Your argument, if I understand it, is that given key A, then you find find the nodes that have it and shut them down.
On Freenet this becomes a non-trivial task.
First- all communication between nodes is encrypted. You'd need to do a real time decryption of the communication in order to spy.
Secondly, nodes will often respond even if they don't have the data- that's the point. Even with NG routing- it's still onion routing. A node that responds that it has a peice of data may just be lieing. And by requesting the data in the first place, due to agressive caching- you're spreading the data across the network.
As to then shutting down the nodes- you'd have to shut down nodes in places all over the world.
Lastly, you could just make a second copy of a given data, new key and then then your plan is foiled.
You should really read more of the Freenet docs- they explain all this.
This reminds me of a project where some artists decided to make a project where they would make the "most popular" painting and song based on a survey.
They surved style, tempo, length, voice and content for the song, for example.
They also made the "least popular" works using similar techniques.
Yes, but regulation also made the playing ground clear.
What I mean is that we knew what to expect. Do you honestly believe in the current context of bandwidth monoplies that "Let the market decide" will work? Maybe you're more trusting than me- but there are only, maybe five cable companies left. As for DSL, there seems to be Verizon and companies that buy Verizon likes and resell. In the Mid-Atlantic it seems the only company that does that is Covad (who then often resells the service to other companies).
So who are these companies competing with? What incentive do they have to provide more customer friendly service?
I agree with you- competition works. Look at the price of long distance after de-regulation.
But regulation can also be a good thing, such as preventing one company from owning "too much" of the infrastructure and then leveraging that against the consumer.
I see the current situation with bad EULAs and companies going after customers as a direct result of monopoly-like practices, lack of competition in the local market and lack of Congress to treat ISPs like "Common Carriers", which would mean they'd be like the phone in that they don't have any connection (good or bad) to what you do over the lines.
The phone company isn't responsible if you use the phone for an illegal act. They're only responsible for the wires. So should the ISPs.
For that matter, remember that (at least in the US), we the citizen own these lines (the telephone and cable lines) and when a monopoly power has done bad things to us, we should be able to take it away from them.
But if you think that the current way things are handled is good, then there's no point in trying to convince you.
Indeed, NAT is (in this context) just a modern day television splitter.
While the ISPs may go after a few people- I have serious doubts that the practice will become widespread. Just as the TV splitter was commodity, so are cheap NATs. Heck, some expensive cable modems you can buy in the store come with NAT!
The products are already sold as "Cable Modem Routers".
It is, of course, possible that the ISPs and media publishers would go after home user, but it's likely they'd do it over bandwidth consumption or trading copyrighted material rather than just NATing. Going after them just for NATing wouldn't benefit them. The ISP looses a customer and gets a bad reputation, the home electronics company gets mad at the ISP and the customer looses.
At least with file traders, the ISP is loosing a "bandwidth hog". It may be a weak excuse, but it's something.
Well every industry goes through this it seems (at least in the US).
The phone company used to care how many phones you had. Then the cable company charged per teleivion, and some ISPs care how many computers you have.
The key difference I see is the two previous mentioned industries had those issues resolved by regulation. Regulating consumer grade ISPs might not be a bad thing and finally set limits on things like number of computers or port restriction. And if not- at least we'll know what "comsumer grade" service is and all switch to "Small Office" connections, which already seem to be the way to go for people who actually want to use thier internet connection at home.
This is such a silly statement I wasn't sure whether to reply to it or use my last moderator point to mark it as "Troll".
There are lots of Free Software out that doesn't look or act anything like Microsoft software, and those people who switch over will use it and may even like it.
In addition, the idea you've expressed implies the idea that we in the Free Software and Open Source movements don't have any new ideas about making things better. I think that we do, and some features from our work has and will emerge more in the other world (Microsoft and Apple).
If we limit ourselves to copy the design and interface of Microsoft instead of trying to take the best of all sides and making something new and interesting (as it appears Chander is trying to do) then we will doom ourselves in never implmenting things "right", we will limit the ways that we think, and ultimately we'll have less code, since mere copying isn't fun for creative people.
I've tried one in my apartment. I had a lot of interference from nearby equipment and couldn't use it. It's really designed for a car, and it's probably okay for that. Put the player on the dashboard, it only would have to transmit a small distance to the reciever.
