And on the production end, faster processors will allow you to "paint" with all kinds of real-time funky effects. Right now, even with 800+ Mhz, this isn't feasible.
I might be willing to sign a non-disclosure as part of an interview, but I'd be damned if they'd get me to sign a non-compete agreement. This is an unconscionable arrangement, and if the prospective employer ever did bring a lawsuit because I opted to work in a related capacity for someone else, I'd hope that the judge and/or jury would see it for the foolishness that it is - AND impose hefty sanctions for attempting it in the first place.
I was reading over some material for a service that was marketed to someone I know, and I was a little intrigued by the timeliness. The service is called eSniff, and it does nearly what Carnivore is supposed to do, and in the same manner - by attaching a stand-alone box to a network, and have it monitor mail and other internet-related traffic for certain policy violations.
The interesting part appears in one of the paragraphs that talks about the company's background:
"The eSniff technology is the brainchild of Thomas Donahue. He was the founding VP of Technical Operations at Colorado Supernet, Inc....served as VP of IP Services at Qwest Communications...etc."
It goes on to say, "Tom became renowned in the area of network security. Because of Tom's reputation, the FBI asked him to help crack a very difficult case." (That case was Kevin Mitnick.)
The last sentence of the section reads:
His experiences confirmed what he already believed - that there is an enormouse need for network monitoring, and that monitoring is a vital component of organizational security.
I just can't help but wonder if there's a connection here. Hell, we had the NSA contributing funds to a company that was pushing the sale of drivers' license photos so they could be used for a new POS identification system, so...
Napster was created with the INTENT of allowing people to share MP3 files. Napster was even aware that a large majority of the files being traded were copyrighted works, and has done NOTHING to prevent it. After all, it's a lot easier to garner venture capital if you can boast 20 million users (even if most of them are using the service to facilitate the illegal trading of copyrighted work), than if only a couple hundred thousand were using the service purely on the up-and-up.
I agree, on one hand, that it's rediculous to hold the "creator" of an entity responsible for how it is used by others. But Napster is different in that it was a very calculated effort to essentially give the finger to the RIAA. Why, for example, couldn't Napster have facilitated ONLY the trading of MP3 files that have been approved by their respective artists?
If Moody issues a retraction and/or apology, or a clarification of his statements, his journalistic integrity might be saved. If not, that last comment in the article defintely has merit.
Who says you can't write a little robot to visit select websites, meandering from page to page at various intervals, all while YOU are nowhere to be found. What they have, then, is purely fictitious data. And it serves them right.
this little piece I found in a related article on Wired News
The FBI has been reluctant to reveal Carnivore details, partly on the grounds that such exposure would let programmers create their own, malicious Carnivore clones.
I rolled when I saw this. The Linux development community wrote a complete software environment, for god's sake...and the FBI doesn't think it can figure out how to put to together a glorified sniffer? What arrogance.
Dogpile sounds nice in theory, but it has some of the same problems that plagued other engines...for example, try searching for "c++". It attemps to second guess you, by telling you that you *really* meant to search for "c". Not good.
Okay. I'll concede that this does have the possibility to gain them subscribers, in the form of people like me who admire them for doing this. (Not me specifically, I've got cable modem service that I'm satisfied with and that I share with three roommates, so I'm not looking for a new ISP). However, it's a huge risk. If the government says: "This is the law." and your company says "Screw the law, we won't do it." then odds are pretty good your company won't be around much longer.
Because the U.S. is not a totalitarian regime (yet, anyway), this is precisely how our system of checks and balances works! If a law is unreasonable, it can be challenged.
I imagine that Earthlink could reasonably seek an injunction, and eventually challenge the law in court, with the hope that it would be ruled unconstitutional. I also suspect that Earthlink has the resources to pursue something like this.
