I want to jump on the content-void bandwagon! Come on, everyone, let's all try to get the last word while pointing out each parent's uselessness! Parrrr-tayyyy!
An excellent read. I particularly like the part that references today's fictional law enforcement stock characters who can give nice, patriotic, savage beatings these days and still be considered heroic.
Quantum, I think you forgot to log out and post anonymously before trolling, or perhaps you have some sort of split personality. Please explain what you're talking about.
As for the rest, I was going to reply a little bit to say that there's no reason to assume (from the summary) that the air force does not actually hold the copyright - plenty of works are copyrighted and held by the government, it's just that, with some exceptions, the default is that they pass into the public domain automatically (as used to be the case with private works as well). But this topic has already been attacked by countless other individuals, so instead I just want to record my disgust that so many people who do not understand copyright are clamoring for blood over a matter that, to me, does not seem controversial as far as DMCA notices go.
Question: what should mobitv have done to limit access? Password protect with a single global authentication token for all devices? Individual tokens for each subscriber? Going a step further to replace tokens with keys and encrypt the connection? How would this token/key information be protected on the device, assuming there's no hardware support for this?
I agree that there should be no ethical or legal implications tied to the action of sending an HTTP GET to a server, no matter the url (and excluding cases like DoS), but what would you consider the minimum level of "protection" to warrant calling unauthorized access a hack (or to phrase that better, to warrant calling the access howardforum's users performed "unauthorized")?
Technically, but since every combination of primitive ideas seems to be patentable, all the company has to do is patent the entire class of software serving the specific function theirs does, and no one can create a competing implementation.
> "No, the text you quoted is saying that *effectively* the TTL is a number of seconds argument"
I think you meant to say "number of hops", in which case we're not in disagreement about that so long as you use the qualifier "effectively". If you did mean "number of seconds" then I don't understand your point, as you seem to be contradicting your original statement. Mine was that the TTL cannot be regarded in a general technical sense as a "count of hops not time", but is rather a mixture of both.
The question this raises, and the reason it would be relevant for interplanetary communication, is if the TTL is supposed to be decremented by the travel time of a hop, what happens when the travel time exceeds 255 seconds? Perhaps I misread the RFC, because it does seem like a problem, and yet the IP over avion carrier ping still succeeded.
I thought the text spoke for itself: according to that document, the TTL is not the number of hops, but rather the number of seconds a packet has before it expires, minus 1 for every router it goes through. So in practice it appears as the number of hops so long as the trip time is less than one second. I don't know how that would extend to interplanetary transmission (or which side would be responsible for timing the link delay and decrementing the field), I just wanted to debunk the TTL = hops argument.
> The time is measured in > units of seconds (i.e. the value 1 means one second). Thus, the > maximum time to live is 255 seconds or 4.25 minutes. Since every > module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least > one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL > must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may > exist.
Technically he should've prefixed with * with a character range or sub-regex to operate on - what he had was at best a glob. As for the correctness of "**IA", it depends on whether one is trying to match "RIAA" or "MPAA", or match those strings exclusively.
Why not both? Personally I'm more miffed about forced non-textbook purchases than I am about textbook costs themselves. For instance, there are professors who mandate textbooks for the electronic homework or testing accounts they come with, even though the book itself is essentially unnecessary for the course. I haven't been burnt by that personally, but I have had to purchase other supplemental learning software that was entirely unnecessary in principle but required for my grade.
I'm so tired of instances of astroturfing or guerrilla marketing where the entity creating the fake material doesn't respect the target audience enough to make it look convincing. To you corporations looking to create more fake blogs: Sprinkling "omg this sucks" and gratuitous exclamation points does not automatically convince even the most idiotic member of the younger generation that you are one of them. Please try to have some tact, some sense of subtlety, both in the writing and the artificial circumstances (i.e., plot). Overacting doesn't convince anyone.
The first thing I thought of when I read that was South Park. They taught me that it's okay to hate the anti-tobacco people and overinflated BS, even when it's in the name of a good cause. They've certainly covered America's general overreaction to the threat of child abduction (the great wall episode); perhaps they'll tackle the 1/5 online equivalent. I'll grant it's unlikely though.
Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha. *panting* Ha ha! Ha ha ha hahaha ha! Ha ha. Green.. green paint, ha ha.... (long pause)... No, I still have one in me, wait for it. *breathing*
Ha ha ha! Hahaha ha! It's funny because it's green - Ha ha hahaha - PAINTED green! Hahaha.