Some of GNU documentation that was, for a long time included in Debian had the copyright notice allowing distribution but no moficiation. Such is the case with essays by Richard Stallman, for example.
Other documents, even some technical documents, had the same copyright status.
Documents aren't code. The FDL allows a written work (especially a functional work) to be treated like code, but adds invariant sections for a number or reasons. Everything from a dedicatiom, explanation or even a bit of "art" can be used with the FDL.
It may indeed be true that the FDL does not comply with Debian Social Contract guidelines, but those guidelines applied to software and not documentation AFAIK.
Perhaps an ammendment should be made to the Debian Social Contract to make this distinction?
All I know is tha the Neuros upgrade will be out soon that will let me use it in GNU/Linux *and* be the first portable hardware player that can do Ogg Vorbis, and in the future, Ogg Speex and FLAC.
I've waited years for these features, and soon my wait will be over.
If there were another player with the same features out now, I'd buy that.
Oh, and the Neuros will also let you record from FM and has a low-range FM broadcast so you can use it in your car.
Your ISP shouldn't be using SMTP-Auth on thier own network.
They should accept mail to relay from all hosts on the network they own.
It's not just the people on Slashdot, it's lots of system administrators I know too- very few people really know how to do mail correctly, and it shows.
We'd hope the ISP would hire competant people- but too often than not they don't.
I feel sorry that so many ISPs are incompetant, and they have bad, stuid rules, like requiring SMTP-Auth, or requiring thier name in the From or other silly rules.
It doesn't mean that the rules aren't good, it means that we need to weed out the morons.
AOL, for all thier follies (and trust me, I don't love AOL!) are doing the right thing here.
I know- it sucks for me too. I can't run a mail server at home either, but that's just the way life is sometimes.
First, if the ISP is really that bad, and they really have a real monopoly, you can maybe document these problems and present them as evidence next time your area has a hearing about it (cable comapnies do this).
Another idea. Route your mail elsewise. SMTP-Auth from a friend, UUCP maybe?
Also, if you really need the full features of a real connection to the Internet- you can probably buy one under the heading of "commercial connection"- that's what I'm going to do when I move from my apartmnent where I have a similar situation as you.
I currently don't have mod points or you and others who have said the same thing would be modded up.
There's no RFC that says you have to accept mail from *everyone*. You're free to bounce mail to whomever you like.
As to why this is an effective technique:
1) Most of these "home servers" don't have a PTR record at all.
2) Those that do, almost NEVER have one pointing to the domain they claim to be recieving for.
3) All these residential users should be using their ISP as a relay. That's what the ISP is there for.
4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue.
I'm generally against crippling services on the ISP end, but I've even thought that maybe it's high time that ISPs do what AOL does, and block outbound port 25. Incomming is another story, but as the parent and I have pointed out- the residential users should be using their ISP's mail servers as relay hosts.
Actually, APL was heavily used in places like NASA, APL and the stock market- any place where simulations needed to be rapidly prototyped and implemented.
The purpose of my comment was as a joke, rather than to really bash APL- which might indeed have done better except for the license issues.
In other news, David Sedaris will be playing Gollum in the next movie...
Not only will he keep the ring, but he'll interspese that with witty commentary and stories about his family, being a Christmas Elf and Santa Claus around the world.
- Serge Wroclawski (wondering if anyone will get it)
The difference is that you seem to be a fool- trying to compare apples and dump trucks.
First, the GPL is not "viral". It doesn't "spread" itself in any way. The idea of a virus is that simply by being in the proximity of something else, I will also have the virus. It is possible to have various licensed code on your computer and the GPL will not spread itself to them.
The only way that the GPL can be applied to another program on your computer is if a person makes a concious choice. They say "I want to use this GPL program in a new way." at which point they make an agreement, a contractual, legal agreement. The two paries decide the terms in which the exception to copyright will be made, and one of those terms in the GPL is that any code which uses GPL code must retain all of the rights of the original GPLed work.
There's no surprise or "viral" nature here.
Now, you're comparing it to a file format. That's just plain stupid. A file format is not something you need a license for AFAIK. A better choice would be to compare Microsoft's standard license. In this license, there's ALSO an agreement. It says that I can't modify the code AT ALL. So then I don't have to worry about this pesky issue of the license terms, since they're NO from the onset. With Shared Source, you have to make a similar deal. Now you have to sign to:
1) Sign an NDA 2) Promise never to integrate Microsoft code in yours (how's that for vital!) 3) Now be under constant threat for SCO-like threats of "trade secret" theft in any future products you make
Instead, you're going to continue to argue that the GPL against a word processor format, and your arguments will continue to be pointless and without any merit.
