First they came after websites with malicious ads. I did not speak because I did not have malicious ads.
Then they came after websites with adult/questionable content. I did not speak because I did not have adult/questionable content.
Then they came after me, and there was no one else to speak for me.
>...pasting other people's ORIGINAL writing, you are not a journalist.
Did you bother reading the article? This guy was not just a blogger who got the latest digg.com headlines and commented on them. He had a camera and went down in the trenches to obtain original footage. Yet he is not registered as a journalist.
But the thing most people here miss -- even if he was a journalist they could still have jailed him. The law protects him from local police investigations, not from Federal investigations. He was easy prey.
On the other hand... WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?
> This is ONLY a concern to the people interested in owning thousands of names.
I agree. This increase will not harm people like you and me who own one or two domain names. It will however harm people who buy domains in bulk and do not make use of them. Even worse they try to sell them to you at much higher prices.
The bottom line: This increase is good for consumers, bad for domain sharks.
I don't think it violates the first amendment, (gee teenagers coming up with lols and brbs//./'s coming up with IANALs would have been prosecuted by now)
However I wonder if they will make sedna a planet too. Sedna is bigger than Pluto. -- Or how about the many moons of jupiter, some of them are bigger than pluto as well. Do they get planetship?
> Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far...
There is no such thing as "limits on free speech" or "Free speech going too far". It either is free speech or it is not.
If it is libel that's a different thing, there are laws that regulate that.
A: We are a free country, free speech B: Lawyers are assholes A: You are stepping bounds on your freedom of speech, offensive comments are not included in it B:
Everyone say it together with me: "Phase velocity vs Group velocity" There are no photons in this experiment that are traveling faster than the speed of light. Only collections of them that 'appear' to be doing so. Think of this as an example: I space people out in a line, each of them two light minutes apart from the people next in line (all at rest with respect to each other). Now I go about talking to them and informing them of my plan. At 12:00 the first person waves, at 12:01 the second person waves, at 12:02 the third person waves, and so forth. My "wave" is propogating, therefore, at twice the speed of light. This is the same thing that this experiment is doing more or less. By spending extra time setting up the experiment, you can make it appear that a light pulse travels faster than c, but like my "wave" it is only an appearance.
By: Justanyone
Information flow (see: Steven Hawking's theories) cannot propogate at faster than the speed of light, or causality is violated and we have (dead virgins/future grandfathers) all over the place.
All 4 basic forces: electromagnatism, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear (not Nukular; bite me, George) forces propogate at the speed of light in their reference frame. If we switch frames we're not fooling anyone; if we preposition information we're not watching causality violations.
This kind of story is quite irritating, not due to the actual achievement involved (playing with light propogation is actually very cool geek-cred stuff), but the overhype and miscommunication to all the laypersons out there who just go, "Yup, that's an 'oops', they said it was a law and now it ain't. I guess evolution might not really be true, dad-gummit, I don't trust me none o' dem smarty pants anyway."
By: Alwin
Set up say, 1000 domino blocks in a row. Then tip the first one over. Given constant size, weight, spacing of individual blocks, and a horizontal surface, you will observe blocks falling down at a constant rate/speed ('c'). Given that constant rate/speed, tipping over the first block will cause all blocks to fall down, tipping over the last block some time later. Time delay calculates as distance divided by 'c'.
Now, create 'extreme conditions', where the first domino block is down, the last one is still standing, and halfway down the row, blocks are falling, but not quite down on the floor. Then, observe the 'wave front' of falling domino blocks. It will appear to move faster than the previously determined 'c'. How come?
Look more closely: as each block falls down, there's a fixed delay before it hits the next block. But what happens under our 'extreme conditions'? At the exact time a previous block would have hit the next one (under normal circumstances), that next block is already falling down! The time it takes for the 1000 blocks to fall down, is less than what normally would be expected.
Did this 'c' constant get violated? Nope, it still took the same amount of time for each block to fall down. Was the maximum 'c' speed exceeded? Nope. After tipping the first block, it still took the same amount of time before this 'information' was passed on to the next block. With a set of 1000 blocks all standing, the time needed for an initial 'disturbance' to be passed on to the last block, is still limited by 'c'.
So these 'extreme conditions' are like pre-tipping each block, and let you observe something that appeared to move faster than 'c'. Nice for the lab folks, but other than that, sensationalist journalism. Wake me up when trans-atlantic ping times (sending actual packets with random data) dive below the time dictated by the speed of light.
