Ever thought of, say, backing up your statements with evidence, or learning some critical thinking skills (never mind science knowledge, which you also seem to woefully lack)? Myself, I'd say that nuclear regulation is about the only sector of government where public pressure manages to counterbalance the growing power of industry (with the result varying from country to country).
I have to admit the "superpowers and spandex" was witty, tho.
Let's invent an algorithm for generating a sequence of random fallback tracker URLs, similar to the algorithms for C&C URLs for botnets --- but let's make sure that it involves using some information from all/any of the *AAs websites.
Then, by the same logic, the court would have to ask for those websites to be similarly expunged. This outcome might "help" the court understand that such a ruling is not a good idea...
> I think heís using SHA-3 because thatís the anointed > new trendy hawtness from NIST
I guess he missed out the part where NIST "suddenly" wanted to reset the security parameters of SHA-3... anyone following the recent news wouldn't think of SHA-3 as a stellar candidate for being an essential part of a stego algorithm.
Or did the NSA tell them to do that to try to make us think that the original parameters were "too hard" for them? Inquiring minds want to know!
Well, if it's anything like the version I thought up independently, the algorithm only uses a limited number of bits of the result of the hash function, enabling a brute force search to (sometimes, since there is no reason, except statistics, to expect that this would be possible) invert what would ordinarily be, as you said, an uninvertible function.
(In addition, one would probably prefer to use SHA256 nowadays instead of SHA3, since fast hardware is readily available to accelerate such an inversion of SHA256 --- namely, any Bitcoin mining setup.)
I'm off to check it out. I hope his work is an improvement on my own --- it'll save me a lot of trouble getting my own into publishable form.
Not only are you correct about the improper comparison, I would like to point out that anyone really serious about shutting down a facility like the one which was attacked could easily gather intelligence from an unmanned drone, and then attack it with, for example, bombs/grenades launched from a small truck-mounted catapult. Or even possibly just with small rockets designed to drop metal cables in the proper locations --- no explosives necessary.
Spending money to defend against the chance of someone attacking would almost certainly not be cost-effective, however, unless the likelihood of such attacks would increase dramatically. How unfortunate that human psychology is irrationally biased towards favoring safety against vanishingly rare but dramatic risks and ignoring common, small ones (like having less money because electricity is more expensive).
> I'm sure they have considered that feature for > copies that fail their legitimacy check.
Considered? Yes. Conclusion? It's better that home users pirate our stuff, so we maintain market dominance. Gates once admitted that MS greatly preferred that the Chinese pirate Windows rather than them adopting/developing a replacement.
Someone should start a civil disobedience campaign where at every showing of every movie, one or more people hold up their switched-off or screen-blackened-not-recording phones as if they were recording. I think the cops would get very, very sick of coming to investigate for no reason, and the movie theater owners might actually figure out that the "enforcement" loses them customers.
I also wonder how this could be enforced in Canada --- if copying for fair use is a consumer right, there, then if someone records, say, 20 seconds of a movie, I don't see how they could be prosecuted.
I personally prefer the term "creator's usufruct", in that it emphasizes that what is being milked for income belongs to society, not the creator herself. (Besides which, "usufruct" has such a "woody" sound to it...)
Of course, this inversion of rhetoric will probably never see wide use, since: (1) most content creators are too self-centered to adopt it, (2) most content gatekeepers are too savvy to allow language usage to undermine their current rhetorical advantage, and (3) usufruct isn't actually a universal legal concept, but rather a civil law concept.
(Please don't take this post to mean that I support the current form or terms of these usufructs; this is about terminology, only...)
> Subscription-based publishers argue that OA publishers are
> merely check-cashing operations
They would, wouldn't they now... Are you talking about the "expose" done by Science magazine (as seen on Slashdot)?
As many people on Slashdot noticed, this study only answers the question "Are there open-access science journals which are substandard?" and not the real question which is "Are there proportionally more substandard open-access journals compared to traditional ones?". For example, it is well-known that some traditional journals have been mere fronts for special interests (e.g., pharmaceutical companies).
Your idea about copying reputation models from the Web is quite interesting, I have to admit I thought about that also.
If a corporation is distributing GPL-licensed software like Linux, and it has become well-known that there is a significant chance that the NSA has corrupted Linux binaries, then in order to avoid legal liability the corporation might have to compile from source --- since the NSA backdoors wouldn't be GPL-licensed (presumably, and even if so, the corporation would be unable to distribute the sources to those backdoors).
The companies actually contacted by the NSA would almost certainly be immune, however (if they were American).
If I remember correctly, before (3) happens, you get hauled into some kind of "court" (but maybe more like a review board), and they have to decide to disconnect you. The guy who was found responsible for his wife's infringements was also fined 150 euros if I remember correctly.
What is this "regular" piracy you talk about, is that the "regular" piracy in the eyes of the **AAs (you know, the those blokes who once claimed that ripping CDs was piracy), "regular" piracy in the eyes of your average consumer, or "regular" piracy in the eyes of Lawrence Lessig?
Given that the manpower of the NSA is actually quite limited, I see no reason why John Fenderson is incorrect. If I contact someone using what is advertised as his public key, even if the NSA runs a MITM against us, it would have to have a real human editing our conversation to prevent us from exchanging enough information to be able to detect the MITM attack. There is no way an automatic logger (which is all the NSA can afford to run against "Average Joe Who Is Probably Not A Terrorist Or Otherwise Interesting") is going to be able to prevent us from confirming our PK fingerprints.
I find the most likely reason that the lobster law is on the books is that the catch-wild-lobster lobby has more money than the (as yet unborn) raise-cultured-lobster lobby, rather than your (intentionally?) silly justification --- which, by the way could easily be extended to making it a crime to catch adult lobsters, since this behavior, if unregulated, could lead to over-catching and to the extinction of the species, thus depriving future generations of the ability to enjoy... er... watching them from scuba dives.
Raising cultured lobsters is a $100 million dollar industry in Vietnam (not without its own problems, however)...
And of course, recent events would lead one to think that it could well be that both of these industries will be largely put out of business by culturing lobster cells in large vats (if the combined lobster lobbies don't manage to make it illegal before that industry gets its product on the market).
The original case was dismissed in the Southern District of NY on that date, and I had started to be worried that this was just an attempt to blackmail the blackmailers and go for a quick settlement bid.
But it seems that the plaintiffs have refiled in California and are serious about this. Actually now that I think about it, Warner has little recourse but to fight, because any settlement out of court will be seen to be an admission of the weakness their claims, and will only lead to a never-ending succession of other challenges in reply to a demand for licensing fees.
(On an aside: I was happy that I found a new interesting case on which to use up my uncharged $15-per-quarter PACER allocation, but wow --- just downloading the whole docket used up over $1. I see I can download just a partial docket by searching by document numbers, but does RECAP have any automatic consolidation in place for these kinds of partial docket searches?)