Is the "Rot13" encryption we're talking about here really what we geeks think of as "ROT-13"? I only ask because, according to the PPT slide in the DefCon presentation:
Clone of "Rot13" sample plug-in, which supplied with Acrobat 4 SDK
Uses fixed encryption key for all documents
Key could easily be found as text string in the body of plug-in
It's the last two bullets that I'm curious about. "Fixed encryption key" implies something more than simply "rotate by 13", and "key found as text string" sort of enforces that thought. Does anyone have experience with the Acrobat plugin sample that the 1st bullet refers to?
This may be just an example of some company naming their proprietary system after a cool geek-friendly phrase...
...or, it may actually be ROT-13. Does anyone know for sure? What'd they say at the presentation?
No, that's not right. You might have to read the story to find out the answers
I did read the story. Both before I posted my comment and after you suggested I read it. Where am I wrong?
Does actual infringement of a trademark not need to be proven? If that's the case, then they could send a letter to McDonald's saying that "Big Mac" might conflict with "Windows 2000" and win another chunk of change. I assume this is not the case, so, if Adobe says there's no infringement, then there's no infringement, and the law firm shouldn't be able to collect any money, right?
Or would this need to be determined via a trial? Has Kontour publicly agreed that Killustrator infringes, or have they changed the name out of the goodness of their hearts, not admitting guilt, to avoid trouble?
[Aside: I appreciate the fact that lots of people don't read the posted articles. However, don't assume that, just because someone makes an error in a posting, they haven't read it. If you see something you think they got wrong, don't simply say "that's not right." Give them details, eh?]
That's what's scary about this. It's a 3rd party suit. The law firm has no connections to Adobe whatsoever, from what I understand. They simply said, "hey, look, this probably infringes," and they send a letter and say "you gotta change it, and BTW, you owe us money now." Adobe never hired them, and they get no benefit (other than a possibly infringing name being removed).
Essentially, it's legalized vigilant--vigalantee--er... add "ism" to "vigilantee.":)
But doesn't this depend on an actual infringement having taken place? Now that the product has changed to Kontour, could Adobe (with a promise from the authors of Kontour) say "That's okay, we really didn't think that Killustrator infringed," and the whole case would drop?
That is, if Adobe specifically says that "Killustrator" is not infringing in Germany, the law firm has no case, and can collect no $$ (or, rather, DM). Right? Or do they collect regardless of whether infringement actually occurs?
Obviously, this depends on a good faith understanding that Kontour won't change back, in the case that Adobe truly (secretly) does dislike "Killustrator".
Just a thought. I don't expect Adobe to jump to this company's defense, but it might be interesting.
A few years ago, astronomers announced that a dwarf galaxy in the direction of Saggitarius was colliding with the Milky Way. I'm not sure it's exactly within our galaxy's borders [I'd thought it was, but the only reference I could find after a minute of googling said otherwise], but it's orbiting (every billion years or so), and the galaxies have had an effect on each other. Check out this FAQ about the dwarf and the referred page. Key quote: "It [SagDEG] is apparently in process of being disrupted by tidal gravitational forces of its big massive neighbor in this encounter. "
I've been mucking about with ad blocking for a while. Some problems:
Flash ads - haven't found anything that reliably removes the big flash ads from Excite or ZDNet or such.
Popups - sure, I can get rid of most of 'em, but there are a lot of sites now with little pop-up "informational" boxes that break once I've filtered them out.
Clever site programmers - some sites are actually splitting their javascript into multiple strings, concatenating them somehow at the browser, then "eval"ing them. Hard to catch those, as they've been stealthed past any keyword filter
I've tried Junkbusters, WebWasher (nicest interface, but it keeps forcing automatic browser config. and that breaks FTP for me), and Proximitron. Right now, I'm using WebWasher chained through Guidescope (follow-up to Junkbusters).
The big problem is that there are a lot of sites with valid (though usually surperfluous) uses for both flash and popups. If I turn them off globally, I lose some functionality. People talk about browsers (konquerer, IE 6, whatever -- I don't remember 'cause none of them are what I use) that allow, for example, popups only in response to a user action. That's great. Wonderful. Can somebody please roll that into webwasher so I can use it with ANY browser?
I guess what it comes down to is every time I try to block stuff, the advertisers either get more clever, or I end up cursing my annoyance with ads whenever I have to temporarily disable the proxy to use a feature I actually want.
Okay, so we saw an article about this EULA back on June 21. So we'll now see a slew of messages saying "deja vu" and "dammit, post something new." With which I have to admit I partially agree.
However, what if there's something useful in this new article? Does that make the story redundant? What if it's only a marginal increase in information? What delta is appropriate for a new headline story, and who decides that delta?
Could I suggest, for discussion (and if a consensus develops could someone plese bring it to Taco's attention?), two possible ways to provide timely follow-up information without starting a flamefest of "what, nothing new today?" messages?
Create a "Follow-ups" category, and post any story directly related to any "recent" (say, 3 months?) story under this category. People can then choose to ignore that category, if they like.
