mine still works.
but the anti magic starts failing when i add more acid into my drink
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
mine still works.
If I own a store and there's a civil emergency, I won't even open my store. I would use the products for the safety/survival of my family.
On the other hand if there aren't any silly laws in place preventing your from selling your goods at 10X the normal price, maybe you will only keep aside what your family really needs and sell the rest, thus making important goods available to the public when they're really needed. But if that's illegal, yeah, might as well keep them for yourself. When things get back to normal you can continue selling whatever you didn't use at the normal price -- same as you were able to sell it for during the emergency, but without taking the risk of selling something you might need.
Restrictions on scarcity pricing are a bad idea and serve only to create even more scarcity.
It seems that the bigger problem here is that modern copyright is so unreasonably long, historical documents are still under copyright. Anything over the original 28 year copyright term is really robbing the next generation of history.
While I know al copyright issues are sensitive on
Assuming the copyright owner can be found, and is willing to sell.
The basis for Eldred v Ashcroft was that the celluloid of many old films is rapidly degrading but because the copyright ownership is muddled it's impossible to find anyone from which the right to republish the films can be purchased, so the films are being lost forever.
The power companies are all moving towards "smart meter" technologies anyway. Why not make sure they've put one in that can monitor the output of a PV solar (or even a wind turbine) installation while they're at it?
For that matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to require the homeowner to install such a meter as part of a solar installation, as a condition of being able to sell power to the utility -- or even to push power into the grid at all.
SCTP, for one, doesn't have any encryption.
Good, there is no reason to bind encryption to transport layer except to improve reliability of the channel in the face of active denial (e.g. TCP RST attack).
I disagree. To me there's at least one really compelling reason: To push universal encryption. One of my favorite features of QUIC is that encryption is baked so deeply into it that it cannot really be removed. Google tried to eliminate unencrypted connections with SPDY, but the IETF insisted on allowing unencrypted operation for HTTP2. I don't think that will happen with QUIC.
But there are other reasons as well, quite well-described in the documentation. The most significant one is performance. QUIC achieves new connection setup with less than one round trip on average, and restart with none... just send data.
Improvements to TCP helps everything layered on top of it.
True, but TCP is very hard to change. Even with wholehearted support from all of the major OS vendors, we'd have lots of TCP stacks without the new features for a decade, at least. That would not only slow adoption, it would also mean a whole lot of additional design complexity forced by backward compatibility requirements. QUIC, on the other hand, will be rolled out in applications, and it doesn't have to be backward compatible with anything other than previous versions of itself. It will make its way into the OS stacks, but systems that don't have it built in will continue using it as an app library.
Not having stupid unnecessary dependencies means I can benefit from TLS improvements even if I elect to use something other than IP to provide an ordered stream or I can use TCP without encryption and not have to pay for something I don't need.
So improve and use those protocols. You may even want to look to QUIC's design for inspiration. Then you can figure out how to integrate your new ideas carefully into the old protocols without breaking compatibility, and then you can fight your way through the standards bodies, closely scrutinized by every player that has an existing TLS or TCP implementation. To make this possible, you'll need to keep your changes small and incremental, and well-justified at every increment. Oh, but they'll also have to be compelling enough to get implementers to bother. With hard work you can succeed at this, but your timescale will be measured in decades.
In the meantime, QUIC will be widely deployed, making your work irrelevant.
As for using TCP without encryption so you don't have to pay for something you don't need, I think you're both overestimating the cost of encryption and underestimating its value. A decision that a particular data stream doesn't have enough value to warrant encryption it is guaranteed to be wrong if your application/protocol is successful. Stuff always gets repurposed and sufficient re-evaluation of security requirements is rare (even assuming the initial evaluation wasn't just wrong).
TCP+TFO + TLS extensions provide the same zero RTT opportunity as QUIC without reinventing wheels.
Only for restarts. For new connections you still have all the TCP three-way handshake overhead, followed by all of the TLS session establishment. QUIC does it in one round trip, in the worst case, and zero in most cases.
There was much valid (IMO) criticism of SPDY, that it really only helped really well-optimized sites -- like Google's -- to perform significantly better. Typical sites aren't any slower with SPDY, but aren't much faster, either, because they are so inefficient in other areas that request bottlenecks aren't their problem, so fixing those bottlenecks doesn't help. But QUIC will generally cut between two and four RTTs out of every web browser connection. And, of course, it also includes all of the improvements SPDY brought, plus new congestion management mechanisms which are significantly better than what's in TCP (so I'm told, anyway; I haven't actually looked into that part).
I'm not saying the approach you prefer couldn't work. It probably could. In ten to twenty years. Meanwhile, a non-trivial percentage of all Internet traffic today is already using QUIC, and usage is likely to grow rapidly as other browsers and web servers incorporate it.
I think the naysayers here have forgotten the ethos that made the Internet what it is: Rough consensus and running code first, standardization after. In my admittedly biased opinion (some of my friends work on SPDY and QUIC), Google's actions with SPDY and QUIC aren't a violation of the norms of Internet protocol development, they're a return to those norms.
Why? A will is a will. and has a long history. so any settlement on the estate might have been placed in an allied fund. if the diary was sold then the asset provenance was moved. Nazi held, to allied held to someone new
this chain is highly important in art and as we speak, new looted are is always being discovered. That chain of ownership is very important. That's why Hermann Göring went to a lot of trouble to get all his art ( using brutality ) with a legal chain of title.
don't know, but their are similar laws prior to the sun of sam laws in the late 60's and i think in the late 50's too
off topic indirectly : Doctor something or another ( the real bad nazi doctor in a death camp ) has a ton of research done on his victims, including brain fluid amounts. in the 90's it was ruled that data could not be used. for what reason I'll never know. but the data was valid data.
I don't think this would apply.
dead guy before capture.
private family journals belonging to an estate
"crime does not pay royalty's" did not come into effect I think until the late 50's.
False analogy. There's a huge difference between a personal assistant, who by definition *I* know personally, and a faceless business entity who I know not at all (read adversarial entity) scraping 'enough' information about me to presume it knows me sufficiently to second guess what I want and give me that instead of what I requested.
I'd say there's a good argument that all of the information I give Google actually exceeds what a personal assistant would know about me. The real difference (thus far) lies in the assistant's ability to understand human context which Google's systems lack. But that's merely a problem to be solved.
Note, BTW, that I'm not saying everyone should want what I want, or be comfortable giving any search engine enough information to be such an ideal assistant. That's a personal decision. I'm comfortable with it... but I'm not yet getting the search results I want.
Why would I want crappy results? I want it to give me what I want, which by definition isn't "crappy".
And you think a system built by man can divine what you and everyone else wants at the moment you type it in? That'll be the day. Until then, assume I know what I want and not your system.
I think systems built by man that knows a sufficient amount about me, my interests and my needs can. We're not there yet, certainly, but the question was what I want... and that's it.
Put it this way: Suppose you had a really bright personal assistant who knew pretty much everything about you and could see what you are doing at any given time, and suppose this assistant also had the ability to instantly find any data on the web. I want a search engine that can give me the answers that assistant could.