If CG effects reduce the need for certain support fields in moviemaking (one or two costuming designers instead of a whole costume shop, one or two set designers instead of a workshop) and CG effects become cost-effective to the point where mere TV shows can feature decent CG effects, wouldn't this be a boon to ending the stranglehold of the MPAA and their ilk on motion-picutre entertainment?
Imagine in 10 or 15 years when the CG technology gets to the point where you can buy a cluster of (then-)affordable workstations for a renderfarm and create your own sci-fi & fantasy epics? Maybe instead of hiring 20 set designers for a movie, you'll have 2 set designers each working on 10 movies.
Sure, distribution will be a problem with movie houses, but if there's an open DVD standard or something similar that can be played on existing hardware, people will be able to pick up a couple copies of Freddy Finkle's Galaxy Raiders (after downloading the trailer from www.freddyfinkle.com) for less than the cost of an MPAA-sponsored film.
Of course, the MPAA will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening (and some would argue that it's already happening), which only means it can be a good thing for the public...
Secondly.. PC people are especially pissed that Microsoft effectively stole Halo away from us.
Heh, imagine how the Mac gamers feel, since Bungie started out as a Mac gaming house.
First Bungie flirted with the dark side doing dual-platform games (but at least theirs came in the same box *koff*NeverwinterNights*koff*) then they we bought by MS and became an XBox shop.
So first we lost Halo to Windows, then Windwos and XBox, then it was just XBox.
Jay (= (Who remembers when Halo was supposed to be an RTS...that's how long I've been waiting to play Halo!)
A friend of mine and I were talking about setting up an internet radio site (or at least a recurring program); as a result, I started following the whole CARP/webcasting royalty thing. I wrote letters (yes, actual, physical letters) to my Congressmen -- I even got a reply from Senator Gordon Smith (not a form letter-type reply, either). I was pleased to see the Librarion of Congress throw out the initial recommendation, but disappointed to see the revised recommednation get accepted.
The guys who wrote this program are completely playing into the RIAA's hands -- by basically stating that their intent is to screw the RIAA and avoid paying the fees, they give the RIAA more ammo to get even more draconian measures adopted.
I'm not clear why everyone thinks a P2P (ooh, buzzword time!) streaming radio solution is going to make the situation any better. Our energies are better spent talking to our representatives and showing them that internet radio promotes choice and diversity in music (both for RIAA-sponsored and non-RIAA sponsored artists), pointing out that lots of smaller business will have a positive effect on the economy (not only the RIAA, but ASCAP and BMI get more royalty fees from lots of small "stations"; plus people have to buy recording/mixing/broadcasting equipment, there's those broadband connections...) I have proof in my hand that at least one Senator will listen.
The CARP determined that the only example of a "willing buyer/willing seller" was a deal cut between Yahoo! (which had recently paid $5 billion for Broadcast.com) and the RIAA in July 2000 (while the dotcom craze had not yet crashed) and based their ruling largely on the terms of that deal.
The real question is "Are they going to release the Mac binaries as a free download for those who bought the Windows version and want to run it on their Mac?"
No, the real question is, "can you bother to read the press release before asking pointless questions?"
It states that MacPlay is doing the port, not Bioware: therefore, the game will be in a separate retail box, since I suspect MacPlay is unlikely to give away their work for free...
Here's something else to consider, in the furor over whether or not these *koff* "creative sources" are to be "fairly" compensated for their works...
My guess is, that 99 out of 100 of these measures are going to "fail safe" -- in the event that an access control cannot reliably determine if you are authorized to view a protected work, it will default to "not authorized" and prevent you from accessing that work.
So what happens when a glitch in your hard drive scrambles the access key for all your DRM-enabled MP3 equivalents? Sorry, you're not going to be listening to those any more. And I'm sure the tech support for EasySafeAudio.com will be more than happy to just issue you a new access key, for free, right? No, they'll probably convince you that it's easier to pay for another access key -- in effort, you get to pay TWICE for the same "right to listen". And you have to, because otherwise your 80GB of rights-protected media files sitting on your hard drive are useless unless you do...
I wouldn't like these "features" even if they WERE 100% error-proof and reliable. I sure as hell don't want them if they're buggy and easily corrupted -- which they will be, because monopoly control and lock-in is all about making easy money, not pushing quality products.
You haven't been paying attention to the problems with internet radio, then.
