Re: Insider trading?
Insider trading laws are related to public stocks. I don't think those are involved here.
5648 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Feb 2015
"nick all the good stuff from DECnet."
Not a terrible idea, but that's not what we did. Our private internet is entirely based on standard internet technology. Except we don't (yet) run a DNS -- the network is too small and doesn't change enough for that to be necessary yet. We exchange host files as needed instead (kickin' it old-school!)
Our network does not require the public internet to work (although it does have a tunnel through it) -- we can connect to it through old-school modems to cover us in the case of internet outages. We even have a microwave link to a subnet that is too remote to get reliable internet service.
We also run a gateway to the real internet, mostly to provide internet service to that remote area (we essentially run a micro-ISP to provide public internet service to the neighbors there, which covers the cost of the microwave link).
"Run Internet 2.0 in parallel, brand new namespace, brand new address space"
This makes me think...
My friends and I have been running such a thing for our own use for almost 15 years now. I also know that we aren't the only ones, and such "shadow nets" are actually more common than you would think.
Since the internet really is nothing more than "a network of networks", it is entirely possible that these shadow nets could coordinate with each other to form a parallel internet in every sense of the word.
"And of course back when the web was brand new you had to put numerical IP addresses in."
Not really. Back before DNS was a thing, everyone shared host files that had the list of names and their IP addresses. You had to periodically update that file from other authoritative servers. This rapidly became unwieldy and increasingly infeasible. In essence, DNS was a way to stop having to share these files and give everyone a way to access the entire database in its current state.
And let's not forget the old UUCP bang path. Or let's, depending on how you felt about them.
"a raw IP address would work just as well if not better than a domain name."
Not really. DNS exists to solve a very real problem. Servers can change IP addresses, for instance. If you didn't have a domain name, then doing that would require that you let everyone who cares know what the new IP address is. This is not realistic (and especially not if the server is being accessed automatically via software).
"The arguments were long, and they were passionate, but at the end of the day a society where everything was for sale won the game."
Yep.
When that battle was lost, I declared to my colleagues that "the internet is dead". At the time, they all laughed at me. None of them laugh anymore.
The various developments on the internet over the last several years have been increasingly bad, mostly with the web -- which has long been getting increasingly unacceptable and smaller for me as the number of websites that are both useful and not aggressively antiuser has been shrinking. But at least the web isn't the most critical part of the internet (for me -- ymmv).
This feels like a watershed thing, though. I fear that we've reached the point where we have to call it -- the battle to keep the internet operating in the best interests of people everywhere has been lost.
This statement from the Internet Society:
“We believe many in the community see the long-term benefits of this deal,” it said in a statement, arguing that it will “promote long-term financial security and more diversified funding for years to come to support the Internet Society’s vision that the Internet is for everyone; and PIR will be able to expand its mission to engage in purposeful work to advance important issues and further strengthen its commitment to the .org community.”
is just the purest of bullshit. They've sold us out.
I guess the question is, what now?
Am I being too pessimistic here?
I'm not really disagreeing with your point here.
It can be effective to bake a PCB to fix a problem if that problem is cold solder joints (although that's the thermal equivalent of trying to fix something mechanical by randomly hitting it with a hammer). But it's not as simple as chucking it into an oven. You have to prepare the board (such as desoldering and removing components that will wilt in the heat), and be reasonably cautious about times and temperatures.
My experience is that you're better off finding and resoldering the specific cold solder joint. If the bad joint is a ball under a BGA chip, then using a hot air gun on that chip is a safer option than baking the entire board (although removing, reballing, and resoldering the entire chip is even better.)
On the other hand, as AvE likes to say, if it's already fucked, why not give it a go? It's not like it matters if you make it even more fucked.
"He went back to a certain emission-cheating car company as well, even after they treated him like absolute shit when he bought his last car from them."
I don't know your dad's situation, but this did remind me of an old marketing trick...
If you know that what you're selling is a piece of crap, a standard approach to selling it is to make it pretty, price it high, and market it as a luxury good. When people pay a premium price for something, they tend to be very reluctant to admit to themselves that they have been taken, and are even more reluctant to admit it to others -- so you get into a situation where customers will give you good reviews and talk up your product to their friends and family even when it's clearly garbage.
I think you broke it, not fixed it. FOMO is not a Millennial thing -- the effect has been around, and exploited, for as long as marketing has existed.
That said, I honestly never understood the effect personally. I just know it's effective from marketing classes as well as personal observation. I don't think I've ever experienced a fear of missing out. Either I want/need something or I don't -- whether others are getting the thing (or what kind of deal they're getting) doesn't enter into it.
But then, I've been in business a very long time, and have learned that if someone is pressuring me to "buy now!", either explicitly or implicitly, the thing that's being pitched is more than likely not a good deal for me.
