Yes I am willing to pay for the convienence of CDs or central indexing or whatever.
I have no problem paying for tickets for a concert or other such things. I am willing to pay the cover charge at a bar to get in and hear a good band.
Yea, it is a "Good thing" to support artists and encourage them to produce art. Art, in all of its forms, is very powerful, definitly a very good thing.
My point was to reject "information as property". Just because a person can string together words that invoke powerful emotion, or another can do the same with streams of vibration from a musical instrument does not, in my mind, make those streams themselves (or copies thereof) sole dominion of the one who has strung them together.
I reject, flat out, the entire concept of "Intellectual Propery". Yet as I said...I am willing to pay (a reasonable price) for CDs. I go to concerts when the band is good and the ticket price isn't going to bankrupt me. I buy books that I read. None of these things are bad.
> Jon, with all due respect, I don't think you > have any idea what the hell you're talking > about. Who owns ideas? I know that I sure as > hell own *my* ideas. In fact, I own this comment
Hmm thats funny...cuz I don't own my ideas. Oh sure....legally I own the words I am saying here. However...I only own it in the sense and to the extent that armed men are willing to persecute any person who uses my words in a way that violate my supposed rights.
However....I don't own this comment. I don't own these ideas. The ideas, even these words, belong to anyone who wishes to use them, they belong to anyone who agrees with them. They are transmitted out by me, they are being thought by me. They do not belong to me. I do not have sole right to think them, or to say them.
> To continue to elevate common theft to the idea > of freedom of IDEAS is intellectually dishones
I disagree. I think that to call an IDEA or a sound...or information in general, property that can be owned, hoarded or sold is intelleectually dishonest.
A million or a billion CDs can be stamped out for no more real cost then a blank CD of the same type. NO more resources are needed to stamp out the information gathered by sampling the sound waves of Barry Manilo singing than it does to stamp out a CD of Windows 2000.
When it is online...its even worst. The download takes only time...no real resources (maybe a few miliwats of electricity to run the data lines)
To call mere bits...or magnetic fluctuations on a tape "property" is a severe warping of the term. So what...you strummed a guitar or put a string of words together that tells a story. Good for you...you deserve credit as a true artist fine. However...these are not property. Yes...the physical medium that they sit on is property... but what is on it is information. Not something you can actually own...not something tangible.
Well... simple interception of data and decryption is a fairly passive act...very hard to catch an easedropper sitting on the wire (unless you use physical fiber and quantum encryption...but thats fairly impractical)
If they can't decrypt it...then any other techniques become increasingly more invasive and likely to be caught.
Course...there is always simple bribary. Not much in the way of secrets you couldn't get...all ya have to do is throw enough money at the problem. (of course...they have plenty of that)
> We'd rather be a free people than not. I think > when asked, even many in the government would > prefer that. > I see a lot of anti-government posts here, and I > get the feeling from their hostility they would > rather have a government that they can yell at > and be angry at than not. Strange to me.
Not strange at all. We have had a government all our lives (and for several centuraies/millenia previously). People are USED to government and feel secure with one.
I remember a social psychology course I took in colledge. People dislike not being free to some extent...they will complain about lack of options. However, psychologically, they feel more secure and satisfied when they don't have to make choices. They actually feel better knowing that the choice is already made.
How many police are there per capita? maybe a hundered police per 100,000 people? They are not omnipresent. Yet...we are instilled with this constant safe feeling knowing "they are right around the corner". Talk to anyone and ask them "At 4 am, when you come to an intesection and stop at the red light, you see no cars comming from anywehre...why do you wait for it to turn green?"
The standard answer "Cuz if I don't I could get a ticket". There is no logical reason to sit there. There are no police anywehre in view...yet we conform because we have been trained to. That is the essence of Authority.
> I don't > like to be angry
That reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide: (paraphrase) "To combat this unhappiness people developed systems which involved moving around small pieces of green paper, which was quite curious because it wasn't small peices of paper that were unhappy to begin with"
This brings out a couple of the reasons I am against censorware in libraries btw (or anywhere else). Simple fact: They do NOT just block porn.
Think about it...the entire argument for censorware revolves around porn...but they block so much more...the worst of which is of course...they block dissenting opinions.
but...
> g = Satanic/cult
Nice...and who decideds what is "Cult". From my point of view the catholic church would be a cult...so would any other church or religous group (except maybe the wiccans and a few others)
WHo are these people to draw the line between religion and cult. I know I am not qualified (as I just admited above).
> h = Drug culture
So I supoe that means DARE and other organizations who teach nothing, yet expose kids to drugs (and have been linked to INCREASE in drug use...as exposer makes kids curious)...would be OK However lycaeum or some harm reduction site that actually EDUCATES and tells people things like "Mixing A and B could kill you"...are probably not ok, since they "condone use"
> How about a rebuttel from Symamtic? How about > working with Peacefire instead of against them. > You can even say "The only censorware approved > by anti censors." or something catchy like that.
While I am wearing a Peacefire T-Shirt today, I do not speak in any way for Peacefire.... I think the only way Semantic could possibly "Work with peacefire" would be if they would chuck their product alltogether.
IMHO it is about rejecting censorware period. The end. The very idea that some 3rd part can decide ahead of time "whats ok" and "whats not" and then wholesale aplying it to kids as a replacement for parental supervision...or in libraries etc is offensive, and unacceptable.
Their entire concept is unacceptable to me. I think you will find it is unacceptable to many who are against censorware.
> Why are these lists encrypted anyway? They need > to be constantly updated, so what they should be > selling is a filtering service.
They are encrypted to stop people from reading them. The idea is to hide their mistakes. If anyone could quickly glance at the file and find blocked sites....or edit the file (and not pay for updates or a subscription) then it would mean eithe rbad PR or less money. (assuming they sell updates...I really am just guessing).
