Slashdot Mirror
Help wanted: CTO at Warner Music.
Gill_Bates writes "It looks like Warner music group are looking for a CTO. I'm intrigued by the sentence that reads "Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc." " How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Warner Music is cool. Wait... are they part of the RIAA? Argh
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Possibly when you join the Army? Hmmm... Easier to join too!
------
Sig
"How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?"
If Donald Rumsfield is your boss, the answer would be "All of them."
It pay's money - so there will always be someone applying. - Money make people do stupid things. - As always. Money often win over ideology. - I hope they find some braindead sucker that will do a pisspoor job.
It's time for the mucichians to wake up and understand they can do their own distribution. - The time for the big record labels are numbered. Soon they will wanish in a fading cloud of historydust. And the no-talent marketingdroids that claim they know what the "market" want will be no more....
Yes, I have an utopian dream, help me get to it.
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
General to lead a late-term, losing battle.
They don't even care enough to use a euphamism.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
[/sarcasm]
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
God this is entertaining entertainment.I have noticed at least two tv ad campaigns that feature consumers downloading and burning music. Implying it is a cool and totally normal thing to do. I think the majors are fighting a war they have already lost.
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
Not many companies would put 'warfare' in a job descriptions firstly because few are in a mindset that they at war (i.e. the goal is to destroy, not that the goal is to make profit by selling goods), and secondly because not many companies can get away with it. People would think Coca-Cola completely daft if they asked for a CTO to help shut down Pepsi's website. Now mind you, pretty much everyone admits that Pepsi's actions are more or less legal. That, however, doesn't make it any less excusible because vigalantism is supposidly illegal. That's my 2*10^-2*dollars.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Come on, slashdot just had the discussion two days ago about how these jobs sites just post stuff to get you to sign up and receive spam. I don't believe for a minute that this is even real.
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
When I was in the Air Force my job title did. Electronic Warefare technician
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
It surprised me that they were declaring p2p warfare OVERTLY, but then again, didn't Congress pass a bill that would give blank checks to allow p2p networks to be hacked by record companies, ie. distributing fake-hashed files to corrupt everything on the network and so forth?
/. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
We should all mass apply and
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
:rolleyes:
Absolutely all of them if you are working for Dubya..
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
How about some guerilla action here?
Wouldn't it be fun to apply for this job, and once you're in the interview process, begin espousing pro-P2P views. What if, one after the other, these guys had to confront a parade of rabid, file-sharing geeks with CTO-level qualifications?
Even better, *don't* mention your views until after you've accepted the job. Then work to sabotage Warner's "P2P warfare" efforts. Yeah, that's the ticket.
There's probably enough of you unemployed CTO's out there - who've undoubtedly spent your idle days using Kazaa - to pull of this Ken Kesey-style prank.
C'mon, baby, kiss The King.
This one?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Help wanted: CTO at another doomed bigcorp.
NewsPosted by CmdrTaco on Sunday September 29, @11:16AM
from the meet-interesting-people-and-kill-them-deja-vue dept.
Gill_Bates writes "It looks like american nuclear power group are looking for a CTO. I'm intrigued by the sentence that reads "Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for renewable power sources, windmill warfare, solar energy "protection" , etc." other job descriptions including the phrase "Warfare"(80)?
This will prove to be an interesting match
According to Monster.com, 335 job descriptoins include the phrase "Warfare". You can hold such captivating jobs as:
-
More then I suspected...
gg: job-description warfare
Its either a joke, or someone trolling for names..
Perhaps its really them, and they will collect names and home addresses of people to raid... If you know p2p warfare, you MUST be one of those evil people that download.. or god forbid.. share your music..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Soldier, Sailor, Pilot, general, admiral, president, secretary of defense, secretary of the navy, secretary for the army, linux zealot etc etc.
All the enablers are there ready to be exploited. You will need an economic model to make it work, but how hard is it to compete with standard recording contracts for artists? To pay artists, ask for money just like NPR and come up with a formula to distribute the wealth. RIAA members are only interested in the million+ sellers anyway. Also, there is no reason not to charge a royalty for companies that want to actually make and distribute CDs with cover and label art, etc.
