Sure... its not perfect, you need to keep the key safe (or at least the passphrase for the key).
The added bonus is that in a few hundred years when someone may want to add them to a hiistorical record, the encryption key will probably be short enough (by that days standards) as to take a day or so to break.
Well I was joking. I would love to do it, of course, but we would need a willing subject. Liz would, mostl likely, laugh at us
Course...I am sure that if YOU asked her, and gave her the right "puppy Dog" look...she would agree (being her brother, I have little influence like that). However, if you did get her to agree...she would be bored and ready to kill us both in...um... about an hour.
Maybe Lisa (though I doubt it... talk to Liz for the story there) or hmmm well enough talk of people we know in a public forum:)
It will be an interesting experiment if we can come up with the right lab rats.
On debian I could easily have a machine installed from scratch and running as a webserver in an hour or two. Depending on the machine of course, there is alot to the OS and just loading and installing the inital packages can take a while.
With a fast enough network connection (and fast enough machine to unpack and install things quick) I could then apt-get dist-upgrade to the latest stable (ie all the security patches that are needed).
Now granted, I do this shit for a living. Can a newbie who never installed the OS do it in such a short period of time. Hell no... well they probably could actually but - I would never recomend that a persons first intro to an OS be running a webserver on it.
For the most part you can use apache "out of the box" - it works great.
Course then again... you work with Windows stuff for a living, much as I work with Unix for a livig - can a newbie, who has never used either system (hmmm say An apple II user who just today decided to upgrade to a new machine) set it up AND get a webserver working in an hour or two?
Hmmm... bring up a spare machine next month and a Win2K CD... maybe we can talk Liz into helping us perform this experiment? (Yea I know - no way in hell)
hmmm I am tempted, at first, to say that its not really the same...since they just decided that "this should be its own application"
Actually....I have to agree. More developers should look at their huge bloated programs and say "Ok, this should be a couple of seprate apps
(then again, since powerpoint and excel can be purchased sepratly from each other... it *IS* removing functionality from a product)
I would like to see more of this. One of the things I like about GNOME is the philosophy that "The Window manager manages windows... other programs take care of menus or having multiple desktops" - that way the parts are interchangable
(now if onluy someone would write a gnome compliant pager that didn't require running that damned panel...)
If you make something,and then give it away. Well then you gave it away. IF someone sees a way that they can make money from it, well then how is that any of your concern?
I am, personally, more interested in the moral implications of giving out binaries to people without source code. A much more heinous practice.
Expecting people to execute a binary on their CPUs without any way of reading the code and seeing what it does, or modifing what it does for their specific needs. Its just plain wrong I say.
However, he is claiming that they are being blown off seed trucks, litterally trucks just full of these seeds.
There aren't too many trucks driving around the country just full of cannabis seed now? (not yet anyway... someday... someday)
Also, presumably, other farmers in the area don't have whole open feilds full of cannabis either.
Still, the very idea that a person could be threatened with the awesome forces of the legal system, for growing a plant (any plant), on their own land, offends me greatly.
1) Until recently I would have agreed with you. I recently did a couple of debian installs for the first time in a year and a half or so (been a while since ive HAD to reinstall) and the install was SOOO much cleaner and easier than it was previously. - its already getting better!
2) X Broken? I stable? - Anything is likely to break in unstable, and the DPL has no control over that. Unstable is where stuff is suposed to break. How else do we find the problems and fix them?
(perhaps unstable is too stable:) I know I am damned surprized when something in it breaks majorly)
Debian is not a governmental style democracy. The debian constitution is a limited one, one that only governs the organization. It does not apoply to anyone outside of it.
What thi smeans is that ONLY people who are debian developers are affected by the vote, and only they can vote.
This is important, because Debian developers are a "small" group, of interested people. They are not "Joe Random", they are people brought together with a specific set of common goals.
Many of the protections that have been designed into larger social systems, systems that effect everyone, are not needed. Such "childish" behaviour as trying to unfairly influence the vote or use someones vote against them wont occur in these situations.