Create a section for links, stories, cool pages, etc., with no associated discussion. That way, all the quick "here's another story" articles could be brought to people's attention, and maybe only use 1 or 2 lines of web real estate to do so.
Anyone else think this is a good idea? Or should I just crawl back under my rock?
Even better than Kazaa is Morpheus (www.musiccity.com), with the same system as Kazaa, but a whole helluva lot more files online. I've been able to find all but two tracks from an obscure 60's folk LP that's sitting, scratched, somewhere in my mom's basement.
What I'd still like to see is more meta-searching capabilities in clients. Kazaa and MusicCity both seem to be the same software, but different communites (Kazaa found 12 "New Christy Minstrels" songs, Morpheus found 58). Why can't they search one another? What about plugging into OpenNap servers? And what about searching multiple OpenNap servers at once? It's frustrating to have to choose between one or another system, and I'm not about to run a search on Morpheus, then Aimster, then Kazaa, then two or three different OpenNap servers...to say nothing about connecting into one of the many gnutella nets...
Back in 1993, a co-worker called across the help desk to me to say he was ordering business cards, and did I want any. I said "yeah," and he relayed my name to the HR person on the phone. He then asked me what I wanted on them. I said, "oh, I don't know, how about Guru Extraordinaire?" I assumed that it'd be screened out.
When they came in, they actually had that title. Still got 'em. My program manager, though, told me never to give them to any customers.:(
for instance a reference to www.linux.org might well come up with a nice link redirecting you to one of the Microsoft anti-Linux tirades on www.microsoft.com.
Okay, this is a pretty good example.
Hm. I'm trying to come up with a counter-example. Failing miserably.
And if i write a nice disclaimer somewhere on my site which explicitly disallows this, are they still allowed to "change my site"?
Okay, from the article, it seems this is pretty much just another "See a word, click it, get information" thing (like that NBCi plugin). They're not actually changing your site. And the tags appear differently from normal links, with "squiggly purple lines" that indicate a rollover target, then creates (on rollover) a button that will, if then clicked, take you somewhere else.
It sounds to me like it would be pretty easy for the end user to distinguish between links that I've put there, and links that the browser generated to sites that MS thinks I might be interested in.
Could you write a disclaimer that says "don't do this?" You could try. But would that block the end-user's fair-use rights to the page? How would that be different from someone saying that you couldn't feed their page through a translator? Both systems would be an end-user activity that adds value, in the user's mind, to the information already present in the website. If they want to be able to click on every occurrence of the word "grits," then, well, that's up to them.
My big beef with this would be if the links looked like my own, or if they replaced my own links with links that the system thought were "better." It doesn't sound like this does that. The only other thing that I'd be annoyed with, from a user level, would be if I couldn't turn the damned feature off. Sounds like you can do that, too. Which, naturally, I'd do right off the bat, if it was shipped in default "on" state.
Note that this same post was shown elsewhere in this thread without the "CEO" signature. And that it appears on the AVS forum with only "-RB" as a signature. I searched all over the forum, but didn't find any copy of this message with a CEO's signature.
AC, please post a link directly to an AVS forum message where TiVolutionary claims to be the CEO.
We in Fidonet 109 had a UUCP connection via a company called Hadron, thanks to a USENIX guy named Kurt Riesler (if I recall correctly). As far back as 1989, I actually had my PC in my dorm room running as a point on another BBS, which was on Fidonet, which had the UUCP gateway nearby, so I was receiving UUCP Internet mail, at home, on a daily basis, 12 years ago.
I'm still very proud of that.:)
Of course, anyone I would want to talk to simply sent mail to the mainframe via BITNET, anyway...
Can anyone in the DC area tell me the difference between DC101 and WHFS?
One of these stations has always played crap, while the other threw away a devoted listenership in order to start playing crap.
If you're able to, I highly recommend giving WRNR (103.1) a try -- it's run by the same folks who started WHFS (If not Damian, then him and his father? I can't remember exactly). Unfortunately, I can't get it in virginia -- so I, too, am looking forward to satellite radio. Either that, or I'll just by a Nomad Jukebox for the car.
Unfortunately, they're no longer streaming. Yet another example of RIAA, actors unions, and other assorted people screwing the public for their own personal gain. But that's a rant for another time....:)
Why and how is a computer program expressive speech?
I'll suggest a physical-world analogy:
A computer program, we all agree (I believe), is a series of instructions that a machine can follow to accomplish some task. For example, a step-by-step system for creating a window on a computer screen. To some, perhaps most, people, it's enough to know that the program will create that window, and they don't really care how that program does its job.
A production manual in a window factory can do essentially the same thing. It might include a series of instructions for a computer-controlled set of machinery to create, from raw lumber and glass panes, a window for a house. Again, most people probably don't care how exactly the instructions work, though they might find the automated nature of the machinery fascinating.