It's not that the RIAA is not allowing internet radio stations to license their works, it's that the proposed royalty rates (which are due to be accepted by Congress with a week, so give your local Congresscritter's office a phone call today if you care!) are amounting to what currently pases for 5 to 10 times the actual revenue taken in by even the more popular webcasters. Compulsory licensing doesn't help you if the rates are set too high...
A friend of mine and I are thinking of setting up an internet radio station (well, maybe "station" is too strong... we're talking about doing a weekly show that may be rebroadcasted throughout the week, but the idea of doing something like 3-4 hours of music a night has been tossed around) and we were wondering how some stations, especially stations that are working with indepenedant artists, are doing things.
How do you guys work out the broadcast rights for songs from independant artists? Has anyone come up with a plan for handling those artists who become "successful" and sign a contract with a record label (in case said label comes to you and says "I don't care what you guys agreed on, you have to stop playing our artist's music")?
In one of the last XFree stories, the Xfree maintainer mentioned that he will not treat non-x86 people like second class citizens.
Its more than that; from Branden's (Xfree86 maintainer) posting...
In woody, we support 11 architectures: alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc. For how many of these machine architectures do Slackware, Mandrake, or Red Hat have 4.1.x, let alone 4.2, available? [emphasis mine]XFree86 themselves don't test or prepare distribution tarballs for several of these architectures. Debian is the de facto portability laboratory for XFree86 on Linux. Sure, I'll grant you that a lot of people, the kinds with the overclocked Pentium 4's and the latest GeForce card, really don't care about portability, or supporting architectures they've never heard of. But portability is important to me and it's important to Debian. I refuse to treat non-i386 users like second-class citizens.
Now that's class, and that's why I'm going to kiss a little backside and give all of the Debian developers/maintainers a big virtual pat on the back and say "thanks for all of the work you guys have done, both on Woody and in Debian in general."
Jay (= (A perfectly happy Debian user who doesn't mind one whit that Woody will take a few more days...)
The theoretical permissions are one thing, the actual ones used in practice are another. As Microsoft Office requires the %WINNT% directory to be world writable, that means in practice, the majority of NT setups are insecure.
WHAT?
I've never set up Office on an NT-based system, but you're telling me that the number-one application on Windows platforms requires the system directory to leave a gaping hole in its permissions?
And Microsoft supposedly went off for a month to learn to treat security as its number-one priority?
Please, folks. This is not some nefarious Redmondian plot. It's simply a case of some middle-management MS trog going live with a website without running it by the legal department first. Had the MS legal eagles clapped eyes on this concoction before it debuted, there's no way that statement about "owning" licensed software ever would have seen the light of day.
I would be willing to believe this, if it wasn't coming from the legal department of the same company that submitted a doctored videotape as evidence in their antitrust trial.
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they're not above bending the truth slightly when it's to their advantage, so I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Oh sure, if enough people complain, they'll throw their hands up, say "Good heavens! What is this? Well, we'll take care of this right away" and set about trying to say the exact same thing ("you are legally required to sell your computer with the operating system it came with") in less inflammatory words.
Jay (= (Who is glad that the two PCs he owns are self-made -- no worries about which operating system it came with!)
I remember a discussion somewhere that recommended making the CNAMEs equivalent to the IP address of the interface(s) on the server ("192.168.0.1" would be "192-168-0-1.example.org") and then using A records to alias the real hostnames ("alice", "tomservo", "gandalf") as well as roles ("www", "smtp", "dns").
The rationalization was, doing a reverse lookup on an easy-to-guess hostname would give you the IP of the machine, but doing a lookup on that IP wouldn't give you any useful information. ("www.example.org" could get you "192.168.0.1", but "192.168.0.2" would only get you "192-168-0-2.example.org"; if they know you've got a "gandalf.example.org" it kinda defeats the purpose, unless you don't follow any naming convention at all...)
The only headache I could see would be if you change IP addresses or subnets on a regular basis, especially for a large number of hosts; having to make 2 or 3 changes to your DNS entries might not be worth the trouble...
Jay (=
Re:Dirty Pool! But also confusing.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
I just had an idea.
What if they claim that the obstafacation (sp?) is part of a copy-protection plan and that anybody whom writes a program to un-do it is violating the DMCA.
Could they sue even though the code is in fact GPL?
I don't trhink it'll work; you're allowed to create and defend an access-control mechanism that is being used to keep people from accessing your work, not other people from their work.