I called not too long ago, and inquired about something else that was raising concern - Predictive Networks. I asked if they'd ever heard of this company, or have any plans to do business with them. The initial person I contacted didn't have any information, but they did have someone return my call within a couple of hours. In speaking with the second individual, she stated that customer privacy is very important, and that they'd never consider such an option. Earthlink's refusal to install Carnivore means one thing...they're SERIOUS about this! Good deal!!!! It's great to see a company that isn't "just" a company- a company that actually stands for something.
Paranoia or not, every new government policy (no matter how stupid), has to start somewhere. After they screw up a few times, subjecting themselves to massive ridicule, lawsuits (of course, it's the taxpayers who will pay any awards), and the like, the policies will change. We're seeing this with the brainlessness behind some of the no-knock raids, and the public concern over what, in some cases, has amounted to arming a group of uniformed chimps with deadly weapons.
Just what is all of this "we're going to rid the world of crime through technology" mentality, which is slowly eroding the rights of the free world, supposed to accomplish? Will it *really* get rid of drug dealers, terrorists, or pedophiles - much less eliminate their intent? I don't think it will...people who want to commit crimes are like anyone else - they'll simply route around the obstacles, seeking the path of least resistance and the greatest potential for success. When criminals realise that their e-mail could lead to their demise, they'd have to be really stupid to continue using it. Crime existed long before e-mail and the internet, and any government official who thinks that things like Carnivore give them a leg up...belong...well...right where they are. Mindlessness and government are hardly strange bedfellows.
I don't think it's the same - if someone knowingly links to a site that carries pirated MP3 files for the purpose of aiding distribution of said files, or as a means of adding "value" to the link in that it provides the means to access said files, this is a lot like aiding and abetting a crime, isn't it?
I personally like Blender as a tool for creating stills, and since it doesn't do ray tracing, sometimes its a bit of a challenge to make things look as good as you'd like. Just the same, it seems to me that with the soon-to-be-released GameBlender, NaN isn't even after the same market segment as Maya, Houdini, and others. My hope is that NaN will continue to support the interests of both camps...those who see blender as a modeling/rendering/animation app, and those who see it as a game development app.
I used to moan about the interface quite a bit...but what I realized was that it wasn't so much the interface that I had a problem with, but a lack of some basic tools. Even without these, Blender is a very capable piece of software...it's just that with them, efficiency would improve dramatically.
>> Over classification is not uncommon. You're right about that! It's a common tool used by our elected officials to avoid accountability - that to say, taking any responsibility - for what they do in office. It makes it that much harder for any citizen to find out what's really going on...and even after getting information through the Freedom of Information Act, many times, anything that would implicate someone is STILL blacked out...in the name of "national security," of course. Give me a break.
And to this day, I could never understand why Apple refused to follow its own interface guidelines with HC. If HC supported more of the Mac UI more consistently, AND supported color without having to use some silly externals - that even then, did the trick in a somewhat half-hearted manner - AND, was updated more frequently...who knows...it might still be a viable player.
Re:Offspring vs Metallica - more recently...
on
More Napster Updates
·
· Score: 1
In an invterview, Lars stated that right now, the issue isn't necessarily related to sales and money. It's that he feels (and I agree) that as the creators of their own music, thought ought to have some say in HOW their music is distributed, and under what conditions. Napster completely removes the potential for either of these. He also stated that while sales may not be an issue today, he's not convinced that as Napster and its clones continue to grow in popularity, it could very well *become* an issue.
All Metallica is doing is protecting their interests, much like Napster will have to do with respect to Offspring's unauthorized use of its name. What really puzzles me is just what constitutes a "fan"...if I were Metallica, I wouldn't call someone willing to steal my music, a "fan". I'd call them what they are---a thief.
I don't think copyright is dead, nor do I think this is even a possibility. The *concept* of copyright may have to change to deal with the digital realm, but there *has* to be away to protect people and their creations. If there's no protection, there's really little reason to share anything that is created.
Re:Offspring - The pot calling the kettle black!
on
More Napster Updates
·
· Score: 1
Napster, in order to "protect" its trademark, may pursue legal remedy with respect to Offspring's unauthorized distribution of Napster-branded merchandise.