Remember...you can xor a file with "Hi mom" and effectivly block 99.9% of consumers from reading it. (a good atacker would have it in no time).
It also stops someone who makes a quick and simple filter proxy at home...and plans to just steal their list for his product harder. Now he has to know how to decrypt it first.
They must be assuming "if I can't break this encryption or easily find the key in the binary, then I bet noone else will either".
remember...decisions are often made by managers rather than technical people.
> This is also why there aren't more filters for > Linux.
you mean like an httpd.conf for apache with proxy on and mod rewrite?
in about an hour I setup an apache proxy which filters out all banner ads (at least ones I know about...like the ones on slashdot) and replaces them with a local picture (see linux journal article on this subject)
starters: I agree with your assessment... security and/or operability testing is not what he was doing.
> IANAL, but Haselton looks like he's standing on > shaky ground, even assuming a noble purpose. > Looks to me like a classic case of thinking > that the ends justify the means.
Here I disagree. You seem to imply that his means are not justifiable by any other rational. Is it not possible that he believes that his means are justified?
I can not speak for Mr Hassleton myself (though I am wearing my PeaceFire T-Shirt here at work today), I personally think that what he did was perfectly justified, no matter what the law may say.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that any law which would allow companies to sell a product to a consumer, and allow the company to take away the consumers right to take it apart and see exactly how it works and what it does, is an unjustified law.
I think a consumer has a RIGHT to do whatever they wish to a product that they purchase. I think that if a consumer takes apart a product, and finds out that it does things which the producer was trying to hide (like sending off info to the company, or blocking sites that should not be blocked) then that consumer has not only the right, but the DUTY to expose these facts.
The simple fact is that he took this product. he opened it up. He found out that it does NOT work as advertised. It does things that consumers should be aware of.
> No, what "intutive" really means is "like > Windows."
In my experiance I have to disagree. The real topic here is "Learning curve". There is no such thing as "intuitive".
I have seen complete newbies sat down in front of "Windows" and be completely lost. They had no idea what the hell was going on. Its not that windows is "Intuitive" it just has a shallow learning curve.
In truth...Unix can have a fairly shallow learning curve for the non-admin. If your job is not admin of a system, you can be sat in front of a terminal and shown how to do the few things you may need to do (reading/sending mail etc) and learn in a few mins to an hour or two.
There are two problems I see.
1. Windows exposure
Just as they say "LEarning a second language is harder than the first one". Just as a newbie leaning french will try to drawn on english to incorrectly fill in the gaps in his mind, a new linux user sits down and expects to be treated to Windows. It is not the same...it is wrong to expect it to act and respond the same.
2. Admin ability
To install linux and get it up to a state where it can be most effective, and work well, you need to be an admin. You need skills that take a good 6 months of real use to even begin to get good at.
A new user is not a qualified admin. I know I only got where I am today by shooting myself in the foot a few times (first under windows, then under linux).
What is really needed are tools that lower the learning curve. Things that are easy to learn... easy for a newbie to get setup in short time...and do not hide their internals such that they can't advance beyond the high level tools.
This has been the major falling of windows, and for me, redhat. The gui tools are either the ONLY way, with all the limitations built in like solid brick walls (windows), or hide the internals and eventually stunt advancement (redhat - albeit this is from a few years ago..it may not be a fair assessment today).
As for innovation (from the article). I have seen even experianced users sitting dumfounded in front of some of these "innovated" user interfaces
So what if we "copy". Ya see an idea that works.. ya use it. Ya see ideas that don't work...ya don't use them. I am all in favor of assmililation of good ideas.
I don't know about most people...but I like a good stable system that works. I have that in linux. Am I interested in making linux "Easy for the newbie" - yea marginally. However...my main goal is getting my job done. I imagine that that is the motivation behind most of the "Opensource" advances. Its either to have fun...or get the job done.
"Market Share" be dammned. I don't even care. Why do we need to "Compete" with microsoft or anyone...can't we just do our thing? If it wins out and "dominates the market" well um like hey cool...i'll party to that. If not...well hey it works for me...ill party to that too.
In nay case...I would like to see an OS built on the linux kernel that could soften the Unix learning curve down to something like windows. I wouldn't use it (don't need it) but I would be happy to point newbies at it.
I guess what my point is, is that criticizing the "Opensource" movement for "Not making easy and innovative interfaces for neewbies" is like criticizing the government of France for not providing free health care to people of Zimbabwe. For me, the goal of "open Source" (Or Free Software to use the prefered term) is to share code for universal benefit. Faster development cycles and "extra eyes" are side benefits at best (though, great benefits they are).
> Actually, that's TIHKAL, not PIHKAL. It's the > introduction to appendix B (page 592).
Actually...I thought it was in both,.... in any case I don't keep a copy of either of them at work (though I did once bring my copy of pihkal....and 2 of my co-workers recognized the book)
As a note...in one of the appendixes of pihkal (the latter sections are available online at the www.lycaeum.org) Shulgin recounted something that he had been told...
He was asked if he could read "War and Peace" in a week. A question that he answered yes to after the apropriate amount of wincing at the thought (for those who have never seen it on the shelf, it is a LONG book)
At this point it was stated that a person would need to read at that same pace (fast enough to read war and peace in a week) for 25,000 years to read ALL of the laws that are in effect today in the US.
Now, when I was in high school, I looked high up on the shelves, and I saw a valume labeled "Massachuessets General Laws" (yes I live in MA) It was a very thick book. Them I looked to the right and noticed that there was a Volume 2...then I noticed that there were enough volumes to it to FILL the ENTIRE shelf....and this was a fairly dusty volume quite a few years old.
How can a person be reasonably expected to comply with this many laws?
