You're addressing the problem of an attacker (the RIAA or their agents) finding you by looking at your network traffic. That's not what they're doing. They are finding nodes that offer files. The problem for the non-lame P2Per is that their node must tell good guys that they have lots of files and must tell bad guys that they have no files. The difficulty is that you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys on the network. One solution is to use private overlay networks, although the recent Finnish case demonstrates that it's hard to keep the "bad guys" (law enforcement in that case) out of the overlay network. Another solution would be use to use recommender systems, perhaps in a PGP style, but I haven't seen a P2P filesharing system that does that yet. Finally, Freenet attempts to give a sending node plausible deniability by hiding the true contents of a file from the sending node.
Oh, in case you meant that you were trying to hide network traffic from your network administrators (also "bad guys" from your point of view), then it would be simpler to use encryption (perhaps layering P2P communication over HTTP/SSL or SSH to avoid arousing suspicion).
And they have plenty of mney and don't need anymore, so why are they wating their time by trying to ruin one person's life?
Windows:
Have to pay for anti-virus, have to pay for firewall, have to pay for spyware removal, have to pay for a copy of windows and then you have to pay someone to set it up.
*BSD/Linuxes:
Have to pay for someone to set it up.
This is just another thing that Windows users will have to pay for in order to use. Why does Microsoft have to be so greedy?
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
Microsoft is basically damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't. If they don't patch the flaws, they're bad for providing an unsecured environment. If they do patch the flaws, they're bad for breaking existing applications.
I think that Microsoft should just make their OS secure to begin with instead of leaving problems to be fixed later. This is why no one likes Microsoft, because they will not just go ahead and fix their problems, they release patches all the time making Windows users need to constantly update their sofware.
Slashdot Mirror
You're addressing the problem of an attacker (the RIAA or their agents) finding you by looking at your network traffic. That's not what they're doing. They are finding nodes that offer files. The problem for the non-lame P2Per is that their node must tell good guys that they have lots of files and must tell bad guys that they have no files. The difficulty is that you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys on the network. One solution is to use private overlay networks, although the recent Finnish case demonstrates that it's hard to keep the "bad guys" (law enforcement in that case) out of the overlay network. Another solution would be use to use recommender systems, perhaps in a PGP style, but I haven't seen a P2P filesharing system that does that yet. Finally, Freenet attempts to give a sending node plausible deniability by hiding the true contents of a file from the sending node. Oh, in case you meant that you were trying to hide network traffic from your network administrators (also "bad guys" from your point of view), then it would be simpler to use encryption (perhaps layering P2P communication over HTTP/SSL or SSH to avoid arousing suspicion). And they have plenty of mney and don't need anymore, so why are they wating their time by trying to ruin one person's life?
Windows: Have to pay for anti-virus, have to pay for firewall, have to pay for spyware removal, have to pay for a copy of windows and then you have to pay someone to set it up. *BSD/Linuxes: Have to pay for someone to set it up. This is just another thing that Windows users will have to pay for in order to use. Why does Microsoft have to be so greedy?
Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?
Microsoft is basically damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't. If they don't patch the flaws, they're bad for providing an unsecured environment. If they do patch the flaws, they're bad for breaking existing applications. I think that Microsoft should just make their OS secure to begin with instead of leaving problems to be fixed later. This is why no one likes Microsoft, because they will not just go ahead and fix their problems, they release patches all the time making Windows users need to constantly update their sofware.