"I do use Amazon, but my buying criteria is whatever the hell I actually need, not how fast it is going to be delivered."
This is me. I buy from Amazon if I can't find what I need anywhere else, but the speed of delivery is not (usually) an issue. I generally pick the "slow boat" delivery option.
At worst, all you'd need to do is hide in some bushes or something and use a moderately powerful laser to blind the camera while you approach it to spray paint over the lens or bash the thing with a rock.
Or use more than a moderately powerful laser so the laser itself will permanently damage the camera.
"People on both sides of this issue need to realize is that in the United States there is NO expectation of privacy when you are on a public right of way, or within view of the public right of way."
This is not really true. It's true that you have a dramatically reduced amount of legally protected privacy in public, but you do have some.
As one example, anyone can take your picture in public, but unless you're a "public figure", they generally can't publish that picture without your permission.
"Ring provided this statement to The Register via email [...]"
Ring's statement here really made my blood boil. It completely ignores the fundamental and serious privacy problems with Ring -- which is the surveillance of innocent others by the devices. Talking about how users have control over the videos (even if true) is entirely beside the point. The point is that these things are a threat to the non-Ring people.
At least those damned things have a light, so I can tell from a reasonable distance which neighborhoods are too dangerous to be in.
Governments can be very good at protecting your privacy from nongovernmental entities, though, if they put their minds to it. Even if that doesn't stop governmental spying, it's still an improvement.
Since we can't seem to get corporations to stop spying on us, governmental action is all we really have. Are you suggesting that we just give up and do nothing at all?
"Facebook enables people all over the world to connect in ways that protect privacy, including in less developed countries through tools like Free Basics," the company spokesperson said. "Our business model is how groups like Amnesty International – who currently run ads on Facebook – reach supporters, raise money, and advance their mission."
This has become Facebook's standard dodge these days -- trying to frame the privacy issue in a way that excludes Facebook itself from consideration. When they say "protect privacy", they mean from everybody who isn't Facebook or doesn't have a business deal with Facebook.
In other words, this is a mealy-mouthed public relations lie.
"Yes, of course I will be downvoted about a gazillion times but I have little patience for anyone who can't let go of the past and look at the present instead."
I, for one, am looking at the present in addition to the past, but I don't see much from Microsoft in the present that is very reassuring.
"I wouldn't go for an entire ban on software patents."
I would. In part because it seems clear to me that patent law was intended to specifically exclude things like software. Also, because I don't see how patenting software brings any societal value (and let's remember that the entire purpose of patents is to bring societal value rather than value to the patentholder). Also also, software patents actively harms the industry overall by making it legally risky to do pretty much anything.
"When it comes to physical abuse especially of kids"
That may be, but we're talking about pedophilia here, not generic physical abuse.
"I personally always doubted the 'only men are at fault for violence' but for much of my life had no trouble believing the "only men commit sexual violence" myth."
I've never believed either of those, because I have eyes. However, that is different than asserting that sexual assault of children isn't primarily a male thing. I have seen no authoritative studies that assert it isn't -- everything I've seen indicates it is.
Even what you're quoting in your comment doesn't really dispute the assertion that sexual assault of children isn't primarily a male thing.
"yet I can walk out at night without needing weapons"
I live in an average US neighborhood with average crime rates (for the US), and everyone around here can walk out at night without fear or needing weapons as well.
"yet in gated wealthy suburbs in the US the citizens seemingly feel a need to carry guns to protect them from their neighbours)."
That's because of paranoia, not because there is any actual danger.
"Very few of us are up to the mathematical knowledge of creating decent encryption, most of us will opt for something that "only we can think of no one else can" which will be quick and easy to break for others."
This is exactly right.
Trustworthy crypto really needs to be done by mathematicians -- and even then, by specialist mathematicians. And even then, that crypto cannot be considered trustworthy until it's been heavily examined and tested by other specialists.
The underlying problem is that it's very, very easy to create a crypto scheme that appears to be rock solid, but that contains a fatal weakness.
Your near miss is a great example of why mandating backdoors won't be terribly effective with this sort of thing. Instead of trying to get their victims to use software that complies with the backdoor requirement, they'll just try to get their victims to use software that doesn't. The only thing that would change is which software they'll be redirecting their victims to.
All that would be accomplished by building back doors into crypto is that criminals will use different crypto. Nothing substantial would be gained, but a great deal would be lost.
Also, if we're talking about child predators specifically, cops already have a much more effective method of finding predators -- going undercover as children online.
"Anything built by humans can usually eventually be hacked by humans in some form or other."
You don't even need humans in the loop, really. Anything that can be accessed legitimately can be accessed illegitimately, without exception. The only question is how hard it is to do.