Then again..the discordians among us would point out that we are in the age of Beuracracy....
Very interesting point. In fact I have to say that I have thought this for a long time, even if I never extended it to this generality.
One of the reasons that I love the internet so much is that it opens channels of communication. I am not some guy with unkempt hair and scraggly beard. I am just a stream of text.
This fact levels the playing feild. It works for me too. I recognize that physical apearance and name mean alot in "normal life". If someone talks with a weird accent, or their skin color is too dark...it does not go un noticed. I recognize and accept that I o notice these things, and I do, however irrationally, assign some value to the person, based on these things.
I do not LIKE that I do this. I try NOT to do it. Rationally I recognize that it is wrong to do it. However, it would be a lie to say that besfore rational thought kicks in, my first reaction to a person is completely founded in physical apearances and social stigmas. If I see a black man walk onto the same bus as me, I am definitly more consious of my posessions, so as not to have them stolen (at which point I realise that I am being stupid and mentally chastise myself)
In any case...name is no differnt. If I "Stephen J. Carpenter" who has at best been seen on a mailing list or web page, was to have a debate with someone like "Bruce Perens" or "Eric Raymond" then it would not be a level playing feild.
More well known people are naturally given more credit then lesser known people. As such I think anonimity can be a very good thing. The only problem I see is that names exist...people use them.
It would be interesting to have some well known celebrity like a senator or even some movie star write an opinion piece...then find a lesser known person and have them write an oposing piece...then ask random individuals to rate the two... have the two papers be completely anonymous for one group...and with names for the other.
> By cultural cycle I refer to the lower class > citizens (or whatever they were referred to at > anypoint in time) coming out of the shadows to > smack around the powerful every 30 or 40 years. > In the early 1900's there was the labor > movement, in the 50's and 60's we had civil and > social movements. In general these things lead > to a better society, even if it wasn't > revolutionary. The time may be coming again soon
The more I think about it...the more I am apt to agree with you...however its not exactly the lower class comming out and beating the upper class.
These changes seem to start in the upper class. (not the top of the upper class...more the middle of the upper class). People who would be considered philosophers or thinkers....who disagree with the current system fundamentally.
Look at the "Labor Movement". The upper class were abusing the lower class. People worked long hours for shit money. Working conditions were dangerous. There were little or no protections for workers.
The labor movement, unions etc, grew out of socialist and communist ideas. Those ideas however came from men like Karl Marx.
Who was Marx? Son of a Lawyer. Educated in law and philosophy. He was no low class worker. He was a social philosopher. It was the ideas of men like Marx, Engles and several others that helped oranize and galvanize the lower class.
Face it, the average lower class worker does not want to analyse and think about larger issues like economics or social justice etc. Why do you think television is so popular? After a hard days work, people just want to sit down and turn their mind off. (I admit...after a stressfull day - I sometimes do the same - luckily I don't have too many stressful days)
However...once enough members of the upper class (again not usually the top people...as they tend to have too much vested in the status quo) are disenchanted with the way things are...then things start to happen.
One of the reasons that I see republican democracy as so dangerous is that it attempts to short circuit this cycle of social progress. (yes, now I am digressing). It sets up a small and powerful elite, who are chosen by their wealth (afterall it takes real money to run a campaign and get elected to a high level of power) and ability to persuede people.
The cheif effect of this is to make the people think they have power because they have choice. In truth the power is still with the main power groups because they are the ones that choose what the peoples choices are. In the end the system caters to the rich and powerfull, while it pacifies the general populace.
All they need to do is ocasionally make an issue of something, then take decisive action on it. In essence, throw the people a bone. Make them feel important.
Then again...I wouldn't doubt that marx said similar things about the bougeois. As much as I think the system is setup to short circuit that social cycle, I still feel that things ARE changing despite it.
Then again...thats not surprizing...one only need aply some of the basic Erisian principals to it....remembering that anything which attempts to impose order, in the end results in more disorder. Perhaps the worst "they" can do is slow the cycle down like a poorly constucted dam and someday it will just explode with more force then before?
I hate to say it...but it is time to drag out the old clue bat.
> Well, for starters, this guy is obviously > speaking in such vague generalities that we can > neither prove nor disprove his vision of the > future.
Even if he said exactly that "on this date AT&T stock will fall to X" you still can't prove or disprove it until that date comes.
You simply can not possibly "prove or disprove" furtue events, until that day comes. The best you can do is talk abou tprobability of it happening.
> Never trust anyone who claims they can see the > future and have all the answers. I prefer to > function as intelligently as I can in the > present as well as the future, and I at least > know enough to state that I don't know it all. > IMHO, this guy is a fraud.
He is a fraud? Please point me to where it is stated that this article is anything but fiction?
Is douglass adams a "Fraud" because he wrote about the earth being destroyed by a Vogon Constructor fleet, who were making a hyberspace bypass?
The article was merely a fictional acount of what the author sees as a possible future. The intent of fictional acounts of this type is NOT to accuratly predict the future...rather...it is (usually) to present a world which we can hold up and compare to our own (in this case a world that has been ravaged by the lack of forethought of our own world). The purpose is to make people think about the world that they live in now and to reflect on current day values and trends.
> Napster is pain in the butt and a bandwidth hog. > If that is the real reason it is being blocked, > I consider that a legit reason. Bandwidth is a > finite item, even at universities.
Yes definitly. I would like to add that in some cases, blocking napster, while not optimum, is a good short term solution.
I know that here, the network admins just looked at their mrtg (I think they use mrtg anyway) graphs and shit themselves when they saw how much bandwith was being eaten up on the dorms network. As a result...napster got blocked at the routers.