Stress levels associated with low level background sounds are shocking. It can have real physical effects on your heart etc...
If you work in a quiet environment and you hear a humming noise constantly then PUT THE RADIO ON or something. This will drown out the lower level noise with something your brain can understand and filter out. If you don't hear anything your either deaf, or your brain is doing a good filter job.
The scenario is roughly analagous to tinitus, though usually not as serious, where your brain is struggling to make sense of the white noise and 'strains itself'. You end up in a constant state of low level panic because you don't know what is happenning around you.
Seriously dudes - fan noise, the new RSI!
Out of curiosity, do you have any links to articles about this?
Normally I would have glossed over your comment, but I'm sitting here watching The 13th Warrior and I can hear the new cheap machine I built for my wife. I'm halfway between the TV and the PC and I can hear both quite clearly; my wife commented when I first set it up, "is it always that loud"? I remember going to bed last night with a ringing sound similar to what you described.
Geez, I wish this article had been up last week! Now I'm wondering how much I'm going to have to spend to quiet this machine down...
Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but from the memo, it seems pretty clear they've been hacking into the packets of FastTrack's protocol. They know the packets are encrypted (and don't know how), which seem to me to imply that they've actually tried to determine what the encryption is. Now, wouldn't that violate the DMCA they so cherish?
No, because it's only illegal to try to circumvent access-control systems, NOT encryption in general. Plus, I'm willing to bet that most of the traffic on FastTrack is material that FastTrack and its users do NOT own the copyright to, and do NOT have the copyright holder's permission to distribute.
While I'm unaware of whether or not FastTrack has applied for a copyright (I'm sure they have) on their protocol, it is under copyright protection the moment it is created.
*sigh* You can't copyright a protocol. You can patent a protocol (which typically requires you to disclose the method of how the protocol works), and you an copyright an implementation of a protocol, but you cannot copyright a protocol. That's like saying you can copyright the concept of a "song". as opposed to an actual song itself.
Sounds like they've been reverse-engineering FastTrack's protocol. Hmm, I think it's time for these guys to sue the RIAA.
Let's see here... "Your Honor, these guys are trying to break our encypted protocols so they can track what copyrighted material of theirs we're trading without compensating them and potentially infringing on!"
Yeah, that'll fly in the New Economy-aware court system...
Why would Fry's not have any online presence? The obvious answer is that there is nobody in the organization who has the competence to do so.
No, it means that for whatever reason, Fry's has chosen not to have an online presence; it's not like they can't find someone to design a website -- it seems to me that competent (or even half-competent) web designers are a dime a dozen, esp. with the dotcom implosion.
Fry's doesn't let its reach exceed its grasp. When Fry's opens a store, it already owns the property, building and inventory outright -- as in, they don't take out loans to start stores, so there's no rush to profitability in order to cover loan payments.
I would submit that Fry's is not only unaware of the security issues related to "personal data", but guaranteed to screw it up.
Actually, as a Fry's employee, I can tell you that our customer database isn't all it's cracked up to be as it is. I've worked returns, where we have the ability to pull up information on a transcation even if you don't have your receipt (the receipt helps things immensely, though) by CC number, bank account number (if a check was used), customer number, etc.
When I think of the number of people who have multiple customer numbers that come up when I do a search based on method of payment (so far as I can tell, the cashiers don't bother to look up a customer, they just create a new entry), I'd have to imagine that our database is about as valuable a resource for customer profiling as Hotmail's is...
I think they should get into the business of crashing space stations into the Pacific, and bringing tourists on boats to watch the fireworks.
Hemos, do yourself a favor and stop adding pithy comments to stories when you obviously have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's embarassing to everyone who does.
Didja ever think that maybe he's just making a non-sequitur about the spectacle of Mir coming down in the ocean?
Many others have pointed out that MIR has outlived everything we put up so far. Please keep ignorance to yourself and keep this a pure news site, OK? Thanks.
OK, since we're dealing with ignorance and not knowing what the fuck one is talking about, please point out where in Hemos' comment he was disparaging the Russian space program.
Tell ya what; since you're a logged-in user, use your user preferences and block any stories submitted by Hemos, so that your oh-so delicate sensibilities aren't damaged any further by his "ignorant" comments.
Or better yet, stop telling Hemos (y'know, the Jeff of "Rob and Jeff, the Slashdot founders") how he should use his own creation and take your eyeball impressions elsewhere.