There is very little advantage to being DPL, sure you get to act as the voice of debian in some fashion, you get to make certain decisions and try to pull people together - there is some small amount of "prestige".
However, ther eis nothign to "buy votes" with. Every developer is (mostly) autonomous, and capable of making his own decisions.
Essentially, there is little motive to try and buy or otherwise coerce ones way into the position, and there is very little that one could leverage for such a coersion anyway.
That would be really cool imho...
Debian GNU/LInux
Debian GNU/HURD
We need more kernels:) Hell...there should be an effort to make a Debian GNU/NT:) (as bad as it would be designing around a non-DFSG kernel, it would be amusing as all hell;) )
I am not playing any cat and mouse game. I have used napster once or twice. If it blinked out of existance tomorow, my life would be totally unaffected (except for less arguments to make on slashdot).
What I am saying is that what the RIAA wants is impossible. Either they assert total control by single authoritative control over this list - thus making napster useless and causing people to migrate elsewhere (and having the cat and moyse start all over again - I recomend freenet myself)
their other option is to allow decentralised control (ie napster controls the list, and anyone can add stuff to the list). Then the cat and mouse continues - this time on napster.
This is not perpetuating a myth...this is simple reality. This IS the situation.
Peer to Peer file sharing and copyright enforcement are essentially musutally exclusive. You can't have both and have a useful system.
The main problem with napster is that they left themselves open by being centrilized and having the ability to kick people off.
If people really want file sharing...then they really want freenet.
My point was that if I can, in any way, get something added to the list, so that I can distribute it, then nothing changes. Its right back to where it was, they are back to playing "Whack a mole" with the songs (which is what they are trying to stop with this "opt-in list")
As soon as they challenge it and change it, nother one pops up. Then another, then another. Ie, they are back to exactly the same problem that they have now.
They are arguing for the ability to say "Only approved mp3s can be distributed".
This brings up the question of "Who can aprove"?
There is no magic wand that you can wave over an mp3 and determine the copyright holder of the music. For all Napster knows, thats 3 hours of my neibor gargling that I bootlegged and am distributing without permission.
If the average user can "aprove" something, then they can aprove anything. I can rename Metalica's "For who the bell tolls" to "Music by steve" and say "Hey I am the copyright holder of this, aprove it".
In which case, they again have no control, and everything reverts to buisness as usual.
If only the RIAA and big wigs like them can make aprovals, then anyone who DOES make hom emusic, or other audio (like 3 hgours of gagling) is screwed.
Basically... these restrictions can either be pointless (ie anyone can aprove) or, they have to screw over the very people that Napster was intended to help (at least in part)
Sounds to me like a setup for a circular argument actually... impose restrictions so that only aproved music, by the RIAA can be distribiuted. Then they can claim that nothing is aproved, and since only they can aprove, any argument that napster is used by independant artists is untrue, since they are now barred by napster... so napster is just a medium for copyright infringement with no value to independant artists.
So instead of looking at ascii porn in your living room, he looks at it when he is with his friends
I first viewed porn and foun dit interesting when I was about 7. From the age of about 12 I was regularly viewing porn and masturbating. Honestly, about every person I know was the same way.
Who didn't have a hidden copy of playboy or hustler or under their bed? Or a secret video cassett or two? Hell, in high school there were a couple of guys going around selling videos!
Porn is available, has been available, and will continue to be available no matter what you or anyone do. What is the point of perpetuating this myth that it can be controlled?
The fact is that all this censorship boils down to one thing. It allows parents to fool themselevs into believeing that some imaginary problem is being averted. It helps calm their unfounded paranoia.
Theres a shitload of people in the world. Even some who like to abuse children and murder unsuspecting people. Yup its true. However, they are rare, and we only find them so often because there is such a fuckload of people in the world already.
Masturbating to some porn has never hurt anyone who wasn't already on the edge of reality. Your kid has access to porn. He obviously knows what it is. Nothing you can do, short of treating your hom elike a prison and even home schooling and making sure he has no unsupervised contact with "the outside" and removing doors to bathrooms and bedrooms to get rid of all privacy.