With all the industry players trying to piss off their customers with DRM, it shouldn't be hard to make this grow. I'd do it myself, but it isn't my core interest. I know there are lots of you out there who are that interested, and lots more like me who are interested enough to give suggestions and use these services when they become available.
At this point, Warner can do one of two things to survive: (1) change their business model, or (2) "go to war" against the many innovations that are making their business model obsolete. So it doesn't surprise me that they use the term "warfare".
It would appear that Warner is not capable of significant change. And that's easy to understand - Warner is a very old company, stuck in it's way, and hasn't had any ground-shaking innovation in the past 50 years. When you feel like crap, it's more satisfying to "go to war" than to intellegently address a serious issue.
It's kind of like Apple in the early 80's. Apple could have stuck with the comfortable Apple II line, or change. Apple changed and propelled the entire marketplace forward.
It's like IBM in the 90's... it could continue to be a big-iron shop, or change. It changed. IBM is much more of a service oriented company, embrassing the likes of Unix, Linux, and Java. They leveraged their former glory with new innovations.
But remember, like them or not, Apple and IBM have ALWAYS been innovators. Warner is more like US Steel in the 80's. US Steel could have continued to be an old-school steel producer, or change to react to new steel producing innovations happening overseas. US Steel decided to stay the course, and the steel industry in the USA is still plumetting and out-of-control.
Warner has chosen the path of US Steel.
...mmmmh nothing here about CTO of WB:C onflict/
http://www.job-go.com/Society/Issues/Warfare_and_
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
should we come to the interview dressed in dayglow, run around the office rapping off what the interviewer said, offering acid to everyone?
:)
I bet if we got them to see "the other side" they would give up warfare
I meet all of the requirements. I've even got my MCSE and 15 years experience in P2P warfare.
Is there anyone in the slashdot crowd who's qualified for this job? Preferably somebody who's willing to leak company secrets on encryption/copy protection methods and p2p 'Warfare' strategy! Lets take em down from the inside!
When are we going to wake up and send a message to the RIAA and tell them to leave our P2P networks alone.
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
With the Bush administration in office, is that a trick question?
Umm, what I read wasn't P2P warfare.. I read this:
"... evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc."
later I read:
"Analyzes all industry wide technological developments and initiatives related to music and music distribution in an effort to help company sustain its competitive advantage in the music technology marketplace."
Alternatives to P2P warfare. I think they realise its just not cost-effective to have a bunch of people sitting around trying to hack everyone who's running KaZaa.
Looks to me like they want someone to come up with realistic solutions and strategies that will work in the real world. Seems they want to 'Adapt or Die'.
"Requirements
A college degree or equivalent experience is required in engineering, computer science. Specific knowledge and experience in new media and new technologies is required."
Purely speculation: Their old CTO probably favored the old-school 'sue em all' approach, that's probably why he's lining up for food stamps, and why the particular wording of the job offer. Looks like they want a new direction, not to just bump another talking head into the post.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Most slashbots are too lazy to write (as in with a pen, paper, a hand, and an informed mind, not as in forward email with a computer) their congresscritters let alone hit refresh in a browser once every minute for...how long? In any case, I think DDoSing wouldn't even be all that effective in promoting social change which is what we really need. What I find interesting is that they've already spelled out that the CTO must come up with a plan to engage in P2P warfare. I mean, I realize that job descriptions are all about...well...describing jobs, but it seems like they're saying, "You have complete freedom....to find a way to do what we've already decided is the best thing to do even though that's a decision the CTO should make." Isn't it the Chief Technology Officer's responsibility to say things like, "Hmm, maybe our company's current position with respect to technology, that is using the public's ignorance against them to push oppressive DRM into all digital devices, isn't working. Why don't we evaluate some other plans?" Again, I realize that they probably don't want someone who would make that statement as their CTO, but it still seems odd.
------------
Also:
Slightly OT, but there are actually two things going on here:
1. Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and delete files as long as they tell the gov't about it first. This doesn't give them the legal right to distribute fake files, but that activity wasn't illegal in the first place as cracking into someone else's computer and deleting their files was. I don't know if they've actually done this yet.
2. They distribute fake files on p2p networks with names that suggest they're not fake. The idea is that the fakes are released before real content, fakes spread all over the network, and real content gets hard to find because nobody bothers to delete their downloads that turn out to be fakes.