My God, but the whining has been turned up to 11 on Slashdot recently. Are people's lives so vacant that they really have nothing better to do with their lives than reload the front page of/. so they can post about how much they hate it? Just about every discussion thread on here in recent memory has been filled with comments about how the site sucks, the editors suck, the readers suck, the moderation sucks (speaking of moderation sucking -- flying off the handle on Hemos rates an "Insightful"? *wonder*), the story submissions suck, VA Linux sucks, blah blah BLAH blah blah, yet all of you whiners are still here, reading day after day.
The code is available, the audience is there, maybe some of you should stand up and lead the way instead of being armchair quarterbacks; roll your own Slash-based site (or Scoop-based site, if that's your thing) and show us how it should be done.
Has anyone noticed that the "Loki's business model is flawed" arguments are mututally exclusive?
Either it's "Loki's business model is flawed because Linux users are used to not paying for software" or "Loki's business model is flawed because people who like to play games have already bought the Windows version".
Well, I'm willing to bet that people who have never used or bought software for a proprietary OS are in the minority of Linux users. And for those who have used a proprietary OS, it seems like the serious gamers amongst them maintain a Windows partition so they can play Windows games when they're released instead of waiting for a Linux port. In other words, they are accustomed to buying proprietary software.
So it seems that the only real flaw in Loki's business model is that their core audience is too impatient to wait for a Linux version.
Jay (=
Whoo, glad we don't allow preorders then...
on
$1200 Cheap!
·
· Score: 1
...because we're not going to get sucked into MS's "consumer-friendly" bundle, only 4 times the price of the console itself!
Slashdot Mirror
It still comes with KDE.
"Comes with" is not the same as "integrated and running". I don't have a lick of KDE on my Linux box anywhere.
Jay (=
Think about it...
If CG effects reduce the need for certain support fields in moviemaking (one or two costuming designers instead of a whole costume shop, one or two set designers instead of a workshop) and CG effects become cost-effective to the point where mere TV shows can feature decent CG effects, wouldn't this be a boon to ending the stranglehold of the MPAA and their ilk on motion-picutre entertainment?
Imagine in 10 or 15 years when the CG technology gets to the point where you can buy a cluster of (then-)affordable workstations for a renderfarm and create your own sci-fi & fantasy epics? Maybe instead of hiring 20 set designers for a movie, you'll have 2 set designers each working on 10 movies.
Sure, distribution will be a problem with movie houses, but if there's an open DVD standard or something similar that can be played on existing hardware, people will be able to pick up a couple copies of Freddy Finkle's Galaxy Raiders (after downloading the trailer from www.freddyfinkle.com) for less than the cost of an MPAA-sponsored film.
Of course, the MPAA will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening (and some would argue that it's already happening), which only means it can be a good thing for the public...
Jay (=
Secondly.. PC people are especially pissed that Microsoft effectively stole Halo away from us.
Heh, imagine how the Mac gamers feel, since Bungie started out as a Mac gaming house.
First Bungie flirted with the dark side doing dual-platform games (but at least theirs came in the same box *koff*NeverwinterNights*koff*) then they we bought by MS and became an XBox shop.
So first we lost Halo to Windows, then Windwos and XBox, then it was just XBox.
Jay (=
(Who remembers when Halo was supposed to be an RTS...that's how long I've been waiting to play Halo!)
A friend of mine and I were talking about setting up an internet radio site (or at least a recurring program); as a result, I started following the whole CARP/webcasting royalty thing. I wrote letters (yes, actual, physical letters) to my Congressmen -- I even got a reply from Senator Gordon Smith (not a form letter-type reply, either). I was pleased to see the Librarion of Congress throw out the initial recommendation, but disappointed to see the revised recommednation get accepted.
The guys who wrote this program are completely playing into the RIAA's hands -- by basically stating that their intent is to screw the RIAA and avoid paying the fees, they give the RIAA more ammo to get even more draconian measures adopted.
I'm not clear why everyone thinks a P2P (ooh, buzzword time!) streaming radio solution is going to make the situation any better. Our energies are better spent talking to our representatives and showing them that internet radio promotes choice and diversity in music (both for RIAA-sponsored and non-RIAA sponsored artists), pointing out that lots of smaller business will have a positive effect on the economy (not only the RIAA, but ASCAP and BMI get more royalty fees from lots of small "stations"; plus people have to buy recording/mixing/broadcasting equipment, there's those broadband connections...) I have proof in my hand that at least one Senator will listen.