I belive India confronted this issue directly. They asked not only for the source of a given application, but also for the source of all the libraries it used, and the source of the compiler, and the source of any libraries the compiler used.
They then wanted to do exactly this- compile it into a final product.
I don't know what Microsoft's reaction was to this.
With a high loss during transmission. I believe I've read up to 50% of power is lost during transition from the plant to your outlet. That doesn't appear efficient to me.
I recommend you also take a look at the book _The Hydrogen Economy_. Rewiew at http://www.thekewfiles.net/BookReviews/Hydrogen_Ec onomy.htm. The hook discusses how hydrogen can be used to make a more distrbuted power source, which will be cheaper, more robust and better for all. At least, it has that potential.
This reminds me of the old DOS game El-Fish (some information on the game can be found at)
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/8350/ . In the game, you bred fish and then you had to "render" them. On my old 286, this took hours. Since this was DOS, that meant the computer had to be used for hours just to "render" the fish.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We pay for bad patents when we pay unreasonable prices for goods.
We pay for it in progress going slower than it should due to restrictions.
We pay for it in that we have to often replicate our efforts to avoid patent issues (PNG and OGG Vorbis are good examples).
The cost to the average American may be hidden but it's still there.
Making the entity liable for this type of situation will certainly not solve all the problems with the patent office. What it will do is get press atttention and make a few heads roll. Once that happens, reforming the organization will become easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument, if I understand it, is that given key A, then you find find the nodes that have it and shut them down.
On Freenet this becomes a non-trivial task.
First- all communication between nodes is encrypted. You'd need to do a real time decryption of the communication in order to spy.
Secondly, nodes will often respond even if they don't have the data- that's the point. Even with NG routing- it's still onion routing. A node that responds that it has a peice of data may just be lieing. And by requesting the data in the first place, due to agressive caching- you're spreading the data across the network.
As to then shutting down the nodes- you'd have to shut down nodes in places all over the world.
Lastly, you could just make a second copy of a given data, new key and then then your plan is foiled.
You should really read more of the Freenet docs- they explain all this.
Suddently splitting up and asking your significant other to pick something up for you in a different part of a store warrants a crime.
- Serge Wroclawski
No Windows Scripting language?
No problem.
Give them Guile, the official scripting language of the GNU project.
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html
- Serge Wroclawski
Actually- it's like an Emacs.
It takes different information inputs and presents them in one interface.
It doesn't appear to be as flexible though.
- Serge
They surved style, tempo, length, voice and content for the song, for example.
They also made the "least popular" works using similar techniques.
You can find the results of thier work at:
http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html
and
http://www.diacenter.org/km/musiccd.html
- Serge Wroclawski
Yes, but regulation also made the playing ground clear.
What I mean is that we knew what to expect. Do you honestly believe in the current context of bandwidth monoplies that "Let the market decide" will work? Maybe you're more trusting than me- but there are only, maybe five cable companies left. As for DSL, there seems to be Verizon and companies that buy Verizon likes and resell. In the Mid-Atlantic it seems the only company that does that is Covad (who then often resells the service to other companies).
So who are these companies competing with? What incentive do they have to provide more customer friendly service?
I agree with you- competition works. Look at the price of long distance after de-regulation.
But regulation can also be a good thing, such as preventing one company from owning "too much" of the infrastructure and then leveraging that against the consumer.
I see the current situation with bad EULAs and companies going after customers as a direct result of monopoly-like practices, lack of competition in the local market and lack of Congress to treat ISPs like "Common Carriers", which would mean they'd be like the phone in that they don't have any connection (good or bad) to what you do over the lines.
The phone company isn't responsible if you use the phone for an illegal act. They're only responsible for the wires. So should the ISPs.
For that matter, remember that (at least in the US), we the citizen own these lines (the telephone and cable lines) and when a monopoly power has done bad things to us, we should be able to take it away from them.
But if you think that the current way things are handled is good, then there's no point in trying to convince you.
Indeed, NAT is (in this context) just a modern day television splitter.
While the ISPs may go after a few people- I have serious doubts that the practice will become widespread. Just as the TV splitter was commodity, so are cheap NATs. Heck, some expensive cable modems you can buy in the store come with NAT!