They can't fake the _hashes_ on files. If they have a rogue p2p client online, they can respond to searhes for a certain hash and try to get clients to download from them, but when legitimate p2p clients see that the bytes coming from the rogue client don't hash to what they're supposed to, those bytes won't be included in the file. The only way they could "fake the hash" is by finding another file that has exactly the same length and hash as the original file but contains different data. I don't know what fastrack/winmx/others use, but gnutella uses SHA1 hashes (or bitprint hashes which incorporate SHA1) which are designed to resist that kind of attack. In other words, if you have file (A), it is easy to find its hash (B), but it is near impossible to find another file (C) with the same hash (B) as the first file (A). Of course, as long as p2p users remain lazy and ignorant and p2p software developers don't develop features that prompt the user to identify and delete bad files, media companies won't have to fake the hash in order to frustrate users.
reminds me of the many "almost funny" replies that appear on the oldmanmurray forums.
How about "P2P 'embracement' of a viable and powerful potential revenue stream."
This just shows that the record labels Still Don't Get It.
We should flood the internet with fake p2p networks. Hype up a bunch of phony file sharing services, add some fake users and lots of what appears to be illegal 'content', and viola the RIAA has an instant playground that they can happily launch DOS attacks against to their hearts desire.
The closest Amish village. I mean, they need someone familliar with keeping alive "horse and buggy" technology in the 21st Century!
The recording industry as currently constituted is just as obsolete.
I think it'd be a perfect fit.
Corporatism != Free Market
...it didn't include HTML, or were you declaring war on the close italic tag?
I always wanted a job where I wouldn't have to feel guilty about slacking off, being incompetent and generally causing the organisation who I'm working for to collapse...
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
If so, do them a favor and get them the h*ll away from the US television set. Disney is fighting it's campaign now through it's cartoons, indoctrinating the youth - perhaps this has been going on for years. Basically they are showing the kids how good pyramid schemes, oligopolies, the legislative policing of distribution channels, and other socialist instruments ensure jobs, and that marketplace competition and innovation put people out of jobs. Poor dinosaurs.
I encourage people not to steal music from the labels. I also encourage people not to buy artists music through the labels. Go straight to the source and buy *from* the artist, NOT the cartel.
Good day!
We should all mass apply and /. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
No. That's useless and childish. What we all should do is to make sure that all of the audio/video, etc. that we have on our hard drives is what it says it is, and leave your favorate P2P client running CONSTANTLY. They want warfare? I'll give 'em warfare.
In their advertising they saw "[...] Give you the pwoer and speed to download music and film off the internet [...]"
From what legal source ??? The *BIGGEST* ISP from germany , from the Phone company, is adbvertising downlaoding copyrighted music/film indirectly !
When you reach that point where carrier advertising more or less pirating then the war is truly lost.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Seriously, IF this is real then it reveals a major weakness in the industry.
"IF" is an important qualifier because given the MP/RIAA "right to hack", it's certainly possible that the need is real.
However, it is improbable that they would look to the market to fill their need for a P2P "warfare" expert. Hollywood is a place of connections and "I know a guy..." nonsense.
This falls into the "don't pet the sweaty stuff" category regardless of truth.
Chris Uzal, Editor, Cyberista
Laws are for people with no friends.
I think Steve Ballmer would be a good candidate. He could post videos of him dancing out on P2P networks labeled with popular music names, and the disgust would make the P2Pers stop downloading stuff.
Gill Bates
:)
Bill Gates
Boh...
Bye!
The past several years have seen the internet bubble burst and the beginnings of a global recession kick in. Despite dice.com's chirpy optimism, venture capital, promising startups, and technology jobs are scarcer than four-button mice right now. The road to a solid recovery is going to be long and gradual.
In spite of the present gloom, the Internet isn't going anywhere; it is certain to play a key role in the recovery that is sure to happen. Minor roles will be played by all of the Internet applications that have proven themselves to be useful, practical, and in many cases necessary for business, commerce, and communication. These include email, web, instant messaging, and the ability to easily move data from one individual to another.
