Could be that Sony and the major music labels are using this to create intentional fear, uncertainty and doubt. Who ever said the record labels want you to play music CD's on your computer, in fact wasn't there a genuine effort by the RIAA cartel to create CD's that wouldn't work at all on a PC? If they can't get the end user to cease this undesired activity they can always frighten the luser into submission.
Stick that music CD into my computer? No you don't, I'll become infected with malware.
Yes, perhaps it's as the subject suggests, a wild conspiracy theory. It's not as though this industry wanted to create laws to legalize hacking P2P users or anything.
Yeah, damn Microsoft running around paying visually impaired people to claim that they want to be able to read government documents. The nerve, like accessability is more important than switching from one office suite to another because some people dislike the licensing of the XML format of the current one!
Everytime Hollywood fails with legislative attacks on digital media or protocols they retreat, lick their wounds and return with a different strategy. EFF is watching the front lines of these battles, but after hearing the battle cry so often it becomes prosaic.
You've got to wonder if this continuous attack on fair use is going to pay off someday. In fact I'm surprised that digital rights management (such as the digital rectal thermometer act) hasn't been made compulsory via legislation secretly piggybacked onto some innocent sounding "protect the children" bill.
It's not about market dominance. You will not be able to acquire AOL web services and act as the primary steward of search engine queries for an army of clueless lusers to win the hearts and minds (or eyes, if you will) for the search engine market.
As the subject line suggests, it's about trust. I'm afraid you lost that game many innings ago. I can never imagine a day when I open my web browser and type 'msn.search.com' or whatever, rather than 'google.com'. That day, if it ever comes, will have to come in a time that is many generations from now. This generation will have to know a different Microsoft; perhaps in the same way as our generation knows a different Soviet Union than the Russia our parents feared.
Only the beast in Redmond would introduce a concept -- that you need a *license* to do something, we were all taught since kindergarden, that we should do gratuitously.
I'm sure "(white|blue)-hat hacker" in this case is redefined to mean "anyone who cooperates with Microsoft when finding security vulnerabilities". Of course there are always proper ethical ways of dealing with the discovery of serious security flaws in software--that doesn't mean they have always had Microsoft's business or PR interests in mind.
This is just a publicity stunt, a pretense that Microsoft is taking security research seriously.
If I'm wrong, then it would be interesting to know what security vulnerabilities were "uncovered" at their event. Are they going to be disclosing the details of such flaws? What do you, as a security researcher, have to "sign away" to participate?
Alan Ralsky is one of the most egregious and pernicious of the spam scum out there. He tops the ROKSO (Registry of Known Spam Offenders) lists and is responsible for a very large volume of spam originating from APNIC netspace. Much of his spam hosting is overseas and he regularly emits spam by relaying it through zombied systems open relays or proxies. As you will see from the article some of his own state's anti-spam legislation were actually created with him solely in mind.
I can only hope we see more of this in kind, especially Waggoner, Marin, Scelson, Lin, Martino and ESPECIALLY Soloway who, like Ralsky, has always been quite the unapologetic spammer.
As an earlier poster said, thank you to the FBI for their hard work, and also for starting to take this problem seriously.
No matter what your opinion of him, if the Richest Man in the world suddenly showed up in your Computer Science class as a guest speaker, that would be mindblowing.
Oh wow, the richest man in the world! Let me be the first to kiss his ring and genuflect!
I hate being marketed to. I know, I know, we're not supposed to say that because "THEY PAY FOR EVERYTHING", whether it's the show on television or the content on the websites you visit.
I don't care a single bit. Sue me, belitle me, call me an onery marketing-hating communist, invoke Godwin, do your worst. I don't care. I despise all forms of marketing, I hate marketers, hell I even avoid supermarkets now because it contains the word "market" and I think that the modern state of marketing is to blame.
Ads have become intrusive on so many levels: Pop up, flashing, bouncing, blinking ads. Some marketers have turned to spamming, some use technology that avoids pop-up blocking. The mindset seems to say "we have the right to shove whatever we want in front of your face, whether you like it or not." They seem to act as though they're product, service, whatever is more important than your privacy or sanity.