That is correct, the original video was faked... They prob were close but did not want to wait. Here is a video I made debunking their proof: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1468187717 11399295&hl=en My guess is that they got a buffer overflow but had not yet found the correct location in memory to write their shellcode. They still have not...
You can't leave him alone, he holds a very high position in the wikipedia food chain. People must trust the admins and even more arbitrators. This guy has been lying to the media -- he has irreparably destroyed trust in the wikipedia adminship. Can you imagine if one of the main editors of Britannica turns out to be 24 year old nobody after claiming to hold a tenured position, a doctorate and a law degree ?
>> the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application.
Rubbish. Example: Podcasts. Most of them are mp3/aac, yet they load on the iPod just fine.
* Apple does not want to provide a stable API for loading songs on the ipod. They want you to use itunes (and osx while you are at it) * Apple is trying to avoid legal trouble in northern europe by shifting the blame * Apple can start serving up unprotected content just as easily as they patched the last time QTFairPlay broke the encryption * Apple is smart (At marketing)
I own a copy of the book and I'll go to copyright hell for posting it, but here goes her article on that book. (side note: the book is good, even talks about open source biology, which was discussed on Slashdot recently)
Attribute: "Pamela Jones is the founder of Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net), an experiment in applying open source principles to the field of legal research. Groklaw is also an independent journalistic voice, covering legal news stories from the point of view of the Free and Open Source (FOSS) community. Groklaw is also an anti-FUD web site. It has focused heavily on the SCO litigation, because the community is, after all, while not a direct party to any of the lawsuits, directly interested in and affected by the outcome, since it is their code and their community that is under attack. For that reason, Pamela found it is both natural and appropriate that Groklaw try to contribute to a positive outcome."
17. Extending Open Source Principles Beyond Software Development
Pamela Jones
It starts with an idea.
Linus, for example, realized that if he put his kernel project online, people all around the world could work on it together, without having to be in the same building. They could quite literally write software in public that way, scattered around the world though they were.
Understanding such simple things changes the world sometimes.
But what about other areas? Is it possible to extend that same process to other kinds of work, or is it suitable only for software development? One thing can now be said for sure: legal research can be done that way. Groklaw is the proof of concept. But as I will explain, you need to tweak things just a bit.
I've done legal research for a living as a paralegal, and now I've done it with the world as a Groklaw volunteer, and I am therefore in a position to make comparisons. I think any company involved in any legal dispute that touches on technology could profit from using the open source method to tap into the community's group knowledge pool.
I'm a good researcher, and I do excellent work, but I know without a doubt that the input from thousands of readers made a huge difference in what Groklaw was able to accomplish in digging up helpful information in the SCO litigation. 17.1. How Did It Happen and How Does It Work?
When I began, it was just l'il ol' me. I had read Slashdot enough to know that while there was a high level of technical knowledge in some of the site's readers, the level of legal knowledge was low. I also saw there was a hunger to understand the law. Technical information that could influence the outcome of a lawsuit was available there, but it was not reaching the attorneys. And legal information that could help techies know what to dig up and helpfully provide was not readily available to the FOSS community.
At the beginning, I was trying to learn how to blog, because I had a job interview for a freelance assignment helping an attorney with his legal blog. You have to write something if you are blogging, so I decided to write about what I knew best, which is legal research. It felt private, like a diary, and I didn't think anyone would find what I was writing about or care much if they did.
I wrote to the air, thinking no one would read it anyway, and I horsed around, finding funny graphics for as many of the entries as I could, but it was just for fun, just to learn. I eventually chose to focus on the SCO v. IBM case because it appealed to my sense of humor and stirred my hatred of injustice, and because I knew quite a bit about the GPL, as it happened, and I knew SCO was going to fail on that part of its claims. I was also quite confident that Linus was not going to infringe on anyone's code on purpose. So, every day I'd add a little bit more to the story, as I saw news stories about the case and SCO's claims. I wrote as though I were talking with a good friend over dinner who asked me, "So, what's this SCO case all about? Is there any chance they could win?"
Not quite that fast. In most computers where you log in often BofA keeps track of the subnet/browser type you use to log in. Thus in your home / office computer the sitekey will come up immediately.
In other cases where your computer is not recognized, (Ie the spammers' bankofamerica.login.account.23904234023.com) BofA will ask you any of many random questions preselected, (ie pets name, father's maiden name etc) then it will show you the sitekey.