Businesses have long been vexed by the fact that Microsoft's Instant Messenger does not interoperate with AOL's and vice-versa. Instant Messaging and P2P systems as systems that will find customers among the business set are still in a state of flux. There are opportunities to take advantage of there, and it is taking advantage of market opportunities that will fuel the recovery of the economy.
However, any startup focused on developing a P2P system that is perhaps designed to fill the current gap created by the failure of the IM apps to interoperate or to use any other business model to succeed will find itself not only facing a difficult economic environment, but also facing the very real danger of having to cope with technological attacks from the RIAA or MPAA.
Thus, we now have a situation where a company that is trying to create a legitimate and valuable P2P system is likely to come under attack by something other than marketplace competition. An entire area of business opportunity has been seeded with landmines at a time when we need it most.
P2P systems are a key part of the suite of must-have applications that will help the internet as a whole bring us out of the recession, and the RIAA has unfortunately positioned itself to fight it.
RIAA has campaigned for a law to exempt them from legal liability for disrupting p2p networks. That implies that they recognize the illegality of these actions. It seems likely that they are already DOSing p2p without the legal authorization they want. Doesn't this ad provide evidence that Warner is conspiring to commit illegal acts?
Which still doesn't make a lot of sense, but is certainly makes more sense than "It pay is money", whatever the fuck that means.
I say we send in Hemos or Cowboy Ray's resumes so we have a Warner operative on the inside!
The confusing thing is that I'm hard pressed to think about any
;)
attacks on P2P networks that:
1) Is not already legal today (For example, filling the network with
bogus Britney mp3s), or
2) Impacts only illegal sharing of copyrighted material instead of
killing the whole - or parts of the P2P network itself.
The purpose of the bill is to create a safe harbour for 'content
owners' that use technology to impair the sharing of copyrighted
content on P2P networks.
Given this, I think it is arguable that an effective way to stop the
sharing of copyrighted content on p2p networks without imparing
sharing of uncopyrighted works (or copyrighted by those who do not
restrict the distribution of their works) is to delete the files
containing copyrighted works from computers participating in the p2p
network. Since the Berman bill gives them a (somewhat) blank check to
break "hacking" laws in pursuit of this goal as long as they notify
the gov't first, I think they will end up doing exactly that.
However, I really should have been more specific in my first post. I
should have said:
Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and
delete files that contain copyrighted content as long as they
tell the gov't about it first.
-------------
What if the RIAAntiKazaa chaffing servent simply lies about the
hash. You can't check that the hash is correct before you have
downloaded the file anyway. Besides, with segmented downloading you
only need to download one segment of a file from the chaff servent to
destroy the file.
If you do SHA (or similar secure hashes) on segments of the file, it
would be possible to discard only the bad segments instead of the
whole file.
My knowledge of what's going on in p2p is limited to the gnutella
network, but here's what's happening right now:
Files are can be searched for by their SHA1 hashes and almost all
major servents support this. Currently, the only thing that the ??AA
could do to inhibit downloading (beyond what I noted in my first post
re: bad files & user laziness) would be to find out the hash of a
good file, and report that they have the file whenever they receive a
search request for it. It a user downloads the entire file from them,
the client program, upon completion of the download, will report an
error since the hash that the file should have does not match the
hash of the downloaded data. Not too serious - just some wasted
downstream bandwidth on the part of the user. This kind of attack
also costs the ??AA mega$ as they are the only source for the file:
non-SHA1-aware clients won't be able to propagate the false hash
reporting and SHA1-aware clients will dump the file as soon as it's
done downloading. In other words, the only thing the ??AA has going
for them right now is user laziness.
Here's what's going to happen in the near future:
The ??AA isn't faking hashes because they (probably) followed the
same line of reasoning. However, faking hashes can cause other
problems. Since SHA1 hashes hash all the data in the file to produce
the output hash, even a small chunk of changed data in the file will
affect whether or not the downloading servent thinks the download is
"good". If the RIAA were to report that they had the "good" file
corresponding to the "good" hash, but send "bad" data when the "good"
file is requested, they could wreak havoc on servents that support
multisource downloading. If a servent downloads even one byte from
one of the ??AA's destructive interloper nodes, trying to download
the file a bit faster by downloading from another source, the SHA1
hash calculated after the download finishes would be incorrect,
killing an otherwise successful download as you mentioned above.