A craftsman, on a TV show, showing viewers how he can take a stack of lumber, cut it with various tools in his shop, shape it with routers, and trim it with chisels or sandpaper, can do (again) exactly the same thing. He's actually demonstrating, at a step-by-step level, those instructions for creating a window. In this case, the numbers are reversed -- there are probably a helluva lot more people watching The New Yankee Workshop than there are building windows in their garage. But these viewers all find the process itself, the actual steps taken, fascinating.
A computer program, itself, can hold the same fascination for some people that making a window or a cabinet holds for many regular viewers of PBS and HGTV. In this respect, it is both "expressive" speech, and "interesting" speech. For many, it's not the result that matters, but how the computer, or machine, or craftsman, arrives at the result.
What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form?
A typical, and accepted, fair use is for a review or analysis of an artistic work. For example:
Were one to produce a public-access cable show on, say, great Italian artists, they'd want to be able to go into great detail about the pieces they're describing. An episode dedicated to The Last Supper would likely talk at great lengths about similar paintings both pre- and post-dating the masterwork, as well as providing a critical analysis of the famous painting itself. It would probably want to show, also, the extensive restorations performed in recent years.
Now, this painting, if I recall correctly, is huge, taking up most of a wall. Obviously, there is potential for great, close-up observation of details in the painting. Now, imagine that the painting is owned by a corporation that makes money from producing variously sized poster copies of it. They have a vested interest in restricting the detail that is available to "the general public," because it is to their competitive advantage to be able to provide larger and larger reproductions of the work, at the maximum possible detail.
In order to protect their copyright, the painting's owner permit free use of only full-image, 640x480 resolution copies of the original. At this resolution, the smallest detail available for inspection would be over half an inch square -- certainly not reasonable for closely inspecting one of da Vinci's most famous works.
In this case, fair use would dictate that the maximum possible resolution image be available for the producer of the show -- even if it's an undergraduate student working a combination project for TV and Art History classes.
This example, of course, centers around a still image -- albeit a 30x14 foot one. As recently as 10 years ago, nobody would ever consider that "amateurs" could produce quality critical works analyzing moving pictures. But with today's technology, that's possible. Where, in the past, an essay on a piece of art might be published in paper form, today, it might take the form of an interactive, multi-media report published on the internet. Such an essay could, and likely would, include the ability to view clips from a film, and even to zoom in on key features, to investigate background details, "in jokes," or other features to which the author might want to direct the readers' attention. Yes, the owners of the copyright have a vested interest in protecting their film. But "Fair Use" has always allowed scholars, of all skills and means, to utilize copyrighted material to make their points. To force such works to rely on lesser-quality material would preclude much of the discussion, and appreciation, of the hard work that goes into such films.
Anyway, that's the way I see it. At least, the way I see it this morning.:) If anyone on the 2600-side wants to make use of these (or similar) analogies, please feel free! (on the other hand, if it's crap, then ignore it.:) )
This is way cool, and it's coolness is not in the least diminished by the fact that something very much like this was used on my old TRS-80 Model I computer, back in, oh, 1981.
There was no audio (hell, there was barely video) on that machine, and the original data storage medium was cassette tapes. Stored at about 300 baud, or so. The output of the cassette port was about the same +5v / 0v range, and people used the same approach to store data on the tape (I think it's called Frequency Shift Keying, but I'm not sure).
Anyway, people also realized early on that you could hook an audio amplifier to the output, and do some rudimentary sound effects. People played with it more, got some very nicely done 'drivers' (as it were) that were easy to call from BASIC, and, volia!, you've added laserbeam sound effects to your Android Nim program.
Then someone really got good with sound (I think it was Leo Christopherson's Ride of the Valkyries program, but it might have been Dancing Demon, too), with a lot more advanced and cool-sounding effects. Then it got really out of hand when someone figured out how to to speech synthesis. Still, to this day, some of the best speech I've heard from a computer.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, was on a 1.77 MHz Z-80.
This is yet another example of how, with all the advanced hardware we've got today, we've lost sight of how to "do more with less." Everyone could learn from this...
So, does anyone have a copy online yet? Should that get "leaked" to, say, the Times, MSNBC, C-NET, etc.? I'm concerned that without a high-profile lawsuit, this will not get much media attention.
Or perhaps someone could sue RIAA, et al, for refusing to permit publication? There must be some way to use the system to the benefit of these researchers, even if they've decided to drop it for now.
I've managed to avoid caring about busses and cards and slots and IRQs for some time, largely by having only one computer at home (and that a NeXT). Lately, however, I've begun building a full-out network, and I'm really hating life.
Will somebody please explain to me why I'm seeing stuff in motherboard FAQs like "Try swapping the cards" or "don't ever put SB Live and a NIC in slots 2 and 3 together!" ??? This is crazy. A slot is a slot is a slot. If it's not, then something is dreadfully wrong (and, since it's not, then something definitely is screwed up in the PC hardware industry).
From what I've been able to learn lately, one of the big problems is that not all PCI cards properly share the bus. That they don't fully adhere to the spec. So, we've got a (relatively) decent slot spec, but because some (most?) manufacturers cut corners, we've got crazy incompatibility problems.