On top of that they use some tricky javascript to make sure you are logged in on the same session using a web browser, thus the attacker would have to first request the "secret question", from BOFA manage to do some complex scripting to keep track of the cookies and to lie to the javascript session manager, then parse the answer and send it back to a user. (Red flag for the user anyhow, usually user is not asked for the secret info). Once that's done then the attacker would go on and request the sitekey image and relay that back to the user. Not an easy thing to do...
I have tried to imagine how the algorithm would be scalable *and* not be blacklist-based and for the life of it I can't. How would they be able to determine maliciousness from all honest linking? Unlike other google bombs santorum links to a site that is consistent, whereas miserable failure leads to a page unrelated to the search.
I personally believe they really did make a manual blacklist of the googlebombs. I think that google bombs are useful too. a search for "Scientology" -> Still bings up xenu.net, thank god.
It's not quite greylisting. Greylisting denies access to the smtp server, this technology reads the whole message, analyzes it, rejects it, and waits for a second `exact` copy.
From the FAQ (http://www.olympus.net/doubleVerifyNL):
DoubleVerify gets two chances to automatically identify mail. When mail arrives at our mail server the first time our server requests the sending mail server to send it a second time. Spammers rarely comply. Legitimate mail servers typically resend the mail about fifteen minutes later. Once OlympusNet receives mail the second time, it immediately delivers that mail and continues to immediately deliver mail from that sender. The DoubleVerify process works invisibly and is handled automatically by the mail servers.
in response to: > (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
There is another anti spam technology called (doubleverify?), if a message smells like spam the smtp server rejects it saying unavailable and waits for the sender to send it again (an hour or so later). For people who use it it works fine, but people who use it are in the minority, thus spammers won't bother writing new systems that keep track of what was rejected etc. They appeal to the (cheap) masses.
Same here, unless this becomes widely popular few spammers will adopt it. Thus there's a chance for this to work (hopefully, unlike doubleverify this is not patented)
CS2335 Software Practicum - It's an exercise in large scale projects among team members. The idea of the class is to train you to work on teams and on a schedule. If you don't work your daily share every day you will not be able to make it in the end.
If you are on the new Threads(TM) program it is not a required course.
Which college is this?
I'm a student at georgia tech and when a certain class switched from java to.net hell was raised. So much so that now they allow students to use mono for that class.
Well, I was going to tag it on del.icio.us as toRead... and read it later, good thing I read your entry. Joking aside the artice does not say anything about avoiding it, and I've tried everything, from egg timers to google calendar to elastic bands on the wrist (smack yourself when you catch yourself doing a bad habit) (see http://www.amazon.com/Snap-Out-Herbert-S-Cohen/dp/ 0871318962 )
I've given up and now accept my procrastination as a way of life
Really? Can you take fedora6 and install it on your linux phone?
Oh I see, you mean just the linux kernel. Well yeah, that's exactly what they did in osx, they took the same XNU kernel that runs osx and they put different userland utilities on there.
>... researchers mishandled the disclosure
Absolutely! And to proove the point I made a video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1468187717 11399295... which proves point blank the video was faked. (I simply demonstrated one of the many flaws in the video as exposed by another blog)
Slashdot Mirror
You only need an email address (or phone number) to send paypal money. And here you go: mxhaard@magic.fr
Paypal link: Send money - Enter email or phone
-- Note: It's on his website as well: http://mxhaard.free.fr/apropos.html
First they came after websites with malicious ads. I did not speak because I did not have malicious ads. Then they came after websites with adult/questionable content. I did not speak because I did not have adult/questionable content. Then they came after me, and there was no one else to speak for me.
> ...pasting other people's ORIGINAL writing, you are not a journalist.
Did you bother reading the article? This guy was not just a blogger who got the latest digg.com headlines and commented on them. He had a camera and went down in the trenches to obtain original footage. Yet he is not registered as a journalist.
But the thing most people here miss -- even if he was a journalist they could still have jailed him. The law protects him from local police investigations, not from Federal investigations. He was easy prey.
On the other hand... WTF dude, a cop was almost killed and you refuse to hand over the tape?
> This is ONLY a concern to the people interested in owning thousands of names.
I agree. This increase will not harm people like you and me who own one or two domain names. It will however harm people who buy domains in bulk and do not make use of them. Even worse they try to sell them to you at much higher prices.
The bottom line: This increase is good for consumers, bad for domain sharks.
If you were one of the thousands of bloggers/netcitizens demanding DRM free music, give yourself a hand. This is a win for us.