As luck would have it, P2P developers have been trying to enable
partial file sharing (sharing available [downloaded] parts of
unfinished downloads) for quite some time. It turns out that
implementing this technology will render the above attack useless.
Soon, servents will support "bitprint" hashes. A bitprint hash is a
concatenation of the SHA1 hash of a file, and a hash obtained by
using the tiger-tree method. The tiger tree method:
1. Break the file up into equal size chunks. (say, 1MB)
2. Hash each chunk.
3. Concatenate adjacent chunks to make new chunks.
4. Go to step 2.
All of these hashes, done using the Tiger algorithm, form a tree
where each node has two leaves - hence Tiger-Tree. The original idea
was that servents could use this tree of hashes to ensure data
integrity when downloading pieces of a file from multiple hosts.
Since ??AA-trashed data will not hash to what it should, just like
corrupted data, those blocks will be thrown out and re-downloaded
until a good block is obtained from a non-??AA host.
In other words, the ??AA won't be able to corrupt your downloads
unless they out-bandwidth the rest of the p2p community.
There are still two (technical) issues threatening p2p and oddly
enough I think they can both be solved by strong public key
cryptography. The first is fake files - that is files containing
garbage data from the ??AA and misnamed files. The problem,
essentially, is that you don't know if the metadata reported about
the file (title, resolution, length, etc...) is accurate. However,
one of the things I've noticed about online file trading is that
files that appear there, especially movies, are tagged with short
prefixes identifying the ripping/encoding team. "[smr]", for
instance, stands for "shadow movie realm". While rips of apps and
games don't generally have these filename tags, they are generally
distributed as archives containing, along with the program, an info
file of some sort crediting the crackers. The common thread is that
most content is introduced into the network by a small number of
dedicated, talented "teams" that want credit for their work. To me,
this seems like a perfect application of digital signatures. If, upon
release of new content, the block of metadata describing that content
(title, resolution, length, etc, and bitprint hash) were
signed by the release team, then downloaders with the release team's
public key could verify which rips are genuinely what they say they
are, or more to the point, which hashes point to good files. Is it
vulnerable to other people posing as the release team and signing
data with their own keys? Sure, but over time one public key would
develop more "cred" than all of the spoofs and since the release
teams would only sign their own releases, that "best key" would be
accepted as theirs. The best thing is, this whole process can be
automated. Servents can even keep track of key validity (cred) by
themselves simply by asking the user "Is this signed file what it
says it is?" upon completion of a download.
The second issue is eavesdropping and bandwidth throttling by ISPs
(especially universities). This problem can easily be solved by
recognising that an ISP can only safely throttle what it can
identify. If all communications on p2p networks started with a raw
exchange of public keys, the first (for example) 2048 bits of p2p
connections would be different from client to client. For extreme
undetectability, servents could generate new public/private key pairs
for each new connection. All following bits would be encrypted and
unavailable to the ISP. It would seem that this technique would be
vulnerable to a man in the middle attack by the ISP; however,
consider what it would take to execute that kind of attack. The ISP
would have to modify the first (again, for example) 2048 bits of a
connection that it knows nothing about because it just initialized.
While this would gain them access to the unencrypted data stream of a
p2p connection, it would horribly confuse any other software trying
to communicate over the internet. In other words, they can only check
for p2p communications by killing all non-p2p communications. Ports
used for (at least gnutella) p2p are already random, btw.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Honestly this is a job I would consider doing.
I will now pause for everyone to finish going rabidly insane.
OK.
Yes, there are one or two phrases in the job description that are, at least on the fact of them, objectionable to the Slashdot crowd.
My personal concerns about this are whether this is a real CTO job, where there is a person who can set technology direction on behalf of the company, or whether you would be one CTO among dozens, and have no real power to implement changes at any fundamental level.
Unless it's the real thing, it's likely not going to result in anything at all, and you can all stop your paranoid worries. And if it *is* the real thing, and they get someone competent (a big "if"), you can all stop your paranoid worries.
Now look at the big picture: why is the music industry afraid of P2P and other online digitial distribution, when it's pretty clear that the primary use for these channels is for content that they would not usually consider distributing themselves?
My answer to this question is that the eventual results of this technology, if it prospers, is going to be disintermediation of artists and consumers.
