Slashdot Mirror

I'm surprised I haven't seen someone comment on this (or I'm too lazy to search the entire thread for this comment) is that the original US PATRIOT act included provisions that made it possible for copyright holders to hack your computers and even possibly due damages if they felt you were infringing on their copyrights. The "Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterrorism" portion of the act would criminalize any act of hacking that caused damages or losses of over $5000 would be considered an acto fo terroism. The RIAA lobbied for a bypass so they could hack/destroy without any worries of criminal charges.

With this ammendment, they can hack into peoples computers, search for infringing materials, and add them to their "TO SUE" list. Not only that, they were wanting to be able to be proactive, in a sense find people that are supposedly using P2P software and hack their systems so that they are unable to trade copyrighted material, or delete any offending materials.

This ammendment did get knocked down, but then the MPAA tried a similar amendment. i believe this didn't make it either, but both these organizations have kept bringing up new forms of these bills in one way or another.

Sound familiar?

Here's more details...

If you believe that allofmp3 is legal in Amreica, I'll sell you genuine XviD movies for only $0.001 per MB, undercutting allofmp3.com's price by 90%.

It's amazing that you morons have been suckered by such an obvious scam. Perhaps I should bring Film88 back into business. (For those of you who can't be assed to click a link, Film88 sold Hollywood blockbusters for $1 each. They claimed it was legal.)

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Film88.com Co-Founder

This was mentioned in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. The article is regarding vendor-backing of LSB2. Near the end, the WSJ stated this product is meant to compete with Sun and HP workstations. Link to related story, as WSJ's requires subscription services.

Since /. is US centric, and this appears to be an EU matter, why would they give a rat's ass what most of us have to say on the matter?

Well, I thought the tag line was News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Nothing about the US in there.

Technology is trans-national. What happens in Taiwan will influence the prices of equipment in the US.
The Internet and its legal framework are even more trans-national. When European sites store their visitors data, they will store US visitors too. When the US strengthens its anti-piracy rules, Australians take heed.
Limiting /. to the US, what a silly idea.

• http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/12/napster.decision .05/
• http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/ c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument
• http://news.com.com/2100-1023-243698.html?legacy=c net

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150, 000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

I like totally agree. When IBM and Novell start selling Linux seats by the millions and someone finds a flaw like this one or like the many sendmail or SSH ones, or like the kernel one not long ago that caused Debian, the GNU FTP servers and Gentoo to be utterly 0wned (and that's just the ones Bashdork reported) then these "big companies" can be held liable for security bugs that are not their own, but were sold along with their "distro" anyway. Hilarity ensues! How does that sound to you? Peachy?

Oh, but wait. Software is sold (and given away) without warranties or guarantees, so that won't work. Your point is pointless and your attempt to suggest that Microsoft is somehow to blame because of what some greasy "hacker" loser in Germany does is stupid, to say the least.

But hey, you can never have enough karma!

I don't own an iPod, but I imagine it's just a plain ol' USB storage device when plugged in. As such, it's as much of a security risk as any other, similar device.

We've all been slagging off MS for years now for their attitude to security; no point in whining now when they get it right, just cos you can't play music through your desktop speakers.

BTW: cool link on that page. Well, not cool, but I like the headline: Allchin: Don't call it 'Shorthorn'

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

Altnet, a company that sells music and other digital goods through file-swapping services, sued the Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday for alleged patent infringement.

The company, a subsidiary of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, contends that the RIAA has been infringing on one of its patents in the course of copyright enforcement efforts inside peer-to-peer networks. Overpeer, a copyright company owned by Loudeye, and MediaDefender, also are named in the lawsuit.

"We've exhausted every means of trying to work with these defendants and those they represent to patiently encourage and positively develop the P2P distribution channel," said Altnet Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bermeister in a statement. "We cannot stand by and allow them to erode our business opportunity by the wholesale infringement of our rights."

He added, "Think about your breathing."

The patent infringement suit comes as one of the sideshows in an ongoing legal battle over peer-to-peer networks that has led to piracy charges against technology companies and antitrust claims against record companies, and that now appears to be headed ultimately to Congress for resolution.

Altnet and Brilliant Digital Entertainment are joint venture partners with Sharman Networks, the Australian company that owns the Kazaa software. The company has been trying for several years to persuade record labels and music studios to allow Altnet to sell authorized versions of their products through the Kazaa file-swapping network.