Add to that the fact that we're still saddled with this antique IRQ system that makes about as much sense as, well, frankly it makes no sense.
Please tell me (I haven't gone to read them yet) that these new bus architectures that people are working on will at least solve these problems? There's no reason I should have to drop into the BIOS to change an obscure setting, or to re-position all my cards, just beacuse I decided to drop in a firewire card. But that's what's happening now, and it's driving me bugfu*k.
On a more idealistic (and probably impractical) note, has anyone considered the possibility of making the bus very generalized? To the point where I could add, say, a 2nd (or 4th) processor just by slapping in a card? Or upgrade from one CPU to another by replacing the current card? Is this the way the old S-100 bus worked? Why can't we do that today? (I know, it'd require a COMPLETE overhaul of how we build computers, but might it be worthwhile?)
And, on a more immediate level, is there anything that motherboard manufacturers can do today to help relax the problems? Could an enterprising engineer move away from the current north/south bridge architecture to a totally new, IRQ-rich, forgiving, true PnP environment, without breaking existing OS or cards?
And, finally, from a more pessimistic point, what's to say that, even with a new kick-ass solve-all-our-problems promote-world-peace bus, that cards or MBs won't be built fully in compliance with the spec, and that we'll just be back in the same boat?
Lawsuits, Strikes, and Other Forms of Protest
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 2
I agree wholeheartedly. Did the parents ever sign a waiver giving up their right to sue? I doubt it. Their son has a right to Public Education, and has rights to due process (even though people and courts more and more refuse to acknowledge anyone under 18 as a "person", unless of course they kill someone, in which case even 8-year-olds are "adults" and worthy of capital punishment or lifetime imprisonment, but I digress).
They should definitely get a high-profile lawyer invovled and sue the principal for the suspension, the district for providing no appeal or due process, and the state for failing to provide the support the students need.
Better yet, how much trouble do you think it'd take to get the students mobilized in his defense? I mean, even if they don't like the kid, do you really think they'd turn down a protest strike? If the whole school came in one day and didn't leave homeroom until they readmit Sean, or if they all just stay home -- what then?
The thing that scares me the most about this sort of thing is not that it happens, but at how quickly and easily parents and kids roll over and take the punishment. Sean ought to just ignore the suspension -- go back to class. Let the police forcibly remove him from the school, with the cameras rolling.
We're building a new home, and, unfortunately, didn't have many builder's options for wiring. We'll have an open attic and unfinished basement, so, except for the problem of mounting speakers in the first floor ceilings (dining room, etc.), we can do everything, after settlement, from above or below.
I'd initially tried to spec out all the possible things we'd want to have -- network, phone, amplified audio, line-level audio, cable/Satellite TV, distributed TV, HD-TV (hey, we can dream, right?), home automation, temperature sensors, voice control, etc.
In the end, we decided that's a lot of cable. And much of it (amplified and especially line-level audio) requires more expensive equipment than I really wanted to deal with. So, we've made the decision to put amplified audio in only a few rooms (and we'll figure out some way to get it into the ceiling), and to put Cat-5 and dual coax into every room. We'll try and put a pair of cat-5 near the light switch, one for audio controls (should we put amplified audio in that room), and one for home automation use (voice control, touch pads, whatever). Then have a single jack with a pair of coax (TV and video), and a pair of cat-5 (computer, phone, whatever). The bulk of the audio/video distribution, however, we're going to do via Video LAN technology. Just put a set-top box in any room that wants it, and you get super tivo, web, playstation emulation, mp3, etc.
The quality might not be as great as doing 100% pure video over good coax, however, it might actually be better, being all digital until just 6 feet from the TV (and, eventually, all digital right to the tube, once we've made a gazillion dollars and can afford digital flat panels).
I've described this a couple times before, and so far, haven't heard any naysayers. Anyone out there this time who thinks that the idea of doing it all over switched ethernet isn't the way to go?
(warning -- this is a deliberate troll. I must be channeling Discordia this morning...)
From the article: That's just dandy. We're effectively being told that... we're not worthy of properly designed and implemented security. A flawed system is considered sufficient.
Maybe the FBI is behind the security flaws in 802.11? This way, as the technology proliferates and everyone's got it in their home networks, they can spy (and even root around in) on everyone's computers from the comfort of their vans...
I wasn't trying to rattle sabres, nor was I trying to say that the Chinese are ready to roll on over here and burn the White House. However, I do think that they're probably more than happy to fight back, in any way they can, when they feel they need to. And they'll have a lot of strength in convictions on their side (unlike, perhaps, the Iraqi soldiers surrendering in droves).
Like, for example, what would happen if Taiwan were to declare their independence? It's no longer outside the realm of possibilities that China could immediately invade Taiwan. The fact that the US has said that we'll defend Taiwan is no longer as big a deterrent as it might have been. And that could mean the lives of US soldiers and sailors, even if not civilians back at home.
That said, the papers you cited are good reading, too, and helps to at least ameliorate any fears of a direct Nuclear confrontation (which I never personally harbored, anyway).