There are a number to consequences to this which are -- believe it or not -- generally undesirable, and there are a number of *other* consequences to this which break their revenue models, and damage their ability to continue to do business.
To paraphrase what I think they've realized, "you can't piss in the wind"; it's reasonable for the company to seek alternatives to protecting their revenue model -- and, as a side effect, protect the generally desirable things which come with that revenue model, such as the ability of individual bands to make enough money that they can *be* bands full time, and have a reasonable chance of paying the rent when they are 65 and no longer interesting to their former primary markets. Bands die out because they're old, or because they've lost their social relevence, or their superstar lead singer has died, or any of the dozens of fates which can befall a band. If you have to stay in school for that accounting degree "to fall back on", in the full expectation of "falling back", it *will* effect your ability to make music.
At least Warner is looking out there, and noticing that things have in fact changed out from under them, and that they need to do something, other than just "business as usual".
Actually, there are literally dozens of ways they could deal with these issues technologically; several of them even involve the record companies themselves setting up *real* P2P networks, which don't actually suck for their revenue models, like Napster or GNUtella (the first because of the central control given to a single company, the second because of lack of scalability -- neither because of real piracy concerns).
It's amusing that they've emphasized "Agile development" (corporate code from a particular corporation for "Extreme Programming"). Most likely, they already have someone in mind, and the posting is to satisfy legal requirements.
-- Terry
I'd say there'd be hundreds:
Mmmmm, organized crime - Homer J
This signature intentionally has just seven words.
Even before P2P, I often wondered why they wouldn't at least publish lyrics on the web so that I could know which song to buy in the record store. Going to the store and singing a few lines of your favorite song to a zit-faced clerk is not the preferable way to buy music.
Maybe whomever they hire for this position will tell them that they are waaaaay behind the times and that's why they're losing profits.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
We should protect our P2P networks so that even is P2P vigilantism is legalized the vigilanties will still have to contend with the DCMA.
I think that P2P warefare IS an ideology.
Hmm.. Got a copyright on "warefare"? If not, I claim it, as well as "warezfare" and any derivitive thereof. You seen it here - it's official.
CTO
.30 caliber, .50 caliber), 500.000 rounds of medium caliber ammunition (25mm) fully compatible with NATO weapons system, a set of the finest machine guns and a license to kill.
Location: Inner Bunker, CA; New York, NY
Position Type: Attack
Position Duration: Full-Time 24/7
Warner Music Group
Job Description
Warner Music Group seeks a heavy duty cyborg or mutant preferrably with stealth capabilities, and with desire to kill.
We offer a competitive salary and full benefits package, including, but not limited to, 1 million rounds per month of the finest ATK small caliber ammunition (5.56mm, 7.62mm,
Requirements:
Must obey, specially directive 4, and be tolerant to baby food.
Knowing ED-209 assembly is a plus. Also desirable is experience with flamethrowers and chainsaws.
If you are interested in this position, please submit your resume, including number of manslaughters you're accused of being involved to: acmearmy@warnerbros.com, subject: CTO.
One section says:
Tuned in to the market.... Challenges current way of thinking. Participates in new media forums.
Another Says:
Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc.
Here's something to think about- very few people spend $500/year on CDs, but a lot of them spend that much on broadband ($45/mo x 12). P2P is one of the key drivers in the broadband market, whether or not TW and others want to admit it. They could probably make just as much money giving away music for free, if they'd concentrate on selling broadband to everyone.
How much did the US have to pay to that Sudanese drug company that Slick Willie destroyed just to get the minds of the US public off his blowjobs and perjury?
Who signed CTEA?
Who's pushing CDTBPA?
"Daddy, could you stop holding cattle auctions where you get paid but everyone forgets their cows and help me win a House seat on an anti-abortion platform?"
Read the entire thing- it's interesting.
Nerd Rock In Progress
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Here's one that probably does.
They could sell broadband, and create a nice big p2p system that only works for their customers... a nice way to make lots of cash methinks.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
They want to do all of these things. They just want to research their options first.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
It looks like they need someone to come up with a "strategy" for their "war".
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Just because the President makes up words, doesn't mean that you can. Although, judging by the job posting, it might help your chances.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Heh, heh. Probably not too many that don't also have the word ``camoflage'' in their dress code.