At least here, this was only a temporary measure, and there is talk (progressing at standard University snail pace) of unblocking napster and imposing a bandwidth cap. (I suggested putting 2 28.8 modems back to back and routing the dorms through it....they said that was just too sadistic though)
Course the real answer is to replace all dorm room ethernet with 3 wire serial connections to LATs that have all ports locked in at 1200 7e1
In any case...I would recomend that anyone who is a student to make some noise and make sure that any blocking is only temporary...its really stupid for along term solution.....course... then don't bitch when your bandwidth gets capped either;)
So I guess it would be "Fast, Unrestricted, Cheap - pick 2".
-Steve
Re:Had to love the chick in the leather outfit...
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 1
and how do these compare to Blair's "Possible Side Effects" sauce?
Here at the university I work for napster has been blocked at the boarder routers for a while.
There has been talk about reactivating it...and putting a bandwidth cap on the studtent segment :)
I said they should just put 2 28.8 modems back to back and route the dorms through them...but I think they will be more generous than that:)
I find it amusing that people are out there calling schools evil tyrants when I hear the network admins talking about what they need to do so they can turn napster back on without negativly impacting the network.
Re:PKI and other issues
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 2
> I want to keep my private key in my wallet and > protected it that way IN ADDITION to a password.
Well hell, add a "me too" on that. However, even that scheme has its problem. The main problme with it is hardware overhead.
It means that every machine you might wish to log in from will need special hardware to read your private key (unless you plan to type it in every time)
I think that for most applications, and most people, the ssh solution is "good enough" (of course ssh doesn't say you can't put your private key on a smart card or something...I am sure that if you had a smart card reader it would be trivial to change ssh to use it)
Take my current setup. my desktop has the private key, with a moderately strong passphrase (its not exactly random chars, but its not going to fall to a dictionary attack or any simple permutations)
If I remember right, an 128 bit hash is made of the passphrase and used to encrypt the private key. With a strong passphrase that is nearly impossible to break.
more importantly.. the system is secure enough that it would be easier to compromise the machine or take me into an ally and beat me up and force me to give them the passphrase then it is to defeat it other ways... smart cards fall to those exact same "methods".
> So, why can't I get my university to install SSH >clients on all the desktops that we use to > connect to our unix servers?
If the desktops are unix boxen...then they should get their asses in gear and install openssh (IMHO) however...for Windows boxes...licencing can be expensive. Here we have a SecureCRT licence pool and ar eletting students and faculty get copies... I have no idea what its costing the University though.
Hopefully someday telnet will fall into disuse and we can stop supporting it.
Re:PKI and other issues
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 2
> Most authentication systems are trying to > authenticate people, not computers - the fact > that the same people often use the same > computers is merely convenient - convenient for > the computer system not the user. > > Worse still, the public key, being digital, is > easily copied without the owner knowing. Sure, > it's password protected, but that just brings us > back to passwords again.
I have to agree and disagree.
ssh IS a very good system. The public key system it uses does work. However, it only works if the user sets it up right. (of course it is defeatable if someone can sit in the middle and play with all packets...thats besides the point and not always, or even usually feasable)
The security of the system is in the encryption of the private key. The authentication is that anyone with the private key, has to be me (is assumed). So...if my key has a passphrase...only me can ever open the private key and use it... even though it is stored on multiple machines (hopefully moved to them in a secure manner) only I can unlock it on any of these machines.
Re:USA: Pure, concentrated right-wing evil insanit
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 1
I know this is a troll...however...I just need to correct the glaring error...
> SSH is an American product. Don't touch it. It's > bound to be of wretchedly poor quality, because > US workers are wage slaves with no personal or > civil rights, and slaves always do lousy work.
Well most of that is somewhat true...no civil rights, wage slaves (often)...low quality work... yup that too sometimes...
However... the person you reply to was talking about OpenSSH. A free software product, which was developed in Canada, not the US.
> Ever heard of the Greater Fool Theory? > Capitalism is the Greater Fool Economy. Don't > be the fool.
I suspect you don't actually believe this. However, here I have to agree with you... Capitalism is a pretty pitiful system (though most people don't understand the beauty of the alternatives).
Which of course has nothing to do with the topic. Especially considering OpenSSH exists and was not (AFAIK) written with capitalist goals in mind.
Re:Telnet is the only solution.
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 2
> Also each and every public type machine that I > have ever used and all unix machines > I have never used have never either made ssh > avaible or it was not really practal. SSH is > only useful if you regularly connect to remote > unix machines that support it or you have > multiple machines with shell access.
Well yes of course... ssh is only useful when connecting to a host that has sshd installed.
Personally, here at work, ALL of our machines use ssh. Also, any machine that is mine to administer as I see fit, doesn't even support telnet...I turn it off.
I think anyone who runs a unix server should install ssh, and encourage all users to use it. In fact, wherever even remotely feasable...telnet should be turned off.
ssh is too easy to use to not support. plaintext passwords are too easy to sniff to allow.
(I should note that we recently had a user acount compromised, which we believe was the result of a password sniff when one of our users was out of the country and telnet'd in internationally)
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are missing my point.
Yes I am willing to pay for the convienence of
CDs or central indexing or whatever.
I have no problem paying for tickets for a concert
or other such things. I am willing to pay the
cover charge at a bar to get in and hear a good
band.
Yea, it is a "Good thing" to support artists and
encourage them to produce art. Art, in all of
its forms, is very powerful, definitly a very
good thing.
My point was to reject "information as property".
Just because a person can string together words
that invoke powerful emotion, or another can
do the same with streams of vibration from a
musical instrument does not, in my mind, make
those streams themselves (or copies thereof) sole
dominion of the one who has strung them
together.
I reject, flat out, the entire concept of
"Intellectual Propery". Yet as I said...I am
willing to pay (a reasonable price) for CDs. I
go to concerts when the band is good and the
ticket price isn't going to bankrupt me.