So this is a kind of war, and I'm doing my part in this war to not consciously purchase brands which I can recognize were was used in any form of intrusive marketing. I admit I don't do very well but I try.
If I want something, I'll find it on google myself, I don't need crap finding me.
Stand back, and look at the situation logically: the root DNS servers are all in the US. These underpin the internet as we know it. Now, at the best of times it's a bad idea to put all of your eggs into one basket. What happens if a terrorist attack takes out communications in the US?
I'm not saying I disagree with all the statements of your post, and I don't mean to be pedantic but you should really get your facts straight. Not all of the root servers are geographically located in the United States, or North America exclusively for that matter. Although, undoubtably many of them are.
East Coast A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Dulles, VA - VerminSlime C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Washington, DC - PSI D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET College Park, MD - UMD E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Huntsville, Alabama - NASA G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Chantilly, VA - DISA H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Adelphi, MD - ARMY ARL J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Dulles, VA - VerminSlime
West Coast B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Marina del Rey, CA - ISI F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Redwood City, CA - ISC L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Marina del Rey, CA - EPB
Non U.S. I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Stockholm, Sweden - RIPE K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET London, U.K. - LINX M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Tokyo, Japan - APNIC
If your point was that the U.S. Department of Commerce through ICANN held an exclusive stewardship of the naming system I wouldn't disagree with you so much, but the "don't put all the eggs in one basket" argument doesn't hold a lot of water.
I always found it amusing, artists' renditions of what the anticipated future of society would look like. I always used to ask myself "where are the flying cars we're supposed to have?" I think I've also heard comedians joking about this same thing.
Joking aside, I realize this type of toy is quite cost prohibitive. But what if someday it is not?
Perhaps the questions we should be asking are "Is it a GOOD IDEA if everyone were flying about aimlessly in their skycars?" "How will we manage license and maintain an infrastructure for something like this?"
Personally I don't think these questions will be answered anytime soon, probably never.
The RIAA won't care if someone wins a dismissal. The defendant had to pay for a lawyer and spend time fighting the case. As long as they sell the tech community on the idea that infringement will cost you something if you refuse to settle they still win, at least idealogically.
I must second this, most Linux distros are actually easier to install than Windows and that's saying a lot. These days a corpse with post-mortem reflex could install Linux given that their hand clutched a mouse.
If it really took these people more than a day (I'm being quite generous here) to install Redhat then there must be something severely wrong with these people.
While I realize they're discussing merging their portals (whatever that really means) I have to also wonder what kind of effect this is going to have on AOL's acceptance of M$'s proprietary SPF / anti-spam protocol.
I wonder what other effects this will have on the service provider industry since AOL is a major player (e.g., AIM).
I am sorry but if I own a domain, like myself.com, I have every right to do whatever I want with the third level subdomains unless I clearly declared somewhere in my terms of service that, I will abide and governed by the same rules that applies to tld dns providers like verisign.
Mod parent up.
Rarely am I moved by slashdot posts or viewpoints, but...
At first when I read the original article I was a little perterbed, not so much in the same way I was annoyed by SiteFinder, but still, perterbed.
But after reading this I realized there a major difference between SiteFinder and CentralNIC that should have been obvious at first.
Imagine instead the uproar that would have been caused if the slashdot article had read "Verisign to begin limiting subdomain use to single-level names".
Is it the web-based e-mail service itself? Is it the "idea" behind giving web-mail users vast amounts of folder space? If they're stating that using the gmail brand is a violation of their intellectual property then does that mean they hold a trademark on the name?
This is beyond ridiculous; if they owned "gmail" then why didn't they own the domain name?
I'm sick of losers claiming the world stole their idea when they accomplished nothing with it.
This isn't the first time a corporation has been accused of trading the rights of individuals for the almighty dollar, or, at least accused of having a lack of social conscience if you will. It's happened before and it'll probably happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he has passed away but he could have been given the award posthumously.
Could be that Sony and the major music labels are using this to create intentional fear, uncertainty and doubt. Who ever said the record labels want you to play music CD's on your computer, in fact wasn't there a genuine effort by the RIAA cartel to create CD's that wouldn't work at all on a PC? If they can't get the end user to cease this undesired activity they can always frighten the luser into submission.