Jay (=
Yes. From the "Tell Me The Story In 90 Seconds" section of SaveInternetRadio.org:
Jay (=
... you can just use the NWN toolset to create terrains and areas for it. (A lot easier than writing their own toolset I bet!)
The real question is "Are they going to release the Mac binaries as a free download for those who bought the Windows version and want to run it on their Mac?"
No, the real question is, "can you bother to read the press release before asking pointless questions?"
It states that MacPlay is doing the port, not Bioware: therefore, the game will be in a separate retail box, since I suspect MacPlay is unlikely to give away their work for free...
Jay (=
I won't dive deeply into the arguments,
Don't worry, someone's done a pretty good job of describing the arguments for you...
Jay (=
I think the biggest thing we need with rpm (and other distro systems) is standardized package locations.
You mean something like a Filesystem Hierarchy Standard? Or maybe even a Linux Standard Base?
Jay (=
(Is there a website that rates distributions according to their adherance to these standards?)
Here's something else to consider, in the furor over whether or not these *koff* "creative sources" are to be "fairly" compensated for their works...
My guess is, that 99 out of 100 of these measures are going to "fail safe" -- in the event that an access control cannot reliably determine if you are authorized to view a protected work, it will default to "not authorized" and prevent you from accessing that work.
So what happens when a glitch in your hard drive scrambles the access key for all your DRM-enabled MP3 equivalents? Sorry, you're not going to be listening to those any more. And I'm sure the tech support for EasySafeAudio.com will be more than happy to just issue you a new access key, for free, right? No, they'll probably convince you that it's easier to pay for another access key -- in effort, you get to pay TWICE for the same "right to listen". And you have to, because otherwise your 80GB of rights-protected media files sitting on your hard drive are useless unless you do...
I wouldn't like these "features" even if they WERE 100% error-proof and reliable. I sure as hell don't want them if they're buggy and easily corrupted -- which they will be, because monopoly control and lock-in is all about making easy money, not pushing quality products.
Jay (=
Maybe it will even save internet radio.
You haven't been paying attention to the problems with internet radio, then.
It's not that the RIAA is not allowing internet radio stations to license their works, it's that the proposed royalty rates (which are due to be accepted by Congress with a week, so give your local Congresscritter's office a phone call today if you care!) are amounting to what currently pases for 5 to 10 times the actual revenue taken in by even the more popular webcasters. Compulsory licensing doesn't help you if the rates are set too high...
A quick summary, sensibly titled Give me the story in 90 seconds is available, and information on who to contact and what to tell them can also be found at SaveInternetRadio.org
Jay (=
(Who mailed his letters off last week...)
A friend of mine and I are thinking of setting up an internet radio station (well, maybe "station" is too strong... we're talking about doing a weekly show that may be rebroadcasted throughout the week, but the idea of doing something like 3-4 hours of music a night has been tossed around) and we were wondering how some stations, especially stations that are working with indepenedant artists, are doing things.
How do you guys work out the broadcast rights for songs from independant artists? Has anyone come up with a plan for handling those artists who become "successful" and sign a contract with a record label (in case said label comes to you and says "I don't care what you guys agreed on, you have to stop playing our artist's music")?
Jay (=
In one of the last XFree stories, the Xfree maintainer mentioned that he will not treat non-x86 people like second class citizens.
Its more than that; from Branden's (Xfree86 maintainer) posting...
In woody, we support 11 architectures: alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc. For how many of these machine architectures do Slackware, Mandrake, or Red Hat have 4.1.x, let alone 4.2, available? [emphasis mine] XFree86 themselves don't test or prepare distribution tarballs for several of these architectures. Debian is the de facto portability laboratory for XFree86 on Linux. Sure, I'll grant you that a lot of people, the kinds with the overclocked Pentium 4's and the latest GeForce card, really don't care about portability, or supporting architectures they've never heard of. But portability is important to me and it's important to Debian. I refuse to treat non-i386 users like second-class citizens.
Now that's class, and that's why I'm going to kiss a little backside and give all of the Debian developers/maintainers a big virtual pat on the back and say "thanks for all of the work you guys have done, both on Woody and in Debian in general."
Jay (=
(A perfectly happy Debian user who doesn't mind one whit that Woody will take a few more days...)