I buy books that I read. None of these things
are bad.
> Jon, with all due respect, I don't think you
> have any idea what the hell you're talking
> about. Who owns ideas? I know that I sure as
> hell own *my* ideas. In fact, I own this comment
Hmm thats funny...cuz I don't own my ideas. Oh
sure....legally I own the words I am saying here.
However...I only own it in the sense and to the
extent that armed men are willing to persecute
any person who uses my words in a way that violate
my supposed rights.
However....I don't own this comment. I don't own
these ideas. The ideas, even these words, belong
to anyone who wishes to use them, they belong
to anyone who agrees with them. They are
transmitted out by me, they are being thought by
me. They do not belong to me. I do not have sole
right to think them, or to say them.
> To continue to elevate common theft to the idea
> of freedom of IDEAS is intellectually dishones
I disagree. I think that to call an IDEA or a
sound...or information in general, property
that can be owned, hoarded or sold is
intelleectually dishonest.
A million or a billion CDs can be stamped out
for no more real cost then a blank CD of the same
type. NO more resources are needed to stamp out
the information gathered by sampling the sound
waves of Barry Manilo singing than it does to
stamp out a CD of Windows 2000.
When it is online...its even worst. The download
takes only time...no real resources (maybe a few
miliwats of electricity to run the data lines)
To call mere bits...or magnetic fluctuations on
a tape "property" is a severe warping of the
term. So what...you strummed a guitar or put
a string of words together that tells a story.
Good for you...you deserve credit as a true artist
fine. However...these are not property. Yes...the
physical medium that they sit on is property...
but what is on it is information. Not something
you can actually own...not something tangible.
Well... simple interception of data and decryption
is a fairly passive act...very hard to catch an
easedropper sitting on the wire (unless you use
physical fiber and quantum encryption...but thats
fairly impractical)
If they can't decrypt it...then any other
techniques become increasingly more invasive and
likely to be caught.
Course...there is always simple bribary. Not much
in the way of secrets you couldn't get...all ya
have to do is throw enough money at the problem.
(of course...they have plenty of that)
> We'd rather be a free people than not. I think
> when asked, even many in the government would
> prefer that.
> I see a lot of anti-government posts here, and I
> get the feeling from their hostility they would
> rather have a government that they can yell at
> and be angry at than not. Strange to me.
Not strange at all. We have had a government all
our lives (and for several centuraies/millenia
previously). People are USED to government and
feel secure with one.
I remember a social psychology course I took in
colledge. People dislike not being free to some
extent...they will complain about lack of options.
However, psychologically, they feel more secure
and satisfied when they don't have to make
choices. They actually feel better knowing that
the choice is already made.
How many police are there per capita? maybe a
hundered police per 100,000 people? They are
not omnipresent. Yet...we are instilled with
this constant safe feeling knowing "they are
right around the corner". Talk to anyone and ask
them "At 4 am, when you come to an intesection
and stop at the red light, you see no cars
comming from anywehre...why do you wait for
it to turn green?"
The standard answer "Cuz if I don't I could get a
ticket". There is no logical reason to sit there.
There are no police anywehre in view...yet we
conform because we have been trained to. That is
the essence of Authority.
> I don't
> like to be angry
That reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide:
(paraphrase)
"To combat this unhappiness people developed
systems which involved moving around small
pieces of green paper, which was quite curious
because it wasn't small peices of paper that
were unhappy to begin with"
This brings out a couple of the reasons I
am against censorware in libraries btw (or
anywhere else). Simple fact: They do NOT just
block porn.
Think about it...the entire argument for
censorware revolves around porn...but they
block so much more...the worst of which is
of course...they block dissenting opinions.
but...
> g = Satanic/cult
Nice...and who decideds what is "Cult". From my
point of view the catholic church would be a
cult...so would any other church or religous
group (except maybe the wiccans and a few others)
WHo are these people to draw the line between
religion and cult. I know I am not qualified (as
I just admited above).
> h = Drug culture
So I supoe that means DARE and other organizations
who teach nothing, yet expose kids to drugs (and
have been linked to INCREASE in drug use...as
exposer makes kids curious)...would be OK
However lycaeum or some harm reduction site that
actually EDUCATES and tells people things like
"Mixing A and B could kill you"...are probably
not ok, since they "condone use"
-Steve
> How about a rebuttel from Symamtic? How about
> working with Peacefire instead of against them.
> You can even say "The only censorware approved
> by anti censors." or something catchy like that.
While I am wearing a Peacefire T-Shirt today, I
do not speak in any way for Peacefire....
I think the only way Semantic could possibly
"Work with peacefire" would be if they would
chuck their product alltogether.
IMHO it is about rejecting censorware period. The
end. The very idea that some 3rd part can decide
ahead of time "whats ok" and "whats not" and then
wholesale aplying it to kids as a replacement for
parental supervision...or in libraries etc is
offensive, and unacceptable.
Their entire concept is unacceptable to me. I
think you will find it is unacceptable to many
who are against censorware.
> Why are these lists encrypted anyway? They need
> to be constantly updated, so what they should be
> selling is a filtering service.
They are encrypted to stop people from reading
them. The idea is to hide their mistakes. If
anyone could quickly glance at the file and find
blocked sites....or edit the file (and not pay
for updates or a subscription) then it would
mean eithe rbad PR or less money.
(assuming they sell updates...I really am just
guessing).
Remember...you can xor a file with "Hi mom" and
effectivly block 99.9% of consumers from
reading it. (a good atacker would have it in
no time).
It also stops someone who makes a quick and
simple filter proxy at home...and plans to just
steal their list for his product harder.
Now he has to know how to decrypt it first.
They must be assuming "if I can't break this
encryption or easily find the key in the binary,
then I bet noone else will either".
remember...decisions are often made by managers
rather than technical people.