The big entertainment companies have unanimously said no, however. They've lost recent court battles that aimed to put companies like Sharman out of business, but are now seeking legislation that would revive their claims against file-swapping ventures.

Altnet has also been seeking other funding sources and ways to strike back at the record labels' efforts to undermine peer-to-peer networks.

In the summer of 2003, it announced that it had purchased patent rights to the process of identifying files on a peer-to-peer network using a "hash," or digital fingerprint based on the contents of the file.

Initially, Bermeister indicated the company would approach other file-swapping companies to sign them up for licenses. That proved controversial, but Altnet did send cease-and-desist letters last November to nine companies engaged in businesses related to peer-to-peer networks.

Some of these, such as data collection company Big Champagne, said they weren't using any technology that would infringe on the Altnet patent. An attorney for Altnet said the disputes with most of the nine had been resolved.

Altnet's lawsuit says that antipiracy companies Overpeer and MediaDefender are still on the hook, however. Overpeer is a "spoofing" company that posts millions of false or corrupted files on networks such as Kazaa, trying to make real files harder to find. Media Defender uses "interdiction" techniques, which essentially clog networks with requests that block real download efforts.

Both of these services use unauthorized versions of Kazaa and the underlying FastTrack peer-to-peer technology, and so are using Altnet's patent without permission,

What you're looking for is variously called "video mixer," "live switcher," and "video switcher."

These are hardware devices, although it can be done in software. At the bottom-end they start around $500-$1000 and work on up to however much yo' mamma's house is worth, and much more.

B+H Photo is one place to start looking.

Whether either voted, signed, wrote, or read the bill, at the time it was considered (by many) as essential. 9/11 shocked everyone, and quick action was seen as more important than properly debated, methodical, slow, correct, action.

To be fair to both the Patriot Act and our oft maligned Congress(wo)men, most of the provisions in the Patriot Act had been around for a while and had been examined in depth by Congressional Committees at one point or another. The Patriot Act was a hastly assembled laundry list of provisions that the Congress had denied the FBI for years. 9/11 just scared the Congress into pulling out old ideas from the files.

I am amused by how quickly the Patriot Act was passed considering the reason that many of the provisions could not pass before was because Conservatives were afraid that their constituents were the ones most likely to be targeted after Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to have forgotten until very recently that they were the targets of similarly heavy handed shenanigans 30 years ago. There have been recent attempts to amend the act by a coalition of far right and far left members of Congress, but they've gone nowhere.

If you want to decide your vote by the PATRIOT Act, it might be better to research what the two candidates think of the Act now, and if they plan on strengthing, or to weakening it.

Many of those provisions (not all) are set to expire on 31 Dec 2005. Bush wants them renewed, Kerry is willing to take a 2nd look.

I wonder how true that is, given that Apple has already partnered with HP, and Sony. I suspect there might be more to the story than what we've been told..

I am all for free wireless internet. I expected more governments to provide internet access as a standard community service. The bureacracy moves slow enough that the technology has improved before it became standard.

But government-controlled internet access allows easy censorship by the government. Check how China deals with the internet. Remember that Pennsylvania, the State that contains Philadelphia, has already tried to censor the internet by forcing commercial ISPs to block websites. That had a happy ending, but what if the government is the ISP? How long would the site-blocking remain secret? How long before the government ISP stops once it becomes known? The commercial ISPs did not want to block because of the expense, and possible loss of customers. (Actual cost does not matter; it cost more than not doing it.)

The Internet is becoming the only media. It can provide phone service, television shows, movies, news, weather reports, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and much more. It will become the primary method of distribution for all information. Do you want the government to control your access to all media? Do you want it to track what you are reading?

Do you want the government to track your internet usage? Commercial ISPs delete their usage records to avoid privacy issues. Comcast, the Philadelphia cable company, got vilified because they were caching websites. How will the privacy contingent react when the government controls internet access?

That said, the convenience of ubiquitous wireless service will probably override any privacy concerns. This is the place where the public will allow their purchases to be tracked in exchange for a minor discount, or just a chance to win a few dollars.

(I live in the Philadelphia suburbs, but that is not relevant to this post.)

The person who offers the best deal (note: not necessarily the cheapest)

Thats a bold statement to make. Money is just numbers, and alot of companys run by margins and hope to "Whip" the extra's like service from that... Dell found the opposite of what your saying true

http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-5182611.html
Distance is a barrier, so is religion, etc.
Outsourcing is about alot more then cake.