I guess what I'm getting at is that China poses as much a threat now as the Soviet Union used to. That is to say, though they have no intentions of invading us, and they're just as afraid of us as we are of them, they're also convinced that they're right and are willing to fight to the death to protect their interests. I'm just concerned that most of the US isn't sufficiently aware of this, and thinks of China more as a source of cheap electronics and toys than as a true Superpower to be reckoned with.
One interesting benefit of working for a government contractor, is I get to work with a lot of people who are much better attuned than I to what's going on in the world. And a lot of them are scared to death about China, not just because of what's going on now.
Whether or not you agree with either side in this situation, with regards to boundaries, spying, emergency mayday landings, or whatever, it's hard to simply look at China and say "so what."
The rhetoric that comes out of their country is largely overlooked in the US. Many of their leaders (political, social, military) have spoken openly of their expectations that the US will become a "has been" in the coming century. That China will, essentially, become the dominant force in the world -- economically, politically, socially, and militarily. They see it as their "Manifest Destiny," somewhat like we Americans saw the West as our destiny just over a hundred years ago.
Add to this mindset the fact that the political leadership took a lot of heat after their response to our accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in the Kosovo conflict, and the fact that Bush took a lot of heat during the Florida election mess, and you've got two very powerful leaders who, honestly, can't afford to look weak.
Now I can be just a knee-jerk as anyone. I'm amazed that we haven't recalled our ambassadors, declared the crew hostages or prisoners, or tried to push a resolution through the Security Council (which, if I'm not mistaken, would be quickly vetoed by China anyway -- *there* is a useful body). Hell, I'm amazed that we haven't even scaled up our presence in the waters nearby the island. It'd be great, both from a nationalistic and idealistic standpoint, to see a team of marines airdrop on the island, rescue the crew, and airlift the plane out (just try dogging MiGs when you're hanging a spy plane from a heavy-lift helicopter). But what would that really accomplish? We could probably win a War with China. But is it worth trying?
Bottom line: As much as I want to see these guys released, yesterday, and as much as this posturing seems crazy, remember that we're dealing with a BIG powder-keg here (after all, where was gunpowder even invented?), and the Chinese are more than ready to fight back for what they believe, most likely sincerely, is unfounded US aggression.
Real bottom line: This scares me. It should scare everyone. The really scary part is that it isn't scaring people as much as it should be.
(a good reference: China Debates the Future Security Environment - US GPO (out of print) -- 600 quotations from various Chinese authors since 1994 -- Defense Dept, National Defense University)
First of all, when you are pausing the show you are watching, what difference does it make if they put an advertisement on the screen?
When you're pausing it so you can read something on the screen, or determine whether the receiver's foot was down before he left the end zone, or a myriad of other possibilities.
If "Freeze-Frame" was one of the included features of Replay, and they chose, without user validation, to remove that feature, then they're taking away something they've already paid for. Nevermind that they've since changed it back--the original behavior of the unit was altered without the customer's approval to be no longer in compliance with advertised specifications.
We've all seen the warning "Specifications subject to change without notice," except, in the past, once you've actually purchased something, the specifications stopped changing.
even when this feature was still active... you could bypass the ads simply by pressing one more key after you hit Pause
If this restored the live-action TV, then you're still not regaining the lost freeze-frame feature. If this turns off the ad and returns you to the current program, frozen on the screen, then it's a little more acceptable. But still, it's something that you didn't ask for, and that wasn't part of the deal when you bought the unit.
What if Netscape or Microsoft downloaded updates to their browsers that forced you (and hackers couldn't figure out how to prevent the forcing) to view an ad before each page you viewed? Sure, you can get past the ad simply by clicking somewhere, but it's still a feature you didn't ask for. And, technically, legally, there's no reason the next patch you download can't do exactly that. Then where will we be?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the last two bullets that I'm curious about. "Fixed encryption key" implies something more than simply "rotate by 13", and "key found as text string" sort of enforces that thought. Does anyone have experience with the Acrobat plugin sample that the 1st bullet refers to?
This may be just an example of some company naming their proprietary system after a cool geek-friendly phrase...
...or, it may actually be ROT-13. Does anyone know for sure? What'd they say at the presentation?
I did read the story. Both before I posted my comment and after you suggested I read it. Where am I wrong?
Does actual infringement of a trademark not need to be proven? If that's the case, then they could send a letter to McDonald's saying that "Big Mac" might conflict with "Windows 2000" and win another chunk of change. I assume this is not the case, so, if Adobe says there's no infringement, then there's no infringement, and the law firm shouldn't be able to collect any money, right?
Or would this need to be determined via a trial? Has Kontour publicly agreed that Killustrator infringes, or have they changed the name out of the goodness of their hearts, not admitting guilt, to avoid trouble?
[Aside: I appreciate the fact that lots of people don't read the posted articles. However, don't assume that, just because someone makes an error in a posting, they haven't read it. If you see something you think they got wrong, don't simply say "that's not right." Give them details, eh?]