That sthe ONLY way you can ever take all his porn away. That, I can assure you, would be far more damaging to a person than any person than a little masturbation (really what is porn but an aide for masturbation and sexual fantasy?)
Honestly, it should be encouraged. I can't think of a better habbit to get into. Good exercise for the tricepts and forearms (dependant on technique) - and does wonders for a persons general attitude.
I knew there was a reason that it always seems like the same person volunteers to be the one to show up early and meet the Feild Circus Tech when we have a serious problem with one of our servers.
Very true, but ssh can be attacked via a man in the middle attack, especially on a persons first connection to a site (in theory, once you have the key, it will complain if the key changes (which would be a necissity for a man in the middle) - however, in practice, noone pays attention.
At least with a CA, you have someone certifing that "Certificate X is real", an dyou can verif that signature. So a man in th emiddle would need to get his bogus cert signed by verisign (or another trusted ca) - good luck on that.
Should just make a "web of trust" style system. Have sysadmins from ISPs and web hosters sign eachothers keys, and sign the keys of the peopel they host for etc...and build a big web.
I would disagree. If the action that is demanded by law is wrong, then it is the duty of a citizen to have no part of the law.
Of course, that does mean, quite often, suffering the penalties of doing such. Then again, perhaps I am the only one who reads Thoreau and seriously contemplates ceasing to pay taxes under the belief that it is wrong to support wrongful actions.
In short, noone ever MUST obey anyone or anything. There are often consequences for not obeying, but obedience is never a moral obligation. (at least, not according to my world view)
But, you are not arguing for the ability to keep the "fruits of ones labor". Copyright isn't about that. It is about the ability to partition out who can benefit from the fruits of your labor. There is a big difference.
When you create a work, you have the work. That is the "fruit" of your labor. What you are arguing for is the ability to control what others can and cannot do with copies of that "fruit".
> You can disagree in your personal ethical view,
> but nobody died and gave you the power to
> arbitrary state what is a "real" right and what
> isn't.
Nor you. However, at some point, these ideas get translated into law. Some people like the law, some don't.
I do disagree in my personal ethical view. And thus do not support a law which conflicts with my ethical view.
Copyright was invented "to promote the progress of science and usefull arts". The trade off being that we, the people, cede our "right" to do what we want with what is in our posession, to the creators of a work.
The only useful discussion, then, is whether this trade off is worth it. Is copyright having more negative side effects than good? Is it promoting enough to be worth the trade off?
Anything else delves into the "religious" and becomes a pointless argument.
Whether or not something is "whining" is the opinion of the listener not the speaker.
A person who agrees with you will say that you have a valid complaint. A person who disagrees may say you make a good point, but are wrong. A person who disagrees and doesn't want to argue with you will say that you are whining.
Its alot like Oscar Wilde's observation that "Morality is the attitude that we adopt toward speople that we personally dislike" (quote from memory, may need to s/that/who/ or s/that/whom/)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm Company?
I was thinking individuals personally, not at the company level. Each individual should take care of that for themselves.
Besides. Whether the company has use for it or not is irrelavant. The historical recorod is more important. Hell...
Use a public key cryptography and destroy the private key from the outset. JUST keep it as an encrypted archive for the deep future.
Courese...then there is the matter of storing it... but better to develop practices first, worry about storage later.
-Steve
So like, tell them that you lost it. Then let them try and prove that you didn't, in fact, lose it.
Or better yet.... you can't remember the passphrase, forgot...sorry.
Kind of hard to prove whether someone remembers something or not - especially under all the stress involved in court cases and what not.
-Steve
-Steve
Heh why not just encrypt them and archive them?
Sure... its not perfect, you need to keep the key safe (or at least the passphrase for the key).
The added bonus is that in a few hundred years when someone may want to add them to a hiistorical record, the encryption key will probably be short enough (by that days standards) as to take a day or so to break.
-Steve
um hows about because when someone starts using them, you wont be able to send packets to them?
With the rfc1918 numbers, you are gauranteed that they will not be used.