(It feels good to burn karma - like I *earned* the right to act like an asshole.)
To be clear, when I wrote "Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal?", that wasn't sarcastic surprise. That should be read as "What? You think that the act of suggesting an illegal activity should itself be illegal?" The post came out funnier-sounding than I intended.
Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal? I don't know what the laws are in the god-forsaken country that would allow this kind of domain treachery to occur (the god-forsaken country *I* live in sucks in *different* ways!), but surely you wouldn't argue categorically against the expression of all ideas whose implementation would be controversial and illegal, unless you don't believe in the value of freedom of expression. Is that the case? For example, how would one argue that the law should be changed if expressing the notion that the law is wrong is itself prosecutable (or I should say persecutable)? (Of course I'm not arguing that laws prohibiting DDoS attacks are immoral, but the specific laws in question are besides the point.)
Mark my words. I have *never* come across anyone who liked it, in my entire undergraduate experience. Professors and students alike despise it, yet somehow our opinions don't seem to matter to the people making the purchasing decisions.
A couple things you said bugged me but this sums it up:
> "The problem is that I absolutely assure you that not every teacher is a good one, and they don't all deserve to have their words taken over the child's word just because they're the teacher."
That may be true on an individual basis, but without knowing anything specific about a teacher aside from the fact that they have that title, they do deserve a presumption of trustworthiness (over the child), especially if we're talking about elementary school years. While this may be a naive assumption (though I would argue it's a decent approximation), it is necessary for the system to have any worth - how can a classroom function at all without parental support?
Ok, I will admit the "Do you have audio-tape proof" line is absurdly demeaning to this entire aspect of society. It's rather sick that a parent would take such a hostile attitude towards a teacher (unless there's some sort of ongoing dispute to put the hostility in context).
I'm a little confused - what are your wife's elementary students doing that is so reprehensible yet inactionable? You make it sound like it's a war against the entire generation.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to jump on the content-void bandwagon! Come on, everyone, let's all try to get the last word while pointing out each parent's uselessness! Parrrr-tayyyy!
An excellent read. I particularly like the part that references today's fictional law enforcement stock characters who can give nice, patriotic, savage beatings these days and still be considered heroic.
Quantum, I think you forgot to log out and post anonymously before trolling, or perhaps you have some sort of split personality. Please explain what you're talking about.
Sure, I'll proclaim IANAL.
As for the rest, I was going to reply a little bit to say that there's no reason to assume (from the summary) that the air force does not actually hold the copyright - plenty of works are copyrighted and held by the government, it's just that, with some exceptions, the default is that they pass into the public domain automatically (as used to be the case with private works as well). But this topic has already been attacked by countless other individuals, so instead I just want to record my disgust that so many people who do not understand copyright are clamoring for blood over a matter that, to me, does not seem controversial as far as DMCA notices go.
Question: what should mobitv have done to limit access? Password protect with a single global authentication token for all devices? Individual tokens for each subscriber? Going a step further to replace tokens with keys and encrypt the connection? How would this token/key information be protected on the device, assuming there's no hardware support for this?
I agree that there should be no ethical or legal implications tied to the action of sending an HTTP GET to a server, no matter the url (and excluding cases like DoS), but what would you consider the minimum level of "protection" to warrant calling unauthorized access a hack (or to phrase that better, to warrant calling the access howardforum's users performed "unauthorized")?
Technically, but since every combination of primitive ideas seems to be patentable, all the company has to do is patent the entire class of software serving the specific function theirs does, and no one can create a competing implementation.
Email? Confidential? Isn't that an oxymoron without some form of encryption?
> "This is like excluding him from a debate when he got a higher % of the vote than another candidate who was not excluded."
How?
Seriously, how is removing the lowest candidate from a list the same as removing any other candidate from that list?
Was I the only one a little unnerved by that bad boy's description? Attacking the MBR *and* hiding in free disk space?
> "No, the text you quoted is saying that *effectively* the TTL is a number of seconds argument"
I think you meant to say "number of hops", in which case we're not in disagreement about that so long as you use the qualifier "effectively". If you did mean "number of seconds" then I don't understand your point, as you seem to be contradicting your original statement. Mine was that the TTL cannot be regarded in a general technical sense as a "count of hops not time", but is rather a mixture of both.
The question this raises, and the reason it would be relevant for interplanetary communication, is if the TTL is supposed to be decremented by the travel time of a hop, what happens when the travel time exceeds 255 seconds? Perhaps I misread the RFC, because it does seem like a problem, and yet the IP over avion carrier ping still succeeded.