That's what's scary about this. It's a 3rd party suit. The law firm has no connections to Adobe whatsoever, from what I understand. They simply said, "hey, look, this probably infringes," and they send a letter and say "you gotta change it, and BTW, you owe us money now." Adobe never hired them, and they get no benefit (other than a possibly infringing name being removed).
:)
Essentially, it's legalized vigilant--vigalantee--er... add "ism" to "vigilantee."
But doesn't this depend on an actual infringement having taken place? Now that the product has changed to Kontour, could Adobe (with a promise from the authors of Kontour) say "That's okay, we really didn't think that Killustrator infringed," and the whole case would drop?
That is, if Adobe specifically says that "Killustrator" is not infringing in Germany, the law firm has no case, and can collect no $$ (or, rather, DM). Right? Or do they collect regardless of whether infringement actually occurs?
Obviously, this depends on a good faith understanding that Kontour won't change back, in the case that Adobe truly (secretly) does dislike "Killustrator".
Just a thought. I don't expect Adobe to jump to this company's defense, but it might be interesting.
A few years ago, astronomers announced that a dwarf galaxy in the direction of Saggitarius was colliding with the Milky Way. I'm not sure it's exactly within our galaxy's borders [I'd thought it was, but the only reference I could find after a minute of googling said otherwise], but it's orbiting (every billion years or so), and the galaxies have had an effect on each other. Check out this FAQ about the dwarf and the referred page. Key quote: "It [SagDEG] is apparently in process of being disrupted by tidal gravitational forces of its big massive neighbor in this encounter. "
I've tried Junkbusters, WebWasher (nicest interface, but it keeps forcing automatic browser config. and that breaks FTP for me), and Proximitron. Right now, I'm using WebWasher chained through Guidescope (follow-up to Junkbusters).
The big problem is that there are a lot of sites with valid (though usually surperfluous) uses for both flash and popups. If I turn them off globally, I lose some functionality. People talk about browsers (konquerer, IE 6, whatever -- I don't remember 'cause none of them are what I use) that allow, for example, popups only in response to a user action. That's great. Wonderful. Can somebody please roll that into webwasher so I can use it with ANY browser?
I guess what it comes down to is every time I try to block stuff, the advertisers either get more clever, or I end up cursing my annoyance with ads whenever I have to temporarily disable the proxy to use a feature I actually want.
*sigh*
However, what if there's something useful in this new article? Does that make the story redundant? What if it's only a marginal increase in information? What delta is appropriate for a new headline story, and who decides that delta?
Could I suggest, for discussion (and if a consensus develops could someone plese bring it to Taco's attention?), two possible ways to provide timely follow-up information without starting a flamefest of "what, nothing new today?" messages?
Anyone else think this is a good idea? Or should I just crawl back under my rock?
david.
What I'd still like to see is more meta-searching capabilities in clients. Kazaa and MusicCity both seem to be the same software, but different communites (Kazaa found 12 "New Christy Minstrels" songs, Morpheus found 58). Why can't they search one another? What about plugging into OpenNap servers? And what about searching multiple OpenNap servers at once? It's frustrating to have to choose between one or another system, and I'm not about to run a search on Morpheus, then Aimster, then Kazaa, then two or three different OpenNap servers...to say nothing about connecting into one of the many gnutella nets...
Any solutions out there for that?
When they came in, they actually had that title. Still got 'em. My program manager, though, told me never to give them to any customers. :(
Okay, this is a pretty good example.
Hm. I'm trying to come up with a counter-example. Failing miserably.
Damn, I hate that. :)
Okay, from the article, it seems this is pretty much just another "See a word, click it, get information" thing (like that NBCi plugin). They're not actually changing your site. And the tags appear differently from normal links, with "squiggly purple lines" that indicate a rollover target, then creates (on rollover) a button that will, if then clicked, take you somewhere else.
It sounds to me like it would be pretty easy for the end user to distinguish between links that I've put there, and links that the browser generated to sites that MS thinks I might be interested in.
Could you write a disclaimer that says "don't do this?" You could try. But would that block the end-user's fair-use rights to the page? How would that be different from someone saying that you couldn't feed their page through a translator? Both systems would be an end-user activity that adds value, in the user's mind, to the information already present in the website. If they want to be able to click on every occurrence of the word "grits," then, well, that's up to them.
My big beef with this would be if the links looked like my own, or if they replaced my own links with links that the system thought were "better." It doesn't sound like this does that. The only other thing that I'd be annoyed with, from a user level, would be if I couldn't turn the damned feature off. Sounds like you can do that, too. Which, naturally, I'd do right off the bat, if it was shipped in default "on" state.
AC, please post a link directly to an AVS forum message where TiVolutionary claims to be the CEO.
I'm still very proud of that. :)
Of course, anyone I would want to talk to simply sent mail to the mainframe via BITNET, anyway...
One of these stations has always played crap, while the other threw away a devoted listenership in order to start playing crap.