I don't think it violates the first amendment, (gee teenagers coming up with lols and brbs// ./'s coming up with IANALs would have been prosecuted by now)
However I wonder if they will make sedna a planet too. Sedna is bigger than Pluto. -- Or how about the many moons of jupiter, some of them are bigger than pluto as well. Do they get planetship?
Similar & related:
Arkansas House passes resolution changing possessive of state's name to "Arkansas's"
> Is this an example of free speech and anonymity gone too far...
There is no such thing as "limits on free speech" or "Free speech going too far". It either is free speech or it is not.
If it is libel that's a different thing, there are laws that regulate that.
A: We are a free country, free speech
B: Lawyers are assholes
A: You are stepping bounds on your freedom of speech, offensive comments are not included in it
B:
> I'm so tired of this stuff. Byte me!
I'm sorry, that's wrong too:
* 1 byte == 2 nibbles
* 1 byte != 1 bite
--
Byte nazi police, proudly serving since 2^1025
Nope, that's wrong
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte
* 1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabyte
* 1 Tebibyte = 1024 Gibibyte
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/
Now pardon me as I karma whore:
By Trip11
By: Justanyone
By: Alwin
That is correct, the original video was faked... They prob were close but did not want to wait.7 11399295&hl=en
Here is a video I made debunking their proof: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=146818771
My guess is that they got a buffer overflow but had not yet found the correct location in memory to write their shellcode. They still have not...
You can't leave him alone, he holds a very high position in the wikipedia food chain. People must trust the admins and even more arbitrators. This guy has been lying to the media -- he has irreparably destroyed trust in the wikipedia adminship. Can you imagine if one of the main editors of Britannica turns out to be 24 year old nobody after claiming to hold a tenured position, a doctorate and a law degree ?
>> the iTunes store is not designed to serve unprotected content and the iTunes application.
Rubbish. Example: Podcasts. Most of them are mp3/aac, yet they load on the iPod just fine.
* Apple does not want to provide a stable API for loading songs on the ipod. They want you to use itunes (and osx while you are at it)
* Apple is trying to avoid legal trouble in northern europe by shifting the blame
* Apple can start serving up unprotected content just as easily as they patched the last time QTFairPlay broke the encryption
* Apple is smart (At marketing)
I own a copy of the book and I'll go to copyright hell for posting it, but here goes her article on that book.
(side note: the book is good, even talks about open source biology, which was discussed on Slashdot recently)
Attribute:
"Pamela Jones is the founder of Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net), an experiment in applying open source principles to the field of legal research. Groklaw is also an independent journalistic voice, covering legal news stories from the point of view of the Free and Open Source (FOSS) community. Groklaw is also an anti-FUD web site. It has focused heavily on the SCO litigation, because the community is, after all, while not a direct party to any of the lawsuits, directly interested in and affected by the outcome, since it is their code and their community that is under attack. For that reason, Pamela found it is both natural and appropriate that Groklaw try to contribute to a positive outcome."
17. Extending Open Source Principles Beyond Software Development
Pamela Jones
It starts with an idea.
Linus, for example, realized that if he put his kernel project online, people all around the world could work on it together, without having to be in the same building. They could quite literally write software in public that way, scattered around the world though they were.
Understanding such simple things changes the world sometimes.
But what about other areas? Is it possible to extend that same process to other kinds of work, or is it suitable only for software development? One thing can now be said for sure: legal research can be done that way. Groklaw is the proof of concept. But as I will explain, you need to tweak things just a bit.
I've done legal research for a living as a paralegal, and now I've done it with the world as a Groklaw volunteer, and I am therefore in a position to make comparisons. I think any company involved in any legal dispute that touches on technology could profit from using the open source method to tap into the community's group knowledge pool.
I'm a good researcher, and I do excellent work, but I know without a doubt that the input from thousands of readers made a huge difference in what Groklaw was able to accomplish in digging up helpful information in the SCO litigation.
17.1. How Did It Happen and How Does It Work?
When I began, it was just l'il ol' me. I had read Slashdot enough to know that while there was a high level of technical knowledge in some of the site's readers, the level of legal knowledge was low. I also saw there was a hunger to understand the law. Technical information that could influence the outcome of a lawsuit was available there, but it was not reaching the attorneys. And legal information that could help techies know what to dig up and helpfully provide was not readily available to the FOSS community.
At the beginning, I was trying to learn how to blog, because I had a job interview for a freelance assignment helping an attorney with his legal blog. You have to write something if you are blogging, so I decided to write about what I knew best, which is legal research. It felt private, like a diary, and I didn't think anyone would find what I was writing about or care much if they did.
