of the market instead of 5%, you might rethink not porting. Maybe this'll just shift apps even more onto the web, though...]
they can drag a "Person of Interest" to the border, search him, and bring him back.
But isn't that in some sense forcibly throwing someone out of the country? Isn't there some law against that?
Does the executive (i.e. police) have the power to do that? Isn't it the case that they can merely detain you until you get put in front of a judge, and the judge can then decide which privacy violations are acceptable in the name of gathering evidence?
Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?
Yes, but it's imperative to give up the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure to capture the dumb terrorists!
(At least that's the only way I can make an argument for what happens that's halfway sensible. It could also be a bald-faced power grab from a people who is thought to either not care or feel it can't do anything about it.)
You should pay for people who spend tons of [time creating?] it, or just not use it like any other product. Just because it can be digitized on your computer doesn't mean you should be able to get it for free.
Well, as a matter of fact it does mean you should get it for free.
But "should" according to which principle? The principle that we as a (world-wide) society should try to maximize our material well-being (all other kinds of well-being being equal).
See, bits cost roughly nothing to copy (the price is so small that practically everyone is willing to pay it). That means that society loses out if someone would want a copy of those bits (more than they want the money they use to pay for the electricity used to copy them).
Therefore, all bits (that have been published) should be available for free.
The problem is then how to motivate people to create those bits in the first place.
In a "normal" market, with a non-trivial marginal (re)production cost, prices both encourage production ("ooh, I can make monies!") and optimal allocation (those who want stuff most badly, in terms of how much money they're willing to pay, get the stuff). With a trivial marginal production cost (bits and ideas), prices impede the optimal allocation ("give one to everyone") but no prices impede the motivation.
It's an interesting economic question to ponder: how to motivate without impeding the optimal allocation.
But the optimal allocation is "everybody gets one", so that's what should happen. You should be able to get it for free.
[Which probably won't be completely "for free" if it's, say, tax-paid scientific research published with no strings attached]
It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's fulfilled by the external factor that not enough Linux users are buying games. For it to be self-fulfilling would indicate circularity -- that Linux users aren't buying games because they aren't being put out.
I think it's in part a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Part of the reason Linux users don't buy Linux games is the lack of Linux games (which means there's insufficient revenue in releasing for Linux, which drives away the offers of Linux games).
Why? Well, if a large portion of your PC games are for Windows only, it means you have to have a Windows machine around. As long as you have that, you won't mind buying one more Windows game. Since porting to Linux costs money and those who sell games can get the same amount of your money without porting, why should they?
Now, let's assume that 95% of games were available for Linux. Enough people would stop having a Windows machine around and buy only those games available for Linux. That means there's a real return to porting to Linux.
That's part of the explanation. There's probably also an element of this: I got my OS for free, I got my applications for free, I get my movies and music for free (offa' legaltorrents.com of course :D), why should I pay for games? That's not self-fulfilling. But some of the explanation is.
[if my assumptions about what's really an empirical question are correct.]
At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.
I always thought Apple was fond of saying "You just work!"
Or something like that...
(By the way, how do you make an Apple employee angry? You push his button...)
Ah. My point still stands, but doesn't apply to your post then.
Some people have been found to use the internet despite the negative consequences. This list includes loss of family, freinds, financial standing, helath and even death.
While loss of death sounds really cool, I'm worried about the impact of Internet use on my grammar and spelling.
Look at all the past predictions about the future back then, and what do you see? An extrapolation of the technology
Yeah, a 100 years ago everybody wanted what they read about in sci-fi novels: flying horses!
Here's a humble guess, a hope and another guess:
No diseases from dirty telephones?
I believe the main giveaway that stormtroopers are clones is Princess Leia's line ["Aren't you a little short?"]
Could be a hiring policy---tall people exude more authority, which is kinda' useful if your job includes shooting people who don't subject themselves to your, well, authority.
I think this clue has multiple interpretations, none of which can be completely ruled out.
When you want to use statistics you have to use a truly random sample if you want your results to be interpreted as valuable.
The sample has to be a truly* random subset of which set, though?
Maybe you want to know stuff about the xbox brokenness experience of heavy gamers, as opposed to that of the general population.
Why might you want that? Well, if you're trying to sell research to a crowd of heavy gamers, you want to sell them something that's says something about them specifically (since heavy usage probably predicts increased breakage level, i.e. what makes that group special actually influences the numbers). It narrows the applicability of the statistics, but also makes it more useful for the narrower set of people. Better or worse? Depends.
Consider this: if you wanted to know how likely you were to get hit with lung cancer, would you look at its prevalence among a random subset of the population, or would you want to look at smokers or non-smokers only (depending on whether or not you smoke)?
* By the way, I assume that in your dictionary "truly random" implies a uniform distribution, which happens to maximize the shannon entropy of the stochastic variable (i.e. the uniform distribution is the "most" random one).
When you feel the temptation to say "your numbers don't mean anything", consider whether you really should be saying "your numbers don't prove that" instead.
In this particular case, self-selection and sample bias for heavy users probably increases the breakage numbers. One should adjust the conclusion accordingly.
It's funny how today's PCs continue to take architectural queues
Yes, but modern PCs take them with no sense of priorities, so the queues just end up in a big heap instead of a neat, orderly stack.
(I think you cued my inner grammar Nazi, and he didn't have to wait in a queue)
I don't make homonym substitution errors in the first place, so (all elitist and snotty-like) I eye people who do make those mistakes warily.
Aye, aye!
That would be a dangling[7] footnote
[8] but I agree, unreferenced footnotes are bad.
[10] so are badly numbered ones.
[500 from Seattle/Tacoma, WA] is a very small set from a very small region
I agree with you on the region part---I don't know that people are equally happy in all places of the world (or the US).
But as for using more people---based on what statistical calculations do you say that the number of people is insufficient? Is the observed variance absurdly unrealistic?
[BMI is] not accurate in the 'overweight' range
BMI is not great to measure individuals, but it can work reasonably well to measure populations---there's a distribution of people heavy with muscle vs. heavy with fat, and if you select random people those two groups cancel out. Do you know that this isn't the case here? How do you know?
I don't claim to have answers that contradict yours---or rather, I don't claim to know that those answers are true. It's just that the questions should be asked and answered before I'll agree with your claims.
He obviously meant 10+ years!