Other than that, go ahead and have fun. You can do whatever you like on your internal network man.
-Steve
Better yet.... just set yourself up with a class
A chunk.
10.0.n.0/24 where n is some number that you choose. That makes setting up a VPN trivial as long as the other person hasn't done anything
really dumb.
Its also what I plan to trransition my internal
network (all 3 machines) to very soon.
-Steve
We are?
...um... about an hour.
:)
Well I was joking. I would love to do it, of course, but we would need a willing subject. Liz would, mostl likely, laugh at us
Course...I am sure that if YOU asked her, and gave her the right "puppy Dog" look...she would agree (being her brother, I have little influence like that). However, if you did get her to agree...she would be bored and ready to kill us both in
Maybe Lisa (though I doubt it... talk to Liz for the story there) or hmmm well enough talk of people we know in a public forum
It will be an interesting experiment if we can come up with the right lab rats.
-Steve
Heh well... if you think any non-trivial OS (im ruling out DOS, CP/M, etc etc) is NOT buggy then you havn't played with too much software.
All software sucks. Some sucks less...some sucks more. But it all sucks.
-Steve
Doe sthat count package install time?
On debian I could easily have a machine installed from scratch and running as a webserver in an hour or two. Depending on the machine of course, there is alot to the OS and just loading and installing the inital packages can take a while.
With a fast enough network connection (and fast enough machine to unpack and install things quick) I could then apt-get dist-upgrade to the latest stable (ie all the security patches that are needed).
Now granted, I do this shit for a living. Can a newbie who never installed the OS do it in such a short period of time. Hell no... well they probably could actually but - I would never recomend that a persons first intro to an OS be running a webserver on it.
For the most part you can use apache "out of the box" - it works great.
Course then again... you work with Windows stuff for a living, much as I work with Unix for a livig - can a newbie, who has never used either system (hmmm say An apple II user who just today decided to upgrade to a new machine) set it up AND get a webserver working in an hour or two?
Hmmm... bring up a spare machine next month and a Win2K CD... maybe we can talk Liz into helping us perform this experiment? (Yea I know - no way in hell)
-Steve
Sure mostly... but does it really matter?
Women, men, black, white, gay straight... they are still politicians. As Nikita Krushev noted:
"Politicians are the same everywhere.They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river"
-Steve
hmmm I am tempted, at first, to say that its not really the same...since they just decided that "this should be its own application"
Actually....I have to agree. More developers should look at their huge bloated programs and say "Ok, this should be a couple of seprate apps
(then again, since powerpoint and excel can be purchased sepratly from each other... it *IS* removing functionality from a product)
I would like to see more of this. One of the things I like about GNOME is the philosophy that "The Window manager manages windows... other programs take care of menus or having multiple desktops" - that way the parts are interchangable
(now if onluy someone would write a gnome compliant pager that didn't require running that damned panel...)
-Steve
I don't see whats wrong with that.
If you make something,and then give it away. Well then you gave it away. IF someone sees a way that they can make money from it, well then how is that any of your concern?
I am, personally, more interested in the moral implications of giving out binaries to people without source code. A much more heinous practice.
Expecting people to execute a binary on their CPUs without any way of reading the code and seeing what it does, or modifing what it does for their specific needs. Its just plain wrong I say.
-Steve
However, he is claiming that they are being blown off seed trucks, litterally trucks just full of these seeds.
There aren't too many trucks driving around the country just full of cannabis seed now? (not yet anyway... someday... someday)
Also, presumably, other farmers in the area don't have whole open feilds full of cannabis either.
Still, the very idea that a person could be threatened with the awesome forces of the legal system, for growing a plant (any plant), on their own land, offends me greatly.
-Steve
1) Until recently I would have agreed with you. I recently did a couple of debian installs for the first time in a year and a half or so (been a while since ive HAD to reinstall) and the install was SOOO much cleaner and easier than it was previously. - its already getting better!
:) I know I am damned surprized when something in it breaks majorly)
2) X Broken? I stable? - Anything is likely to break in unstable, and the DPL has no control over that. Unstable is where stuff is suposed to break. How else do we find the problems and fix them?