If you're able to, I highly recommend giving WRNR (103.1) a try -- it's run by the same folks who started WHFS (If not Damian, then him and his father? I can't remember exactly). Unfortunately, I can't get it in virginia -- so I, too, am looking forward to satellite radio. Either that, or I'll just by a Nomad Jukebox for the car.
Unfortunately, they're no longer streaming. Yet another example of RIAA, actors unions, and other assorted people screwing the public for their own personal gain. But that's a rant for another time.... :)
I'll suggest a physical-world analogy:
What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form?
A typical, and accepted, fair use is for a review or analysis of an artistic work. For example:
Anyway, that's the way I see it. At least, the way I see it this morning. :) If anyone on the 2600-side wants to make use of these (or similar) analogies, please feel free! (on the other hand, if it's crap, then ignore it. :) )
david.
There was no audio (hell, there was barely video) on that machine, and the original data storage medium was cassette tapes. Stored at about 300 baud, or so. The output of the cassette port was about the same +5v / 0v range, and people used the same approach to store data on the tape (I think it's called Frequency Shift Keying, but I'm not sure).
Anyway, people also realized early on that you could hook an audio amplifier to the output, and do some rudimentary sound effects. People played with it more, got some very nicely done 'drivers' (as it were) that were easy to call from BASIC, and, volia!, you've added laserbeam sound effects to your Android Nim program.
Then someone really got good with sound (I think it was Leo Christopherson's Ride of the Valkyries program, but it might have been Dancing Demon, too), with a lot more advanced and cool-sounding effects. Then it got really out of hand when someone figured out how to to speech synthesis. Still, to this day, some of the best speech I've heard from a computer.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, was on a 1.77 MHz Z-80.
This is yet another example of how, with all the advanced hardware we've got today, we've lost sight of how to "do more with less." Everyone could learn from this...
Okay, yeah, the main link gave a link to the paper. Sorry.
But my other questions still stand!
Or perhaps someone could sue RIAA, et al, for refusing to permit publication? There must be some way to use the system to the benefit of these researchers, even if they've decided to drop it for now.
Will somebody please explain to me why I'm seeing stuff in motherboard FAQs like "Try swapping the cards" or "don't ever put SB Live and a NIC in slots 2 and 3 together!" ??? This is crazy. A slot is a slot is a slot. If it's not, then something is dreadfully wrong (and, since it's not, then something definitely is screwed up in the PC hardware industry).
From what I've been able to learn lately, one of the big problems is that not all PCI cards properly share the bus. That they don't fully adhere to the spec. So, we've got a (relatively) decent slot spec, but because some (most?) manufacturers cut corners, we've got crazy incompatibility problems.
Add to that the fact that we're still saddled with this antique IRQ system that makes about as much sense as, well, frankly it makes no sense.
Please tell me (I haven't gone to read them yet) that these new bus architectures that people are working on will at least solve these problems? There's no reason I should have to drop into the BIOS to change an obscure setting, or to re-position all my cards, just beacuse I decided to drop in a firewire card. But that's what's happening now, and it's driving me bugfu*k.
On a more idealistic (and probably impractical) note, has anyone considered the possibility of making the bus very generalized? To the point where I could add, say, a 2nd (or 4th) processor just by slapping in a card? Or upgrade from one CPU to another by replacing the current card? Is this the way the old S-100 bus worked? Why can't we do that today? (I know, it'd require a COMPLETE overhaul of how we build computers, but might it be worthwhile?)
And, on a more immediate level, is there anything that motherboard manufacturers can do today to help relax the problems? Could an enterprising engineer move away from the current north/south bridge architecture to a totally new, IRQ-rich, forgiving, true PnP environment, without breaking existing OS or cards?
And, finally, from a more pessimistic point, what's to say that, even with a new kick-ass solve-all-our-problems promote-world-peace bus, that cards or MBs won't be built fully in compliance with the spec, and that we'll just be back in the same boat?
They should definitely get a high-profile lawyer invovled and sue the principal for the suspension, the district for providing no appeal or due process, and the state for failing to provide the support the students need.
Better yet, how much trouble do you think it'd take to get the students mobilized in his defense? I mean, even if they don't like the kid, do you really think they'd turn down a protest strike? If the whole school came in one day and didn't leave homeroom until they readmit Sean, or if they all just stay home -- what then?
The thing that scares me the most about this sort of thing is not that it happens, but at how quickly and easily parents and kids roll over and take the punishment. Sean ought to just ignore the suspension -- go back to class. Let the police forcibly remove him from the school, with the cameras rolling.
I'd initially tried to spec out all the possible things we'd want to have -- network, phone, amplified audio, line-level audio, cable/Satellite TV, distributed TV, HD-TV (hey, we can dream, right?), home automation, temperature sensors, voice control, etc.
In the end, we decided that's a lot of cable. And much of it (amplified and especially line-level audio) requires more expensive equipment than I really wanted to deal with. So, we've made the decision to put amplified audio in only a few rooms (and we'll figure out some way to get it into the ceiling), and to put Cat-5 and dual coax into every room. We'll try and put a pair of cat-5 near the light switch, one for audio controls (should we put amplified audio in that room), and one for home automation use (voice control, touch pads, whatever). Then have a single jack with a pair of coax (TV and video), and a pair of cat-5 (computer, phone, whatever). The bulk of the audio/video distribution, however, we're going to do via Video LAN technology. Just put a set-top box in any room that wants it, and you get super tivo, web, playstation emulation, mp3, etc.