Considering my active boycott against all media companies and artists in support of the RIAA, this sounds almost too good to be true... I mean what better way to railroad such a blatent attempt to destroy our civil liberties than to bring down the supporters from the inside... Too bad the rest of society refuses to take a stand to prevent corporate entities from invading their privacy and bad customer service while hiding behind pieces of paper, but then hey, as long as the artists that Mtv tells them are cool support the RIAA, people are natually going to jump on the bandwagon...
They're declaring intent to break, enter & pillage
If somebody tried this in person, they'd get shot. Its called self-defense. This is a terrorist act using Gestapo tactics by a group which produces nothing and contributes nothing to society. If YOU tried this, you'd get shot at too.
Now we're going to have to back-up all our data (we'll need to buy lots of CD & dvd burners. Bet they'll love that. And that won't disrupt P2P sites that they are alleging to go after.) Wrecking P2P hosts is not exactly neat and clean. There'll be collateral damage. Somebody's systems are going to get wrecked.
The first time that someone loses corporate data on their servers due to an xxAA attack, the lawyers will have a field day. The activity may have been caused by an employee who was using extra bandwidth in a dubious manner but a company which get its data munged by the RIAA will send the RIAA the bill and about a dozen lawyers to collect their damages.
This will DESTROY the xxAAs. Ripping MP3s might have cost some sales (and I really doubt that,) but this virtual Gestapo tactic will back fire in the worst possible way.
Attacking your clientelle is totally stupid. Beyond stupid. Its suicidal. The xxAAs clients are in for a real shock. The backlast will hit them too.
Imagine a two month stretch where NOBODY buys a CD or goes to a movie of any xxAA member. We all buy for non-members and fuck the membership.
Anf their political friends will hang them absolutely out to dry the first time a government P2P server get reamed.
The xxAAs will be legislated OUT of existence using cyber-terorist laws.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'm 40-60% serious. Who better to lead the labels safely past the twin perils of P2P and their own increasing irrelevance than the guy who invented one of the perils? Fanning has 10,000x the cred of the typical IT meatball who'd saunter into the job.
It's a word originating in 1967.
It means, in this context, "removing the middleman". The original definition is "removal of the intermediary".
-- Terry
So for all the AC's I'm posting this, my resume here..I'll work cheap and you can depend on me to do the thing right, and the right thing!!!
Actually, it says someone who looks for "ALTERNATIVES to [...] p2p warfare".
In retrospect, I think they will admit that shutting down Napster was a mistake. Napster was a client/server technology, but acted as a P2P application. Today's technology is distributed to a much larger extent, meaning that there is no guaranteed way of blocking or logging content.
With Napster, they had a possible infrastructure for micropayments etc. They also had the possibility of quietly monitoring the activity. Now, they are much more in the dark.
Then again, wisdom and compromise was never something the entertainment industry was very good at.
Stop the brainwash
If it's all about profits, why didn't they negotiate [seriously] with Napster? If it's all about stock prices and CEO bonuses, why are they openly declaring war on their customers? If it's all about "war", why do they insist on playing a defensive game against P2P (instead of offering competitive non-crippled alteratives)? At frist glance, it looks like they are going on the offensive with the "legalized computer crime" intiative, but it's really a desperate defensive ploy! At first I thought the CTO advertisement was a joke, but after I thought about all the foolish choices the industry has made regarding technology, it all makes sense (in a warped sort of way.)
None of the heavy hitters in the IT industry will want this losing battle on their resumes, so it's a "tier-2" opportunity at best. This is a classic example of an IT job to be avoided:
I view it as the techie equivalent of being Saddam's "Chief of Air Defense". Whoever gets this job is going to be thoroughly outgunned by the "evil ones".
Oddly enough, there is a way for someone to be successful in this job, but it involves more diplomacy and negotiation than technology. The problem to be solved is inside Warner, not outside.
Slashdotism often wants to take from the producers of society and give it to everyone else. That's socialism.
In socialism the State is the owner of all the means of production.
In "Slashdotism" individuals contribute from their own accord to a project and they, and anybody else, are welcome to profit from it in innovative ways as long as copyright is strictly respected.