> This is also why there aren't more filters for
> Linux.
you mean like an httpd.conf for apache with
proxy on and mod rewrite?
in about an hour I setup an apache proxy which
filters out all banner ads (at least ones I
know about...like the ones on slashdot) and
replaces them with a local picture
(see linux journal article on this subject)
-Steve
starters: I agree with your assessment...
security and/or operability testing is not
what he was doing.
> IANAL, but Haselton looks like he's standing on
> shaky ground, even assuming a noble purpose.
> Looks to me like a classic case of thinking
> that the ends justify the means.
Here I disagree. You seem to imply that his means
are not justifiable by any other rational. Is it
not possible that he believes that his means are
justified?
I can not speak for Mr Hassleton myself (though
I am wearing my PeaceFire T-Shirt here at work
today), I personally think that what he did was
perfectly justified, no matter what the law may
say.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that
any law which would allow companies to sell
a product to a consumer, and allow the company
to take away the consumers right to take it apart
and see exactly how it works and what it does, is
an unjustified law.
I think a consumer has a RIGHT to do whatever
they wish to a product that they purchase. I think
that if a consumer takes apart a product, and
finds out that it does things which the producer
was trying to hide (like sending off info to
the company, or blocking sites that should not
be blocked) then that consumer has not only the
right, but the DUTY to expose these facts.
The simple fact is that he took this product. he
opened it up. He found out that it does NOT
work as advertised. It does things that consumers
should be aware of.
> No, what "intutive" really means is "like
> Windows."
In my experiance I have to disagree. The real
topic here is "Learning curve". There is no
such thing as "intuitive".
I have seen complete newbies sat down in front
of "Windows" and be completely lost. They had no
idea what the hell was going on. Its not that
windows is "Intuitive" it just has a shallow
learning curve.
In truth...Unix can have a fairly shallow learning
curve for the non-admin. If your job is not admin
of a system, you can be sat in front of a terminal
and shown how to do the few things you may need
to do (reading/sending mail etc) and learn in
a few mins to an hour or two.
There are two problems I see.
1. Windows exposure
Just as they say "LEarning a second language is
harder than the first one". Just as a newbie
leaning french will try to drawn on english to
incorrectly fill in the gaps in his mind, a
new linux user sits down and expects to be treated
to Windows. It is not the same...it is wrong to
expect it to act and respond the same.
2. Admin ability
To install linux and get it up to a state where
it can be most effective, and work well, you need
to be an admin. You need skills that take a good
6 months of real use to even begin to get good
at.
A new user is not a qualified admin. I know I
only got where I am today by shooting myself in
the foot a few times (first under windows, then
under linux).
What is really needed are tools that lower the
learning curve. Things that are easy to learn...
easy for a newbie to get setup in short time...and
do not hide their internals such that they can't
advance beyond the high level tools.
This has been the major falling of windows, and
for me, redhat. The gui tools are either the ONLY
way, with all the limitations built in like solid
brick walls (windows), or hide the internals and
eventually stunt advancement (redhat - albeit this
is from a few years ago..it may not be a fair
assessment today).
As for innovation (from the article). I have seen
even experianced users sitting dumfounded in
front of some of these "innovated" user interfaces
So what if we "copy". Ya see an idea that works..
ya use it. Ya see ideas that don't work...ya
don't use them. I am all in favor of assmililation
of good ideas.
I don't know about most people...but I like a
good stable system that works. I have that in
linux. Am I interested in making linux "Easy for
the newbie" - yea marginally. However...my main
goal is getting my job done. I imagine that that
is the motivation behind most of the "Opensource"
advances. Its either to have fun...or get the
job done.
"Market Share" be dammned. I don't even care.
Why do we need to "Compete" with microsoft
or anyone...can't we just do our thing? If it
wins out and "dominates the market" well um like
hey cool...i'll party to that. If not...well hey
it works for me...ill party to that too.
In nay case...I would like to see an OS built on
the linux kernel that could soften the Unix
learning curve down to something like windows.
I wouldn't use it (don't need it) but I would be
happy to point newbies at it.
I guess what my point is, is that criticizing the
"Opensource" movement for "Not making easy and
innovative interfaces for neewbies" is like
criticizing the government of France for not
providing free health care to people of Zimbabwe.
For me, the goal of "open Source" (Or Free
Software to use the prefered term) is to share
code for universal benefit. Faster development
cycles and "extra eyes" are side benefits at
best (though, great benefits they are).
> Actually, that's TIHKAL, not PIHKAL. It's the
> introduction to appendix B (page 592).
Actually...I thought it was in both,....
in any case I don't keep a copy of either
of them at work (though I did once bring my copy
of pihkal....and 2 of my co-workers recognized the
book)
> Hail Eris!
:)
Well since the paper shortage has not come and
end the age of beuracracy...that would mean that
we are still in the age of beauracracy.
As a note...in one of the appendixes of pihkal
(the latter sections are available online at
the www.lycaeum.org) Shulgin recounted something
that he had been told...
He was asked if he could read "War and Peace"
in a week. A question that he answered yes to
after the apropriate amount of wincing at the
thought (for those who have never seen it on the
shelf, it is a LONG book)
At this point it was stated that a person would
need to read at that same pace (fast enough to
read war and peace in a week) for 25,000 years
to read ALL of the laws that are in effect today
in the US.
Now, when I was in high school, I looked high up
on the shelves, and I saw a valume labeled
"Massachuessets General Laws" (yes I live in MA)
It was a very thick book. Them I looked to the
right and noticed that there was a Volume 2...then
I noticed that there were enough volumes to it
to FILL the ENTIRE shelf....and this was a fairly
dusty volume quite a few years old.
How can a person be reasonably expected to comply
with this many laws?