I thought the text spoke for itself: according to that document, the TTL is not the number of hops, but rather the number of seconds a packet has before it expires, minus 1 for every router it goes through. So in practice it appears as the number of hops so long as the trip time is less than one second. I don't know how that would extend to interplanetary transmission (or which side would be responsible for timing the link delay and decrementing the field), I just wanted to debunk the TTL = hops argument.
That's what I thought too, but from RFC 791, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html
> The time is measured in
> units of seconds (i.e. the value 1 means one second). Thus, the
> maximum time to live is 255 seconds or 4.25 minutes. Since every
> module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least
> one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL
> must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may
> exist.
Technically he should've prefixed with * with a character range or sub-regex to operate on - what he had was at best a glob. As for the correctness of "**IA", it depends on whether one is trying to match "RIAA" or "MPAA", or match those strings exclusively.
Why not both? Personally I'm more miffed about forced non-textbook purchases than I am about textbook costs themselves. For instance, there are professors who mandate textbooks for the electronic homework or testing accounts they come with, even though the book itself is essentially unnecessary for the course. I haven't been burnt by that personally, but I have had to purchase other supplemental learning software that was entirely unnecessary in principle but required for my grade.
I'm so tired of instances of astroturfing or guerrilla marketing where the entity creating the fake material doesn't respect the target audience enough to make it look convincing. To you corporations looking to create more fake blogs: Sprinkling "omg this sucks" and gratuitous exclamation points does not automatically convince even the most idiotic member of the younger generation that you are one of them. Please try to have some tact, some sense of subtlety, both in the writing and the artificial circumstances (i.e., plot). Overacting doesn't convince anyone.
Obligatory response: http://xkcd.com/307/
I find my lack of freedom to do otherwise disturbing.
*Blank stares, momentary pause*
Kill the Wise One! *Otters swarm and destroy the AC*
The first thing I thought of when I read that was South Park. They taught me that it's okay to hate the anti-tobacco people and overinflated BS, even when it's in the name of a good cause. They've certainly covered America's general overreaction to the threat of child abduction (the great wall episode); perhaps they'll tackle the 1/5 online equivalent. I'll grant it's unlikely though.
Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha. ... (long pause) ...
*panting*
Ha ha! Ha ha ha hahaha ha! Ha ha. Green.. green paint, ha ha.
No, I still have one in me, wait for it.
*breathing*
Ha ha ha! Hahaha ha! It's funny because it's green - Ha ha hahaha - PAINTED green! Hahaha.
(It feels good to burn karma - like I *earned* the right to act like an asshole.)
To be clear, when I wrote "Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal?", that wasn't sarcastic surprise. That should be read as "What? You think that the act of suggesting an illegal activity should itself be illegal?" The post came out funnier-sounding than I intended.
Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal? I don't know what the laws are in the god-forsaken country that would allow this kind of domain treachery to occur (the god-forsaken country *I* live in sucks in *different* ways!), but surely you wouldn't argue categorically against the expression of all ideas whose implementation would be controversial and illegal, unless you don't believe in the value of freedom of expression. Is that the case? For example, how would one argue that the law should be changed if expressing the notion that the law is wrong is itself prosecutable (or I should say persecutable)? (Of course I'm not arguing that laws prohibiting DDoS attacks are immoral, but the specific laws in question are besides the point.)
Mark my words. I have *never* come across anyone who liked it, in my entire undergraduate experience. Professors and students alike despise it, yet somehow our opinions don't seem to matter to the people making the purchasing decisions.
A couple things you said bugged me but this sums it up:
> "The problem is that I absolutely assure you that not every teacher is a good one, and they don't all deserve to have their words taken over the child's word just because they're the teacher."
That may be true on an individual basis, but without knowing anything specific about a teacher aside from the fact that they have that title, they do deserve a presumption of trustworthiness (over the child), especially if we're talking about elementary school years. While this may be a naive assumption (though I would argue it's a decent approximation), it is necessary for the system to have any worth - how can a classroom function at all without parental support?
Ok, I will admit the "Do you have audio-tape proof" line is absurdly demeaning to this entire aspect of society. It's rather sick that a parent would take such a hostile attitude towards a teacher (unless there's some sort of ongoing dispute to put the hostility in context).
I'm a little confused - what are your wife's elementary students doing that is so reprehensible yet inactionable? You make it sound like it's a war against the entire generation.