The products are already sold as "Cable Modem Routers".
It is, of course, possible that the ISPs and media publishers would go after home user, but it's likely they'd do it over bandwidth consumption or trading copyrighted material rather than just NATing. Going after them just for NATing wouldn't benefit them. The ISP looses a customer and gets a bad reputation, the home electronics company gets mad at the ISP and the customer looses.
At least with file traders, the ISP is loosing a "bandwidth hog". It may be a weak excuse, but it's something.
Well every industry goes through this it seems (at least in the US).
The phone company used to care how many phones you had. Then the cable company charged per teleivion, and some ISPs care how many computers you have.
The key difference I see is the two previous mentioned industries had those issues resolved by regulation. Regulating consumer grade ISPs might not be a bad thing and finally set limits on things like number of computers or port restriction. And if not- at least we'll know what "comsumer grade" service is and all switch to "Small Office" connections, which already seem to be the way to go for people who actually want to use thier internet connection at home.
- Serge Wroclawski
Um, no he didn't. He's just using the old Yakov Smirnoff joke from the 80s'.
The poster may give you a chuckle, but it's certainly not a "new form of humor".
This is such a silly statement I wasn't sure whether to reply to it or use my last moderator point to mark it as "Troll".
There are lots of Free Software out that doesn't look or act anything like Microsoft software, and those people who switch over will use it and may even like it.
In addition, the idea you've expressed implies the idea that we in the Free Software and Open Source movements don't have any new ideas about making things better. I think that we do, and some features from our work has and will emerge more in the other world (Microsoft and Apple).
If we limit ourselves to copy the design and interface of Microsoft instead of trying to take the best of all sides and making something new and interesting (as it appears Chander is trying to do) then we will doom ourselves in never implmenting things "right", we will limit the ways that we think, and ultimately we'll have less code, since mere copying isn't fun for creative people.
- Serge Wroclawski
I've tried one in my apartment. I had a lot of interference from nearby equipment and couldn't use it. It's really designed for a car, and it's probably okay for that. Put the player on the dashboard, it only would have to transmit a small distance to the reciever.
Some of GNU documentation that was, for a long time included in Debian had the copyright notice allowing distribution but no moficiation. Such is the case with essays by Richard Stallman, for example.
Other documents, even some technical documents, had the same copyright status.
Documents aren't code. The FDL allows a written work (especially a functional work) to be treated like code, but adds invariant sections for a number or reasons. Everything from a dedicatiom, explanation or even a bit of "art" can be used with the FDL.
It may indeed be true that the FDL does not comply with Debian Social Contract guidelines, but those guidelines applied to software and not documentation AFAIK.
Perhaps an ammendment should be made to the Debian Social Contract to make this distinction?
- Serge Wroclawski
All I know is tha the Neuros upgrade will be out soon that will let me use it in GNU/Linux *and* be the first portable hardware player that can do Ogg Vorbis, and in the future, Ogg Speex and FLAC.
I've waited years for these features, and soon my wait will be over.
If there were another player with the same features out now, I'd buy that.
Oh, and the Neuros will also let you record from FM and has a low-range FM broadcast so you can use it in your car.
- Serge Wroclawski
Yeah.
Your ISP shouldn't be using SMTP-Auth on thier own network.
They should accept mail to relay from all hosts on the network they own.
It's not just the people on Slashdot, it's lots of system administrators I know too- very few people really know how to do mail correctly, and it shows.
We'd hope the ISP would hire competant people- but too often than not they don't.
I feel sorry that so many ISPs are incompetant, and they have bad, stuid rules, like requiring SMTP-Auth, or requiring thier name in the From or other silly rules.
It doesn't mean that the rules aren't good, it means that we need to weed out the morons.
AOL, for all thier follies (and trust me, I don't love AOL!) are doing the right thing here.
I know- it sucks for me too. I can't run a mail server at home either, but that's just the way life is sometimes.
- Serge Wroclawski
A few suggestions.
First, if the ISP is really that bad, and they really have a real monopoly, you can maybe document these problems and present them as evidence next time your area has a hearing about it (cable comapnies do this).
Another idea. Route your mail elsewise. SMTP-Auth from a friend, UUCP maybe?