The theoretical permissions are one thing, the actual ones used in practice are another. As Microsoft Office requires the %WINNT% directory to be world writable, that means in practice, the majority of NT setups are insecure.
WHAT?
I've never set up Office on an NT-based system, but you're telling me that the number-one application on Windows platforms requires the system directory to leave a gaping hole in its permissions?
And Microsoft supposedly went off for a month to learn to treat security as its number-one priority?
GACK... brain can't... handle...sheer...lunacy...of...scenario...
*degenerates into incoherent rambling, punctuated by occasional sobbing*
Jay (=
Please, folks. This is not some nefarious Redmondian plot. It's simply a case of some middle-management MS trog going live with a website without running it by the legal department first. Had the MS legal eagles clapped eyes on this concoction before it debuted, there's no way that statement about "owning" licensed software ever would have seen the light of day.
I would be willing to believe this, if it wasn't coming from the legal department of the same company that submitted a doctored videotape as evidence in their antitrust trial.
Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they're not above bending the truth slightly when it's to their advantage, so I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Oh sure, if enough people complain, they'll throw their hands up, say "Good heavens! What is this? Well, we'll take care of this right away" and set about trying to say the exact same thing ("you are legally required to sell your computer with the operating system it came with") in less inflammatory words.
Jay (=
(Who is glad that the two PCs he owns are self-made -- no worries about which operating system it came with!)
I remember a discussion somewhere that recommended making the CNAMEs equivalent to the IP address of the interface(s) on the server ("192.168.0.1" would be "192-168-0-1.example.org") and then using A records to alias the real hostnames ("alice", "tomservo", "gandalf") as well as roles ("www", "smtp", "dns").
The rationalization was, doing a reverse lookup on an easy-to-guess hostname would give you the IP of the machine, but doing a lookup on that IP wouldn't give you any useful information. ("www.example.org" could get you "192.168.0.1", but "192.168.0.2" would only get you "192-168-0-2.example.org"; if they know you've got a "gandalf.example.org" it kinda defeats the purpose, unless you don't follow any naming convention at all...)
The only headache I could see would be if you change IP addresses or subnets on a regular basis, especially for a large number of hosts; having to make 2 or 3 changes to your DNS entries might not be worth the trouble...
Jay (=
I don't trhink it'll work; you're allowed to create and defend an access-control mechanism that is being used to keep people from accessing your work, not other people from their work.
Jay (=
(IANAL, of course)
Stress levels associated with low level background sounds are shocking. It can have real physical effects on your heart etc...
If you work in a quiet environment and you hear a humming noise constantly then PUT THE RADIO ON or something. This will drown out the lower level noise with something your brain can understand and filter out. If you don't hear anything your either deaf, or your brain is doing a good filter job.
The scenario is roughly analagous to tinitus, though usually not as serious, where your brain is struggling to make sense of the white noise and 'strains itself'. You end up in a constant state of low level panic because you don't know what is happenning around you.
Seriously dudes - fan noise, the new RSI!
Out of curiosity, do you have any links to articles about this?
Normally I would have glossed over your comment, but I'm sitting here watching The 13th Warrior and I can hear the new cheap machine I built for my wife. I'm halfway between the TV and the PC and I can hear both quite clearly; my wife commented when I first set it up, "is it always that loud"? I remember going to bed last night with a ringing sound similar to what you described.
Geez, I wish this article had been up last week! Now I'm wondering how much I'm going to have to spend to quiet this machine down...
Jay (=
Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but from the memo, it seems pretty clear they've been hacking into the packets of FastTrack's protocol. They know the packets are encrypted (and don't know how), which seem to me to imply that they've actually tried to determine what the encryption is. Now, wouldn't that violate the DMCA they so cherish?
No, because it's only illegal to try to circumvent access-control systems, NOT encryption in general. Plus, I'm willing to bet that most of the traffic on FastTrack is material that FastTrack and its users do NOT own the copyright to, and do NOT have the copyright holder's permission to distribute.
While I'm unaware of whether or not FastTrack has applied for a copyright (I'm sure they have) on their protocol, it is under copyright protection the moment it is created.
*sigh* You can't copyright a protocol. You can patent a protocol (which typically requires you to disclose the method of how the protocol works), and you an copyright an implementation of a protocol, but you cannot copyright a protocol. That's like saying you can copyright the concept of a "song". as opposed to an actual song itself.
Sounds like they've been reverse-engineering FastTrack's protocol. Hmm, I think it's time for these guys to sue the RIAA.