Stick that music CD into my computer? No you don't, I'll become infected with malware.
Yes, perhaps it's as the subject suggests, a wild conspiracy theory. It's not as though this industry wanted to create laws to legalize hacking P2P users or anything.
Yeah, damn Microsoft running around paying visually impaired people to claim that they want to be able to read government documents. The nerve, like accessability is more important than switching from one office suite to another because some people dislike the licensing of the XML format of the current one!
Why not, they got dead people to engage in letter writing campaigns.
*blinks*
Everytime Hollywood fails with legislative attacks on digital media or protocols they retreat, lick their wounds and return with a different strategy. EFF is watching the front lines of these battles, but after hearing the battle cry so often it becomes prosaic.
You've got to wonder if this continuous attack on fair use is going to pay off someday. In fact I'm surprised that digital rights management (such as the digital rectal thermometer act) hasn't been made compulsory via legislation secretly piggybacked onto some innocent sounding "protect the children" bill.
Scum.
The NSA has customers...
*blinks*
Dear Microsoft,
It's not about market dominance. You will not be able to acquire AOL web services and act as the primary steward of search engine queries for an army of clueless lusers to win the hearts and minds (or eyes, if you will) for the search engine market.
As the subject line suggests, it's about trust. I'm afraid you lost that game many innings ago. I can never imagine a day when I open my web browser and type 'msn.search.com' or whatever, rather than 'google.com'. That day, if it ever comes, will have to come in a time that is many generations from now. This generation will have to know a different Microsoft; perhaps in the same way as our generation knows a different Soviet Union than the Russia our parents feared.
Only the beast in Redmond would introduce a concept -- that you need a *license* to do something, we were all taught since kindergarden, that we should do gratuitously.
I'm sure "(white|blue)-hat hacker" in this case is redefined to mean "anyone who cooperates with Microsoft when finding security vulnerabilities". Of course there are always proper ethical ways of dealing with the discovery of serious security flaws in software--that doesn't mean they have always had Microsoft's business or PR interests in mind.
This is just a publicity stunt, a pretense that Microsoft is taking security research seriously.
If I'm wrong, then it would be interesting to know what security vulnerabilities were "uncovered" at their event. Are they going to be disclosing the details of such flaws? What do you, as a security researcher, have to "sign away" to participate?
Alan Ralsky is one of the most egregious and pernicious of the spam scum out there. He tops the ROKSO (Registry of Known Spam Offenders) lists and is responsible for a very large volume of spam originating from APNIC netspace. Much of his spam hosting is overseas and he regularly emits spam by relaying it through zombied systems open relays or proxies. As you will see from the article some of his own state's anti-spam legislation were actually created with him solely in mind.
I can only hope we see more of this in kind, especially Waggoner, Marin, Scelson, Lin, Martino and ESPECIALLY Soloway who, like Ralsky, has always been quite the unapologetic spammer.
As an earlier poster said, thank you to the FBI for their hard work, and also for starting to take this problem seriously.
No matter what your opinion of him, if the Richest Man in the world suddenly showed up in your Computer Science class as a guest speaker, that would be mindblowing.
Oh wow, the richest man in the world! Let me be the first to kiss his ring and genuflect!
I hate being marketed to. I know, I know, we're not supposed to say that because "THEY PAY FOR EVERYTHING", whether it's the show on television or the content on the websites you visit.
I don't care a single bit. Sue me, belitle me, call me an onery marketing-hating communist, invoke Godwin, do your worst. I don't care. I despise all forms of marketing, I hate marketers, hell I even avoid supermarkets now because it contains the word "market" and I think that the modern state of marketing is to blame.
Ads have become intrusive on so many levels: Pop up, flashing, bouncing, blinking ads. Some marketers have turned to spamming, some use technology that avoids pop-up blocking. The mindset seems to say "we have the right to shove whatever we want in front of your face, whether you like it or not." They seem to act as though they're product, service, whatever is more important than your privacy or sanity.
So this is a kind of war, and I'm doing my part in this war to not consciously purchase brands which I can recognize were was used in any form of intrusive marketing. I admit I don't do very well but I try.