Then again..the discordians among us would point
out that we are in the age of Beuracracy....
> Identity undermines rational discussion.
Very interesting point. In fact I have to say that
I have thought this for a long time, even if I
never extended it to this generality.
One of the reasons that I love the internet so
much is that it opens channels of communication.
I am not some guy with unkempt hair and scraggly
beard. I am just a stream of text.
This fact levels the playing feild. It works for
me too. I recognize that physical apearance and
name mean alot in "normal life". If someone talks
with a weird accent, or their skin color is too
dark...it does not go un noticed. I recognize and
accept that I o notice these things, and I do,
however irrationally, assign some value to the
person, based on these things.
I do not LIKE that I do this. I try NOT to do it.
Rationally I recognize that it is wrong to do it.
However, it would be a lie to say that besfore
rational thought kicks in, my first reaction to
a person is completely founded in physical
apearances and social stigmas. If I see a black
man walk onto the same bus as me, I am definitly
more consious of my posessions, so as not to have
them stolen (at which point I realise that I am
being stupid and mentally chastise myself)
In any case...name is no differnt. If I "Stephen
J. Carpenter" who has at best been seen on a
mailing list or web page, was to have a debate
with someone like "Bruce Perens" or "Eric Raymond"
then it would not be a level playing feild.
More well known people are naturally given more
credit then lesser known people. As such I think
anonimity can be a very good thing. The only
problem I see is that names exist...people use
them.
It would be interesting to have some well known
celebrity like a senator or even some movie star
write an opinion piece...then find a lesser known
person and have them write an oposing piece...then
ask random individuals to rate the two...
have the two papers be completely anonymous for
one group...and with names for the other.
Somehow I don't doubt that this has been done.
-Steve
> By cultural cycle I refer to the lower class
> citizens (or whatever they were referred to at
> anypoint in time) coming out of the shadows to
> smack around the powerful every 30 or 40 years.
> In the early 1900's there was the labor
> movement, in the 50's and 60's we had civil and
> social movements. In general these things lead
> to a better society, even if it wasn't
> revolutionary. The time may be coming again soon
The more I think about it...the more I am apt to
agree with you...however its not exactly the lower
class comming out and beating the upper class.
These changes seem to start in the upper class.
(not the top of the upper class...more the
middle of the upper class). People who would be
considered philosophers or thinkers....who
disagree with the current system fundamentally.
Look at the "Labor Movement". The upper class were
abusing the lower class. People worked long hours
for shit money. Working conditions were dangerous.
There were little or no protections for workers.
The labor movement, unions etc, grew out of
socialist and communist ideas. Those ideas however
came from men like Karl Marx.
Who was Marx? Son of a Lawyer. Educated in law
and philosophy. He was no low class worker. He
was a social philosopher. It was the ideas of men
like Marx, Engles and several others that helped
oranize and galvanize the lower class.
Face it, the average lower class worker does not
want to analyse and think about larger issues
like economics or social justice etc. Why do
you think television is so popular? After a
hard days work, people just want to sit down and
turn their mind off. (I admit...after a stressfull
day - I sometimes do the same - luckily I don't
have too many stressful days)
However...once enough members of the upper class
(again not usually the top people...as they tend
to have too much vested in the status quo) are
disenchanted with the way things are...then things
start to happen.
One of the reasons that I see republican democracy
as so dangerous is that it attempts to short
circuit this cycle of social progress. (yes, now
I am digressing). It sets up a small and powerful
elite, who are chosen by their wealth (afterall
it takes real money to run a campaign and get
elected to a high level of power) and ability
to persuede people.
The cheif effect of this is to make the people
think they have power because they have choice.
In truth the power is still with the main power
groups because they are the ones that choose what
the peoples choices are. In the end the system
caters to the rich and powerfull, while it
pacifies the general populace.
All they need to do is ocasionally make an issue
of something, then take decisive action on it. In
essence, throw the people a bone. Make them feel
important.
Then again...I wouldn't doubt that marx said
similar things about the bougeois. As much as
I think the system is setup to short circuit
that social cycle, I still feel that things ARE
changing despite it.
Then again...thats not surprizing...one only
need aply some of the basic Erisian principals
to it....remembering that anything which attempts
to impose order, in the end results in more
disorder. Perhaps the worst "they" can do is
slow the cycle down like a poorly constucted dam
and someday it will just explode with more
force then before?
hmmm... time will tell I supose.
ok...I have rambled enough.
I hate to say it...but it is time to drag out the
old clue bat.
> Well, for starters, this guy is obviously
> speaking in such vague generalities that we can
> neither prove nor disprove his vision of the
> future.
Even if he said exactly that "on this date AT&T
stock will fall to X" you still can't prove or
disprove it until that date comes.
You simply can not possibly "prove or disprove"
furtue events, until that day comes. The best you
can do is talk abou tprobability of it happening.
> Never trust anyone who claims they can see the
> future and have all the answers. I prefer to
> function as intelligently as I can in the
> present as well as the future, and I at least
> know enough to state that I don't know it all.
> IMHO, this guy is a fraud.
He is a fraud? Please point me to where it is
stated that this article is anything but fiction?
Is douglass adams a "Fraud" because he wrote about
the earth being destroyed by a Vogon Constructor
fleet, who were making a hyberspace bypass?
The article was merely a fictional acount of what
the author sees as a possible future. The intent
of fictional acounts of this type is NOT to
accuratly predict the future...rather...it is
(usually) to present a world which we can hold
up and compare to our own (in this case a world
that has been ravaged by the lack of forethought
of our own world). The purpose is to make people
think about the world that they live in now and
to reflect on current day values and trends.
I fail to see how this is fraud.
> Napster is pain in the butt and a bandwidth hog.