Your solution is reminiscent of MyPlay, a startup that offered an unheard-of 3 GB of free storage for you to store your MP3s. MyPlay, unable to turn that business model into a profit, went bankrupt years ago.

For CEOs, offshoring pays http://news.com.com/For+CEOs%2C+offshoring+pays/21 00-1022_3-5331845.html [news.com]

Because law enforcement officials have in the past gotten warrants to turn on the On Star microphone (without the little light coming on) so that they can listen to people in their cars. And On Star has been only too happy to comply.

Geeks are 100% dedicated to a relationship and will go that extra mile.

Indeed...

• Browser news puts Gecko-based browsers around 5% for most sources as of 4 Sep.
• The latest publicly-available stats from OneStat indicate just under 3%, but that was back in May.
• WebSideStory/StatMarket's latest numbers are still the ones used in a July C|Net article putting Moz at 4.5%

...for launching the initiative to create their own web browser after enduring several years of MacIE languishing, for looking to the open source community instead of inventing their own proprietary closed-source solution, for choosing KHTML and not Gecko, for publicizing their efforts and their decisions. Because of Apple, the Mozilla community was forced to re-examine itself, its mission statement, and whether its efforts were delivering any useful results. Because of Apple, the Mozilla community split the monolithic Mozilla into more useful components: Firefox for the web browser, and Thunderbird for the mail client. Or has everyone forgotten one of several Slashdot threads on the subject, or the media's take on it?

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS. Windows not affected.

Now, what are we obsessing about this week? Oh yeah, my mom uses Firefox now, therefore Open Sores really has a hope.

Nope. Sorry to disappoint you.

http://news.com.com/Security+pros+warn+of+critical +flaws+in+Kerberos/2100-1002_3-5343325.html#yourta ke

"Kerberos is a building block of many network security devices and software. Microsoft uses the mechanism to control security in its Active Directory authentication. However, the company uses a homegrown version of Kerberos that is not affected by the flaws, Hartman said. However, Sun's Solaris, Linux from Red Hat and Mandrake, and OS X all use Kerberos. Some companies, such as Sun and Red Hat, have announced patches for the problem, but not all have."

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS. Windows not affected.

The thing is, that I seem to remember a day when Slashdot was open and honest enough to discuss all sides of the issues. I guess this post will get whacked by an editor and my IP will get banned. Oh well... there are much better blogs out there nowadays anyway.

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS. Windows not affected.

The thing is, that I seem to remember a day when Slashdot was open and honest enough to discuss all sides of the issues. I guess this post will get whacked by an editor and my IP will get banned. Oh well... there are much better blogs out there nowadays anyway.

I have been having this problem on my Inspiron ever since I installed SP2. I have tried a lot of things, and I highly suggest http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm for tweaking your services settings.
Another way to boost your speed is hanging your Prefetch setting, http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6270_11-5165773.h tml has a great article on how to do it.
TCPOptimizer http://darkedge.levels4you.com/review.l4y?file=20 also helped speed up my collection a lot.
Another cool tip is fixing Event ID 4226 which limits your connections in SP2, check it out at http://www.lvllord.de/?url=tools#4226patch.
And, of course get the MS TweakUI for XP at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx.
And although they are not freeware I actually bought and really like Registry First Aid http://www.rosecitysoftware.com/reg1aid/ and Registry Compactor http://www.rosecitysoftware.com/RegistryCompactor/ .

I hope you all have as much success as I have with spedding up XP. It is a pain in the butt to do it, but it is worth it in the end.

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS. Windows not affected.

The thing is, that I seem to remember a day when Slashdot was open and honest enough to discuss all sides of the issues. I guess this post will get whacked by an editor and my IP will get banned. Oh well... there are much better blogs out there nowadays anyway.

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft?

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS. Windows not affected.

The thing is, that I seem to remember a day when Slashdot was open and honest enough to discuss all sides of the issues. I guess this post will get whacked by an editor and my IP will get banned. Oh well... there are much better blogs out there nowadays anyway.

This does not stop recommendations which are encumbered by patents possessed by non-working group memebers of the W3C and non-W3C members to be ratified.

It's not what I would have wanted, but it ended up a big compromise (some would argue that the policy using RAND was the W3C caving...) ...See here for some of the goings-on concerning this policy...

Sorry... :-(

Not only that, but as the world's predominant web server, Apache has a fair bit of clout with the IETF.