If I want something, I'll find it on google myself, I don't need crap finding me.
Come back in 1 year!
will they garnish her allowance?
Stand back, and look at the situation logically: the root DNS servers are all in the US. These underpin the internet as we know it. Now, at the best of times it's a bad idea to put all of your eggs into one basket. What happens if a terrorist attack takes out communications in the US?
I'm not saying I disagree with all the statements of your post, and I don't mean to be pedantic but you should really get your facts straight. Not all of the root servers are geographically located in the United States, or North America exclusively for that matter. Although, undoubtably many of them are.
East Coast
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Dulles, VA - VerminSlime
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Washington, DC - PSI
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET College Park, MD - UMD
E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Huntsville, Alabama - NASA
G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Chantilly, VA - DISA
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Adelphi, MD - ARMY ARL
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Dulles, VA - VerminSlime
West Coast
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Marina del Rey, CA - ISI
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Redwood City, CA - ISC
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Marina del Rey, CA - EPB
Non U.S.
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Stockholm, Sweden - RIPE
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET London, U.K. - LINX
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Tokyo, Japan - APNIC
If your point was that the U.S. Department of Commerce through ICANN held an exclusive stewardship of the naming system I wouldn't disagree with you so much, but the "don't put all the eggs in one basket" argument doesn't hold a lot of water.
Taiwan, whom until recently were known as the province of China...
I always found it amusing, artists' renditions of what the anticipated future of society would look like. I always used to ask myself "where are the flying cars we're supposed to have?" I think I've also heard comedians joking about this same thing.
Joking aside, I realize this type of toy is quite cost prohibitive. But what if someday it is not?
Perhaps the questions we should be asking are "Is it a GOOD IDEA if everyone were flying about aimlessly in their skycars?" "How will we manage license and maintain an infrastructure for something like this?"
Personally I don't think these questions will be answered anytime soon, probably never.
Does anyone read
All these questions were answered in the provided link. Just go to the FAQ section.
You're new here, aren't you?
The RIAA won't care if someone wins a dismissal. The defendant had to pay for a lawyer and spend time fighting the case. As long as they sell the tech community on the idea that infringement will cost you something if you refuse to settle they still win, at least idealogically.
I must second this, most Linux distros are actually easier to install than Windows and that's saying a lot. These days a corpse with post-mortem reflex could install Linux given that their hand clutched a mouse.
If it really took these people more than a day (I'm being quite generous here) to install Redhat then there must be something severely wrong with these people.
I'm very suspicious of this story.
Okay, that was my first one ever.
(... maybe not even sure of the repurcussions of his actions at this stage)
While I realize they're discussing merging their portals (whatever that really means) I have to also wonder what kind of effect this is going to have on AOL's acceptance of M$'s proprietary SPF / anti-spam protocol.
I wonder what other effects this will have on the service provider industry since AOL is a major player (e.g., AIM).
I am sorry but if I own a domain, like myself.com, I have every right to do whatever I want with the third level subdomains unless I clearly declared somewhere in my terms of service that, I will abide and governed by the same rules that applies to tld dns providers like verisign.
Mod parent up.
Rarely am I moved by slashdot posts or viewpoints, but...
At first when I read the original article I was a little perterbed, not so much in the same way I was annoyed by SiteFinder, but still, perterbed.
But after reading this I realized there a major difference between SiteFinder and CentralNIC that should have been obvious at first.
Imagine instead the uproar that would have been caused if the slashdot article had read "Verisign to begin limiting subdomain use to single-level names".
Is it the web-based e-mail service itself? Is it the "idea" behind giving web-mail users vast amounts of folder space? If they're stating that using the gmail brand is a violation of their intellectual property then does that mean they hold a trademark on the name?
This is beyond ridiculous; if they owned "gmail" then why didn't they own the domain name?
I'm sick of losers claiming the world stole their idea when they accomplished nothing with it.
Microsoft immediately filed for a patent on kids' creativity.
This isn't the first time a corporation has been accused of trading the rights of individuals for the almighty dollar, or, at least accused of having a lack of social conscience if you will. It's happened before and it'll probably happen again.