(perhaps unstable is too stable
-Steve
Debian is not a governmental style democracy. The debian constitution is a limited one, one that only governs the organization. It does not apoply to anyone outside of it.
What thi smeans is that ONLY people who are debian developers are affected by the vote, and only they can vote.
This is important, because Debian developers are a "small" group, of interested people. They are not "Joe Random", they are people brought together with a specific set of common goals.
Many of the protections that have been designed into larger social systems, systems that effect everyone, are not needed. Such "childish" behaviour as trying to unfairly influence the vote or use someones vote against them wont occur in these situations.
There is very little advantage to being DPL, sure you get to act as the voice of debian in some fashion, you get to make certain decisions and try to pull people together - there is some small amount of "prestige".
However, ther eis nothign to "buy votes" with. Every developer is (mostly) autonomous, and capable of making his own decisions.
Essentially, there is little motive to try and buy or otherwise coerce ones way into the position, and there is very little that one could leverage for such a coersion anyway.
-Steve
That would be really cool imho...
:) Hell...there should be an effort to make a Debian GNU/NT :) (as bad as it would be designing around a non-DFSG kernel, it would be amusing as all hell ;) )
Debian GNU/LInux
Debian GNU/HURD
We need more kernels
-Steve
I was commenting on the problem and the solution.
I am not playing any cat and mouse game. I have used napster once or twice. If it blinked out of existance tomorow, my life would be totally unaffected (except for less arguments to make on slashdot).
What I am saying is that what the RIAA wants is impossible. Either they assert total control by single authoritative control over this list - thus making napster useless and causing people to migrate elsewhere (and having the cat and moyse start all over again - I recomend freenet myself)
their other option is to allow decentralised control (ie napster controls the list, and anyone can add stuff to the list). Then the cat and mouse continues - this time on napster.
This is not perpetuating a myth...this is simple reality. This IS the situation.
Peer to Peer file sharing and copyright enforcement are essentially musutally exclusive. You can't have both and have a useful system.
The main problem with napster is that they left themselves open by being centrilized and having the ability to kick people off.
If people really want file sharing...then they really want freenet.
-Steve
My point was that if I can, in any way, get something added to the list, so that I can distribute it, then nothing changes. Its right back to where it was, they are back to playing "Whack a mole" with the songs (which is what they are trying to stop with this "opt-in list")
As soon as they challenge it and change it, nother one pops up. Then another, then another. Ie, they are back to exactly the same problem that they have now.
--Steve
You rmissing the point.
They are arguing for the ability to say "Only approved mp3s can be distributed".
This brings up the question of "Who can aprove"?
There is no magic wand that you can wave over an mp3 and determine the copyright holder of the music. For all Napster knows, thats 3 hours of my neibor gargling that I bootlegged and am distributing without permission.
If the average user can "aprove" something, then they can aprove anything. I can rename Metalica's "For who the bell tolls" to "Music by steve" and say "Hey I am the copyright holder of this, aprove it".
In which case, they again have no control, and everything reverts to buisness as usual.
If only the RIAA and big wigs like them can make aprovals, then anyone who DOES make hom emusic, or other audio (like 3 hgours of gagling) is screwed.
Basically... these restrictions can either be pointless (ie anyone can aprove) or, they have to screw over the very people that Napster was intended to help (at least in part)
Sounds to me like a setup for a circular argument actually... impose restrictions so that only aproved music, by the RIAA can be distribiuted. Then they can claim that nothing is aproved, and since only they can aprove, any argument that napster is used by independant artists is untrue, since they are now barred by napster... so napster is just a medium for copyright infringement with no value to independant artists.
--Steve
-Steve
So instead of looking at ascii porn in your living room, he looks at it when he is with his friends
I first viewed porn and foun dit interesting when I was about 7. From the age of about 12 I was regularly viewing porn and masturbating. Honestly, about every person I know was the same way.
Who didn't have a hidden copy of playboy or hustler or under their bed? Or a secret video cassett or two? Hell, in high school there were a couple of guys going around selling videos!