From Microsoft's music store FAQ: If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy. source

Does this remind anyone else of Real's recent petition to whip up public opinion against Apple?

In the same FAQ answer, Microsoft offers a workaround for getting music purchased from the MSN store on to your iPod:

[I]t is still possible to transfer MSN Music downloads to an iPod, but it will require some extra effort. To transfer MSN-downloaded music to an iPod, you need to first create a CD with the music, and then you need to import that CD into iTunes.

I appreciate how open Microsoft is to defeating their own DRM.

True, but irrelevant. No one does.

Very good question. We're going to create an encyclopedia of cars that willing manufacturers can contribute to if they so choose. If not, there is no way we can prevent people from adding cars to the game. Racer is a quazi-open source project and has hundreds of cars available for download, just not from the author of the game.

The courts have recently ruled that "peer-to-peer software developers were not liable for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products, as long as they had no direct ability to stop the acts."

If Ferrari comes after us because some guy creates a bit torrent link which contains a bunch of unofficial cars they will be thrown out of court. I've heard there is a pretty fat fund setup to help out OSS developers being pressured by leagal tomfoolery. If car manufacturers have a beef with a car they're going to have to sue individual users which will bring plenty of bad press and simply push the "content trading" underground.

Maybe if our project gets big, they'll see it as a free marketing opportunity instead of something that cuts into their revenue. I'm not exactly hopeful about that prospect though as accountants are notoriously myopic.

MBNA has ShopSafe
Citibank has Virtual Account Numbers
Discover has Discover Deskshop
even American Express...

This is *nothing* new

How did they know? A WiFi-sniffing dog, obviously!

They have these, you know.

http://ct.com.com/click?q=ce-Sd0CQMsmOoLEVSuTHWz2K eylfecRFor CEOs, offshoring pays

"We'll survive a reformat of the hard drive, but where it gets tricky is when people reinstall operating systems on top of each other. It also depends on what OS is being loaded," Absolute's Livingston said.

Specifically, the software will survive a reformat and reinstallation of any Windows 9X operating system. Installing Windows XP or 2000 can create problems, depending on how the system is configured.

I'm just guessing here, but I'd think that they're stashing it somewhere that would be left untouched if it's left in FAT format, so the DOS based versions of Windows and FAT configurations of the NT based versions will not remove it. On the other hand, they couldn't find a similar hiding place in NTFS, so an NTFS reformat will kill it.

Convenient that you're limiting the discussion to a display size that Apple has discontinued outside of the iMac line. However:

1.8 gig, 17 inch iMac: $1500.

Now discontinued 17 inch studio display: about $700.

An $800 difference in price. Certainly more signifigant, but vendors are trying to dump this model, so the prices are artificially low.

Alas, neither of these will be of any use if the thief simply reformats the hard drive in order to resell it.

In any case, a new OS isn't cheap so it's part of the value of the stolen property. I would think a thief would be more likely to try and just "clean up" the machine by removing identifying features rather than wipe the disk.

Sure, really don't care who wins... Oh wait CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN.

and then immediatly pulled.

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7298_ 16-5120488.html

c|net interview 2 jul 1998

Key phrase: "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

Coroporate donations have been illegal for about 30 years, silly.

Apparently someone forgot to tell the corporations.

Conversely, a number of the companies in California (some of them quite big) have also had moments where they benefitted from interactions with Microsoft. For instance, Apple gained a lot of Apple ][ sales through the bundling of MS BASIC, which was more capable than Wozniak's Integer BASIC [the original in-ROM language]. The Macintosh did rather better than it might have otherwise, because of the existence of graphical versions of Microsoft's apps. The Apple /// only sold at all because of the availability of MS software, a market that gave MS enough money to expend into the international market. Latterly, Microsoft's cash injection through the purchase of $150M in non-voting stock assisted Apple, along with their five-year mission to continue supporting Office:Mac.

And yes, there have been many occasions when Apple have been hurt by MS, not least through user interface licensing issues. However it's not as black-and-white as sometimes suggested.

Gateway is already on its 5th generation of such a product. The Profile is very similar in description, but has been out for quite a few years. I find it hard to believe tht Apple would try to imitate an existing product, Steve Jobs seem more innovative than that when it comes to packaging hardware.

Why does Slashdot insist on posting every single Mac rumor? 99% of these things are bogus, and are usually debunked within 10 replies. It's not news, it's just crap.

Video games have been done on a bigger "screen" than that: Brown students create massive Tetris game on building