Let's see here... "Your Honor, these guys are trying to break our encypted protocols so they can track what copyrighted material of theirs we're trading without compensating them and potentially infringing on!"
Yeah, that'll fly in the New Economy-aware court system...
Jay (=
I was digging thru my logs when I found this entry (note the date)...
/scripts/..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af. .%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af/winnt/system32/
207.##.###.# - - [02/Apr/2001:03:15:00 -0700] "GET
cmd.exe?/c%20dir HTTP/1.0" 404 329
So it looks like someone was giving this one a dry run several months ago...
Jay (=
Why would Fry's not have any online presence? The obvious answer is that there is nobody in the organization who has the competence to do so.
No, it means that for whatever reason, Fry's has chosen not to have an online presence; it's not like they can't find someone to design a website -- it seems to me that competent (or even half-competent) web designers are a dime a dozen, esp. with the dotcom implosion.
Fry's doesn't let its reach exceed its grasp. When Fry's opens a store, it already owns the property, building and inventory outright -- as in, they don't take out loans to start stores, so there's no rush to profitability in order to cover loan payments.
I would submit that Fry's is not only unaware of the security issues related to "personal data", but guaranteed to screw it up.
Actually, as a Fry's employee, I can tell you that our customer database isn't all it's cracked up to be as it is. I've worked returns, where we have the ability to pull up information on a transcation even if you don't have your receipt (the receipt helps things immensely, though) by CC number, bank account number (if a check was used), customer number, etc.
When I think of the number of people who have multiple customer numbers that come up when I do a search based on method of payment (so far as I can tell, the cashiers don't bother to look up a customer, they just create a new entry), I'd have to imagine that our database is about as valuable a resource for customer profiling as Hotmail's is...
Jay (=
I think they should get into the business of crashing space stations into the Pacific, and bringing tourists on boats to watch the fireworks.
/. so they can post about how much they hate it? Just about every discussion thread on here in recent memory has been filled with comments about how the site sucks, the editors suck, the readers suck, the moderation sucks (speaking of moderation sucking -- flying off the handle on Hemos rates an "Insightful"? *wonder*), the story submissions suck, VA Linux sucks, blah blah BLAH blah blah, yet all of you whiners are still here, reading day after day.
Hemos, do yourself a favor and stop adding pithy comments to stories when you obviously have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's embarassing to everyone who does.
Didja ever think that maybe he's just making a non-sequitur about the spectacle of Mir coming down in the ocean?
Many others have pointed out that MIR has outlived everything we put up so far. Please keep ignorance to yourself and keep this a pure news site, OK? Thanks.
OK, since we're dealing with ignorance and not knowing what the fuck one is talking about, please point out where in Hemos' comment he was disparaging the Russian space program.
Tell ya what; since you're a logged-in user, use your user preferences and block any stories submitted by Hemos, so that your oh-so delicate sensibilities aren't damaged any further by his "ignorant" comments.
Or better yet, stop telling Hemos (y'know, the Jeff of "Rob and Jeff, the Slashdot founders") how he should use his own creation and take your eyeball impressions elsewhere.
My God, but the whining has been turned up to 11 on Slashdot recently. Are people's lives so vacant that they really have nothing better to do with their lives than reload the front page of
The code is available, the audience is there, maybe some of you should stand up and lead the way instead of being armchair quarterbacks; roll your own Slash-based site (or Scoop-based site, if that's your thing) and show us how it should be done.
Jay (=
Has anyone noticed that the "Loki's business model is flawed" arguments are mututally exclusive?
Either it's "Loki's business model is flawed because Linux users are used to not paying for software" or "Loki's business model is flawed because people who like to play games have already bought the Windows version".
Well, I'm willing to bet that people who have never used or bought software for a proprietary OS are in the minority of Linux users. And for those who have used a proprietary OS, it seems like the serious gamers amongst them maintain a Windows partition so they can play Windows games when they're released instead of waiting for a Linux port. In other words, they are accustomed to buying proprietary software.
So it seems that the only real flaw in Loki's business model is that their core audience is too impatient to wait for a Linux version.
Jay (=
...because we're not going to get sucked into MS's "consumer-friendly" bundle, only 4 times the price of the console itself!
Jay (=
Not even Microsoft cooks up that many service packs in this particular timeframe...
:)
That's because they typically deny a bug's existence for a couple of months before they get around to fixing it.
Jay (=