So stop the bullshit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How does the gnutella client start to build a host cache without connecting to a well-known source? Or rather, how does it connect to this source without making it possible for the ISP to MITM.
Some clients connect to a server operated by the client maintainer the first time they're installed. Others use a web-based host caching mechanism to get started. Some have regularly updated host cache files that come with the software. Once a client gets connected for the first time, it sends out a ping packet over gnet (not ICMP ping, gnet ping). Any hosts that need more entries in their host caches respond to the ping with a pong packet containing their IP address and listening port. From that point on, the host has (or can get) as many other ip:port pairs as it wants.
Anyway, I'd love an URL or two with more information about the future direction of gnutella.
Sadly, there's not a great deal of direction in terms of the future of the gnutella network; however, there are a couple of sites worth visiting. The Gnucleus home page has a forum component that's usually pretty lively. It's not exactly developers only, though, so expect to see a lot of posts from people who have "Great Ideas!" about what the developer should do next but don't know anything about programming or gnet. There's also the RFC-Gnutella project on sourceforge that aims to (obviously) produce an RFC on the gnutella protocol, or at least get it standardized to the point where all developers can agree on how servents should pass around data.
Once again, although I don't subscribe to Libertarian philosphy in all its "beauty", I have to defend them on this. Libertarians believe very strongly in social obligations -- through neighbor to neighbor obligations, not government to neighbor. The government forcibly taking from one person to give to another breeds resentment in the takee, and the faceless nature of it breeds dependency on the taker. Not to mention the extreme inefficiency. For these reasons, charity should be done voluntarily and locally.
I know this is getting offtopic, but I just felt like responding because I'm leaning towards the Greens on a lot of issues, and yet I pretty much agree with this. I think the issue would be what should be considered "charity". For example, I agree that just taking money from some people and giving it to others doesn't make sense. But if you frame that within a context of a specific example, sometimes it makes perfect sense.
For example, education is something that I think should remain a public institution - not a private business, and certainly not a charity. Society is made infinitely better by good education, and I believe any government has a responsibility to educate its future citizens. Furthermore, it only makes sense to me that education should be financed by taxes (everyone pays for it). What's more, I would argue that those who could benefit from it the most are most often those who can least afford to pay for it. Therefore, taxes for education should be weighted in favor of low-income citizens. In other words, the wealthy should be taxed more heavily, and the extra funds should go to education.
It's not just welfare - low-income citizens still have to go through the effort of getting their kids to school or applying for school themselves, and education will always be work (studying is hard for a reason!). But there's no good reason to penalize them right out of their own education, making it harder to obtain the very thing that will help them earn enough to pay for it in the first place!
Forgive the ramble, I agree with "neighbor to neighbor" obligations as a view of how society should function - I just think we need to rethink the very idea of government as the big "other" - it's run by our own neighbors - we elected them. And if it doesn't seem like that, then more social reform is needed to make the government truly of, by, and for the people (we and our neighbors). And I think the Greens are on to something with respect to how to do that.
At the very least, I just wish we would instantiate Instant Runoff Voting as the standard election practice in the USA...
In socialism the State is the owner of all the means of production.
Not necessarily. As Dictionary.com says:
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Socialism just requires that the means of production are owned collectively. Or as is oft stated, "the workers own the means of production" - as opposed to somebody else owning the means and dictating what the people actually doing the work should do, while reaping a good percentage off the top.
What needs to happen is for most, if not all, businesses to be come cooperatives. No one else but me should own the products of my labor, and no one else but me and my coworkers should have a say in how we do our work. The workplace should be democratic, not totalitarian.
The "free software" community is largely cooperative, sort of anyway. Distributions are not, although I think they should be. I would love to see a bunch of geeks get together and found an IT cooperative - it would be especially worthwhile in a major city like New York. They could be an ISP, or just provide programming services - or anything they want, really. The key would be that they pool their resources to do their own work, and elect their "leaders" from themselves.
I think such an organization would be quite sustainable. Sure, it would grow like a bacteria like so many businesses seem to think is the most important thing, but it would provide a benefit to its community, and the people in it would live well enough.
The New Testament offers the basis for modern computer coding theory,
in the form of an affirmation of the binary number system.
But let your communication be Yea, yea; nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-- Matthew 5:37
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...