Also, if you really need the full features of a real connection to the Internet- you can probably buy one under the heading of "commercial connection"- that's what I'm going to do when I move from my apartmnent where I have a similar situation as you.
- Serge Wroclawski
I currently don't have mod points or you and others who have said the same thing would be modded up.
There's no RFC that says you have to accept mail from *everyone*. You're free to bounce mail to whomever you like.
As to why this is an effective technique:
1) Most of these "home servers" don't have a PTR record at all.
2) Those that do, almost NEVER have one pointing to the domain they claim to be recieving for.
3) All these residential users should be using their ISP as a relay. That's what the ISP is there for.
4) Since there's no reason for them to need to send it out *not* through the ISP as a relay host, the majority of these users are spammers or just ignorant. In the first case, it's good to block them. In the second, maybe they will get a clue.
I'm generally against crippling services on the ISP end, but I've even thought that maybe it's high time that ISPs do what AOL does, and block outbound port 25. Incomming is another story, but as the parent and I have pointed out- the residential users should be using their ISP's mail servers as relay hosts.
- Serge Wroclawski
Actually, APL was heavily used in places like NASA, APL and the stock market- any place where simulations needed to be rapidly prototyped and implemented.
The purpose of my comment was as a joke, rather than to really bash APL- which might indeed have done better except for the license issues.
- Serge Wroclawski
- Serge
In other news, David Sedaris will be playing Gollum in the next movie...
Not only will he keep the ring, but he'll interspese that with witty commentary and stories about his family, being a Christmas Elf and Santa Claus around the world.
- Serge Wroclawski
(wondering if anyone will get it)
The difference is that you seem to be a fool- trying to compare apples and dump trucks.
First, the GPL is not "viral". It doesn't "spread" itself in any way. The idea of a virus is that simply by being in the proximity of something else, I will also have the virus. It is possible to have various licensed code on your computer and the GPL will not spread itself to them.
The only way that the GPL can be applied to another program on your computer is if a person makes a concious choice. They say "I want to use this GPL program in a new way." at which point they make an agreement, a contractual, legal agreement. The two paries decide the terms in which the exception to copyright will be made, and one of those terms in the GPL is that any code which uses GPL code must retain all of the rights of the original GPLed work.
There's no surprise or "viral" nature here.
Now, you're comparing it to a file format. That's just plain stupid. A file format is not something you need a license for AFAIK. A better choice would be to compare Microsoft's standard license. In this license, there's ALSO an agreement. It says that I can't modify the code AT ALL. So then I don't have to worry about this pesky issue of the license terms, since they're NO from the onset. With Shared Source, you have to make a similar deal. Now you have to sign to:
1) Sign an NDA
2) Promise never to integrate Microsoft code in yours (how's that for vital!)
3) Now be under constant threat for SCO-like threats of "trade secret" theft in any future products you make
Instead, you're going to continue to argue that the GPL against a word processor format, and your arguments will continue to be pointless and without any merit.
- Serge Wroclawski
I belive India confronted this issue directly. They asked not only for the source of a given application, but also for the source of all the libraries it used, and the source of the compiler, and the source of any libraries the compiler used.
They then wanted to do exactly this- compile it into a final product.
I don't know what Microsoft's reaction was to this.
- Serge Wroclawski
You don't need to move mass amounts of hydrogen. You can make hydrogen (solar, wind, chemically, etc.) and hydrogen is the storage mechanism.
Read the book
- Serge Wroclawski
With a high loss during transmission. I believe I've read up to 50% of power is lost during transition from the plant to your outlet. That doesn't appear efficient to me.
c onomy.htm. The hook discusses how hydrogen can be used to make a more distrbuted power source, which will be cheaper, more robust and better for all. At least, it has that potential.
I recommend you also take a look at the book _The Hydrogen Economy_. Rewiew at http://www.thekewfiles.net/BookReviews/Hydrogen_E
- Serge Wroclawski
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
- Serge Wroclawski
We Americans already pay for it.
We pay for bad patents when we pay unreasonable prices for goods.
We pay for it in progress going slower than it should due to restrictions.
We pay for it in that we have to often replicate our efforts to avoid patent issues (PNG and OGG Vorbis are good examples).
The cost to the average American may be hidden but it's still there.
Making the entity liable for this type of situation will certainly not solve all the problems with the patent office. What it will do is get press atttention and make a few heads roll. Once that happens, reforming the organization will become easier.
- Serge Wroclawski