....course... ;)
> If that is the real reason it is being blocked,
> I consider that a legit reason. Bandwidth is a
> finite item, even at universities.
Yes definitly. I would like to add that in some
cases, blocking napster, while not optimum, is
a good short term solution.
I know that here, the network admins just looked
at their mrtg (I think they use mrtg anyway)
graphs and shit themselves when they saw how
much bandwith was being eaten up on the dorms
network. As a result...napster got blocked at the
routers.
At least here, this was only a temporary measure,
and there is talk (progressing at standard
University snail pace) of unblocking napster and
imposing a bandwidth cap. (I suggested putting
2 28.8 modems back to back and routing the
dorms through it....they said that was just too
sadistic though)
Course the real answer is to replace all dorm room
ethernet with 3 wire serial connections to LATs
that have all ports locked in at 1200 7e1
In any case...I would recomend that anyone who
is a student to make some noise and make sure that
any blocking is only temporary...its really
stupid for along term solution.
then don't bitch when your bandwidth gets capped
either
So I guess it would be "Fast, Unrestricted, Cheap
- pick 2".
-Steve
and how do these compare to Blair's "Possible
Side Effects" sauce?
Here at the university I work for napster has
:)
been blocked at the boarder routers for a while.
There has been talk about reactivating it...and
putting a bandwidth cap on the studtent segment
:)
I said they should just put 2 28.8 modems back to
back and route the dorms through them...but I
think they will be more generous than that
I find it amusing that people are out there
calling schools evil tyrants when I hear the
network admins talking about what they need to
do so they can turn napster back on without
negativly impacting the network.
> I want to keep my private key in my wallet and
> protected it that way IN ADDITION to a password.
Well hell, add a "me too" on that. However,
even that scheme has its problem. The main
problme with it is hardware overhead.
It means that every machine you might wish to log
in from will need special hardware to read your
private key (unless you plan to type it in every
time)
I think that for most applications, and most
people, the ssh solution is "good enough" (of
course ssh doesn't say you can't put your private
key on a smart card or something...I am sure that
if you had a smart card reader it would be
trivial to change ssh to use it)
Take my current setup. my desktop has the
private key, with a moderately strong passphrase
(its not exactly random chars, but its not
going to fall to a dictionary attack or any
simple permutations)
If I remember right, an 128 bit hash is made of
the passphrase and used to encrypt the private
key. With a strong passphrase that is nearly
impossible to break.
more importantly.. the system is secure enough
that it would be easier to compromise the
machine or take me into an ally and beat me up
and force me to give them the passphrase then it
is to defeat it other ways... smart cards fall
to those exact same "methods".
> So, why can't I get my university to install SSH
>clients on all the desktops that we use to
> connect to our unix servers?
If the desktops are unix boxen...then they
should get their asses in gear and install
openssh (IMHO)
however...for Windows boxes...licencing can be
expensive. Here we have a SecureCRT licence pool
and ar eletting students and faculty get copies...
I have no idea what its costing the
University though.
Hopefully someday telnet will fall into disuse and
we can stop supporting it.
> Most authentication systems are trying to
> authenticate people, not computers - the fact
> that the same people often use the same
> computers is merely convenient - convenient for
> the computer system not the user.
>
> Worse still, the public key, being digital, is
> easily copied without the owner knowing. Sure,
> it's password protected, but that just brings us
> back to passwords again.
I have to agree and disagree.
ssh IS a very good system. The public key system
it uses does work. However, it only works if
the user sets it up right. (of course it is
defeatable if someone can sit in the middle and
play with all packets...thats besides the point
and not always, or even usually feasable)
The security of the system is in the encryption
of the private key. The authentication is that
anyone with the private key, has to be me (is
assumed). So...if my key has a passphrase...only
me can ever open the private key and use it...
even though it is stored on multiple machines
(hopefully moved to them in a secure manner)
only I can unlock it on any of these machines.
I know this is a troll...however...I just need
to correct the glaring error...
> SSH is an American product. Don't touch it. It's
> bound to be of wretchedly poor quality, because
> US workers are wage slaves with no personal or
> civil rights, and slaves always do lousy work.
Well most of that is somewhat true...no civil
rights, wage slaves (often)...low quality work...
yup that too sometimes...
However... the person you reply to was talking
about OpenSSH. A free software product, which
was developed in Canada, not the US.
> Ever heard of the Greater Fool Theory?
> Capitalism is the Greater Fool Economy. Don't
> be the fool.
I suspect you don't actually believe this.
However, here I have to agree with you...
Capitalism is a pretty pitiful system (though
most people don't understand the beauty of
the alternatives).
Which of course has nothing to do with the topic.
Especially considering OpenSSH exists and was
not (AFAIK) written with capitalist goals in
mind.
> Also each and every public type machine that I
> have ever used and all unix machines
> I have never used have never either made ssh
> avaible or it was not really practal. SSH is
> only useful if you regularly connect to remote
> unix machines that support it or you have
> multiple machines with shell access.
Well yes of course... ssh is only useful when
connecting to a host that has sshd installed.
Personally, here at work, ALL of our machines
use ssh. Also, any machine that is mine to
administer as I see fit, doesn't even support
telnet...I turn it off.
I think anyone who runs a unix server should
install ssh, and encourage all users to use it.
In fact, wherever even remotely feasable...telnet
should be turned off.
ssh is too easy to use to not support. plaintext
passwords are too easy to sniff to allow.
(I should note that we recently had a user acount
compromised, which we believe was the result of
a password sniff when one of our users was out
of the country and telnet'd in internationally)
-Steve
Actually...there was a reason...
I contemplated that...but I also didn't want
to deal with bug reports etc (afterall...no code)
No longer having a windows machine...I just said
fuck it and deleted it.
I was also fairly frustrated at the time.