I wrote to the air, thinking no one would read it anyway, and I horsed around, finding funny graphics for as many of the entries as I could, but it was just for fun, just to learn. I eventually chose to focus on the SCO v. IBM case because it appealed to my sense of humor and stirred my hatred of injustice, and because I knew quite a bit about the GPL, as it happened, and I knew SCO was going to fail on that part of its claims. I was also quite confident that Linus was not going to infringe on anyone's code on purpose. So, every day I'd add a little bit more to the story, as I saw news stories about the case and SCO's claims. I wrote as though I were talking with a good friend over dinner who asked me, "So, what's this SCO case all about? Is there any chance they could win?"
Not quite that fast. In most computers where you log in often BofA keeps track of the subnet/browser type you use to log in. Thus in your home / office computer the sitekey will come up immediately.
In other cases where your computer is not recognized, (Ie the spammers' bankofamerica.login.account.23904234023.com) BofA will ask you any of many random questions preselected, (ie pets name, father's maiden name etc) then it will show you the sitekey.
On top of that they use some tricky javascript to make sure you are logged in on the same session using a web browser, thus the attacker would have to first request the "secret question", from BOFA manage to do some complex scripting to keep track of the cookies and to lie to the javascript session manager, then parse the answer and send it back to a user. (Red flag for the user anyhow, usually user is not asked for the secret info). Once that's done then the attacker would go on and request the sitekey image and relay that back to the user. Not an easy thing to do...
Thank you for pointing that out, captain.
*Salute*
I have tried to imagine how the algorithm would be scalable *and* not be blacklist-based and for the life of it I can't. How would they be able to determine maliciousness from all honest linking? Unlike other google bombs santorum links to a site that is consistent, whereas miserable failure leads to a page unrelated to the search.
I personally believe they really did make a manual blacklist of the googlebombs. I think that google bombs are useful too. a search for "Scientology" -> Still bings up xenu.net, thank god.
It's not quite greylisting. Greylisting denies access to the smtp server, this technology reads the whole message, analyzes it, rejects it, and waits for a second `exact` copy.
= 11045587
see: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132222&cid
From the FAQ (http://www.olympus.net/doubleVerifyNL):
DoubleVerify gets two chances to automatically identify mail. When mail arrives at our mail server the first time our server requests the sending mail server to send it a second time. Spammers rarely comply. Legitimate mail servers typically resend the mail about fifteen minutes later. Once OlympusNet receives mail the second time, it immediately delivers that mail and continues to immediately deliver mail from that sender. The DoubleVerify process works invisibly and is handled automatically by the mail servers.
in response to:
> (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
There is another anti spam technology called (doubleverify?), if a message smells like spam the smtp server rejects it saying unavailable and waits for the sender to send it again (an hour or so later). For people who use it it works fine, but people who use it are in the minority, thus spammers won't bother writing new systems that keep track of what was rejected etc. They appeal to the (cheap) masses.
Same here, unless this becomes widely popular few spammers will adopt it. Thus there's a chance for this to work (hopefully, unlike doubleverify this is not patented)
CS2335 Software Practicum - It's an exercise in large scale projects among team members. The idea of the class is to train you to work on teams and on a schedule. If you don't work your daily share every day you will not be able to make it in the end. If you are on the new Threads(TM) program it is not a required course.
Which college is this? I'm a student at georgia tech and when a certain class switched from java to .net hell was raised. So much so that now they allow students to use mono for that class.
Canonical: Free Ubuntu cds shipped!
Community: Whoa, great innovative, breakthrough, sign that ubuntu is a serious contender
Sun: Free Solaris dvds shipped!
Community: Whoa, sign of desperation, they can't even give their os for free.
Well, I was going to tag it on del.icio.us as toRead ... and read it later, good thing I read your entry. Joking aside the artice does not say anything about avoiding it, and I've tried everything, from egg timers to google calendar to elastic bands on the wrist (smack yourself when you catch yourself doing a bad habit) (see http://www.amazon.com/Snap-Out-Herbert-S-Cohen/dp/ 0871318962 )
I've given up and now accept my procrastination as a way of life
Really? Can you take fedora6 and install it on your linux phone? Oh I see, you mean just the linux kernel. Well yeah, that's exactly what they did in osx, they took the same XNU kernel that runs osx and they put different userland utilities on there.
> ... researchers mishandled the disclosure
Absolutely! And to proove the point I made a video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1468187717 11399295 ... which proves point blank the video was faked. (I simply demonstrated one of the many flaws in the video as exposed by another blog)