The quality might not be as great as doing 100% pure video over good coax, however, it might actually be better, being all digital until just 6 feet from the TV (and, eventually, all digital right to the tube, once we've made a gazillion dollars and can afford digital flat panels).
I've described this a couple times before, and so far, haven't heard any naysayers. Anyone out there this time who thinks that the idea of doing it all over switched ethernet isn't the way to go?
From the article: That's just dandy. We're effectively being told that ... we're not worthy of properly designed and implemented security. A flawed system is considered sufficient.
Maybe the FBI is behind the security flaws in 802.11? This way, as the technology proliferates and everyone's got it in their home networks, they can spy (and even root around in) on everyone's computers from the comfort of their vans...
Or am I just being paranoid?
Like, for example, what would happen if Taiwan were to declare their independence? It's no longer outside the realm of possibilities that China could immediately invade Taiwan. The fact that the US has said that we'll defend Taiwan is no longer as big a deterrent as it might have been. And that could mean the lives of US soldiers and sailors, even if not civilians back at home.
That said, the papers you cited are good reading, too, and helps to at least ameliorate any fears of a direct Nuclear confrontation (which I never personally harbored, anyway).
I guess what I'm getting at is that China poses as much a threat now as the Soviet Union used to. That is to say, though they have no intentions of invading us, and they're just as afraid of us as we are of them, they're also convinced that they're right and are willing to fight to the death to protect their interests. I'm just concerned that most of the US isn't sufficiently aware of this, and thinks of China more as a source of cheap electronics and toys than as a true Superpower to be reckoned with.
Whether or not you agree with either side in this situation, with regards to boundaries, spying, emergency mayday landings, or whatever, it's hard to simply look at China and say "so what."
The rhetoric that comes out of their country is largely overlooked in the US. Many of their leaders (political, social, military) have spoken openly of their expectations that the US will become a "has been" in the coming century. That China will, essentially, become the dominant force in the world -- economically, politically, socially, and militarily. They see it as their "Manifest Destiny," somewhat like we Americans saw the West as our destiny just over a hundred years ago.
Add to this mindset the fact that the political leadership took a lot of heat after their response to our accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in the Kosovo conflict, and the fact that Bush took a lot of heat during the Florida election mess, and you've got two very powerful leaders who, honestly, can't afford to look weak.
Now I can be just a knee-jerk as anyone. I'm amazed that we haven't recalled our ambassadors, declared the crew hostages or prisoners, or tried to push a resolution through the Security Council (which, if I'm not mistaken, would be quickly vetoed by China anyway -- *there* is a useful body). Hell, I'm amazed that we haven't even scaled up our presence in the waters nearby the island. It'd be great, both from a nationalistic and idealistic standpoint, to see a team of marines airdrop on the island, rescue the crew, and airlift the plane out (just try dogging MiGs when you're hanging a spy plane from a heavy-lift helicopter). But what would that really accomplish? We could probably win a War with China. But is it worth trying?
Bottom line: As much as I want to see these guys released, yesterday, and as much as this posturing seems crazy, remember that we're dealing with a BIG powder-keg here (after all, where was gunpowder even invented?), and the Chinese are more than ready to fight back for what they believe, most likely sincerely, is unfounded US aggression.
Real bottom line: This scares me. It should scare everyone. The really scary part is that it isn't scaring people as much as it should be.
(a good reference: China Debates the Future Security Environment - US GPO (out of print) -- 600 quotations from various Chinese authors since 1994 -- Defense Dept, National Defense University)
When you're pausing it so you can read something on the screen, or determine whether the receiver's foot was down before he left the end zone, or a myriad of other possibilities.
If "Freeze-Frame" was one of the included features of Replay, and they chose, without user validation, to remove that feature, then they're taking away something they've already paid for. Nevermind that they've since changed it back--the original behavior of the unit was altered without the customer's approval to be no longer in compliance with advertised specifications.
We've all seen the warning "Specifications subject to change without notice," except, in the past, once you've actually purchased something, the specifications stopped changing.
even when this feature was still active ... you could bypass the ads simply by pressing one more key after you hit Pause
If this restored the live-action TV, then you're still not regaining the lost freeze-frame feature. If this turns off the ad and returns you to the current program, frozen on the screen, then it's a little more acceptable. But still, it's something that you didn't ask for, and that wasn't part of the deal when you bought the unit.
What if Netscape or Microsoft downloaded updates to their browsers that forced you (and hackers couldn't figure out how to prevent the forcing) to view an ad before each page you viewed? Sure, you can get past the ad simply by clicking somewhere, but it's still a feature you didn't ask for. And, technically, legally, there's no reason the next patch you download can't do exactly that. Then where will we be?