Porn is available, has been available, and will continue to be available no matter what you or anyone do. What is the point of perpetuating this myth that it can be controlled?
The fact is that all this censorship boils down to one thing. It allows parents to fool themselevs into believeing that some imaginary problem is being averted. It helps calm their unfounded paranoia.
Theres a shitload of people in the world. Even some who like to abuse children and murder unsuspecting people. Yup its true. However, they are rare, and we only find them so often because there is such a fuckload of people in the world already.
Masturbating to some porn has never hurt anyone who wasn't already on the edge of reality. Your kid has access to porn. He obviously knows what it is. Nothing you can do, short of treating your hom elike a prison and even home schooling and making sure he has no unsupervised contact with "the outside" and removing doors to bathrooms and bedrooms to get rid of all privacy.
That sthe ONLY way you can ever take all his porn away. That, I can assure you, would be far more damaging to a person than any person than a little masturbation (really what is porn but an aide for masturbation and sexual fantasy?)
Honestly, it should be encouraged. I can't think of a better habbit to get into. Good exercise for the tricepts and forearms (dependant on technique) - and does wonders for a persons general attitude.
-Steve
Damn...
I knew there was a reason that it always seems like the same person volunteers to be the one to show up early and meet the Feild Circus Tech when we have a serious problem with one of our servers.
I gotta start volunteering for those then
-Steve
Oh sure, youll get 20,000 hits alright. But the real question is, how many of them will be porn sites?
-Steve
(who just couldn't resist)
Very true, but ssh can be attacked via a man in the middle attack, especially on a persons first connection to a site (in theory, once you have the key, it will complain if the key changes (which would be a necissity for a man in the middle) - however, in practice, noone pays attention.
At least with a CA, you have someone certifing that "Certificate X is real", an dyou can verif that signature. So a man in th emiddle would need to get his bogus cert signed by verisign (or another trusted ca) - good luck on that.
Should just make a "web of trust" style system. Have sysadmins from ISPs and web hosters sign eachothers keys, and sign the keys of the peopel they host for etc...and build a big web.
hmmm its an idea anyway
-Steve
I would disagree. If the action that is demanded by law is wrong, then it is the duty of a citizen to have no part of the law.
Of course, that does mean, quite often, suffering the penalties of doing such. Then again, perhaps I am the only one who reads Thoreau and seriously contemplates ceasing to pay taxes under the belief that it is wrong to support wrongful actions.
In short, noone ever MUST obey anyone or anything. There are often consequences for not obeying, but obedience is never a moral obligation. (at least, not according to my world view)
-Steve
But, you are not arguing for the ability to keep the "fruits of ones labor". Copyright isn't about that. It is about the ability to partition out who can benefit from the fruits of your labor. There is a big difference.
When you create a work, you have the work. That is the "fruit" of your labor. What you are arguing for is the ability to control what others can and cannot do with copies of that "fruit".
> You can disagree in your personal ethical view,
> but nobody died and gave you the power to
> arbitrary state what is a "real" right and what
> isn't.
Nor you. However, at some point, these ideas get translated into law. Some people like the law, some don't.
I do disagree in my personal ethical view. And thus do not support a law which conflicts with my ethical view.
Copyright was invented "to promote the progress of science and usefull arts". The trade off being that we, the people, cede our "right" to do what we want with what is in our posession, to the creators of a work.
The only useful discussion, then, is whether this trade off is worth it. Is copyright having more negative side effects than good? Is it promoting enough to be worth the trade off?
Anything else delves into the "religious" and becomes a pointless argument.
-Steve
Whether or not something is "whining" is the opinion of the listener not the speaker.
A person who agrees with you will say that you have a valid complaint. A person who disagrees may say you make a good point, but are wrong. A person who disagrees and doesn't want to argue with you will say that you are whining.
Its alot like Oscar Wilde's observation that "Morality is the attitude that we adopt toward speople that we personally dislike" (quote from memory, may need to s/that/who/ or s/that/whom/)
-Steve