Metallica, in order to protect is copyright, is pursuing Napster for facilitating the unauthorized distribution of its intellectual property.
I totally agree with this. Until people change their (absurd) perception that they somehow have a *right* to help themselves to your creations, keep it out of the digital domain.
This is too funny. Some bored geek decides that it's ok write software that allows for the pirating of intellectual property (music), and someone else comes along and provides a way to collect the names of the guilty. There's really no issue here in my opinion. I have neither any concern, nor any sympathy for the people using Napster to steal intellectual property. If they can be identified, so much the better.
I'm at a disadvantage not knowing the details, but doesn't make any sense...it would seem that the invention itself was prior art. Someone in the patent office CLEARLY had their head tucked WAY up there on this one.
I'm having a difficult time with your logic, which seems to suggest, "If the record companies charge more than I think I should have to pay, I'll steal the material, and because I (and presumably many others) are stealing it, the record companies should find another way to conduct their business."
Put another way:
"The record companies should conduct their business in a manner that suits my complete lack of moral fortitude when it comes to acquiring something that I want."
OFFTOPIC, and I apologize, but if you want to get even more pissed off at the music business then read this article reporting on a bill before the US House Of Reps. that would declare ALL published artistic musical work "work for hire". This is a VERY, VERY bad thing, arguably just as bad as the War on MP3 - but it's NOT BEING COVERED IN THE MEDIA. Yet.
I don't understand what the big deal is. The record companies NEED talent in order to survive. That's a given. The sad part is that the talent, for whatever reason, THINKS they have to play by industry's rules. It's very simple...if you're an artist, all you have to do is pick up your marbles and go play somewhere else. I know that these companies provide funding and the like, but really...after you add up the score, there's only one BIG winner in all this.
One possible option might be that a group of existing artists create a co-op of sorts that performs the same functions that the record companies do. Maybe start off releasing one or two big names (or even medium-sized ones) to attract other well-known artists. Once the ball gets rolling on this, and artists are able to a) own their own work, and b) get paid a greater percentage and c) provide the product to their fans at a more reasonable price, I'm not sure what would keep this from becoming a successful venture.
Slashdot Mirror
And on the production end, faster processors will allow you to "paint" with all kinds of real-time funky effects. Right now, even with 800+ Mhz, this isn't feasible.
I might be willing to sign a non-disclosure as part of an interview, but I'd be damned if they'd get me to sign a non-compete agreement. This is an unconscionable arrangement, and if the prospective employer ever did bring a lawsuit because I opted to work in a related capacity for someone else, I'd hope that the judge and/or jury would see it for the foolishness that it is - AND impose hefty sanctions for attempting it in the first place.
The interesting part appears in one of the paragraphs that talks about the company's background:
"The eSniff technology is the brainchild of Thomas Donahue. He was the founding VP of Technical Operations at Colorado Supernet, Inc....served as VP of IP Services at Qwest Communications...etc."
It goes on to say, "Tom became renowned in the area of network security. Because of Tom's reputation, the FBI asked him to help crack a very difficult case." (That case was Kevin Mitnick.)
The last sentence of the section reads:
His experiences confirmed what he already believed - that there is an enormouse need for network monitoring, and that monitoring is a vital component of organizational security.
I just can't help but wonder if there's a connection here. Hell, we had the NSA contributing funds to a company that was pushing the sale of drivers' license photos so they could be used for a new POS identification system, so...
Napster was created with the INTENT of allowing people to share MP3 files. Napster was even aware that a large majority of the files being traded were copyrighted works, and has done NOTHING to prevent it. After all, it's a lot easier to garner venture capital if you can boast 20 million users (even if most of them are using the service to facilitate the illegal trading of copyrighted work), than if only a couple hundred thousand were using the service purely on the up-and-up.
I agree, on one hand, that it's rediculous to hold the "creator" of an entity responsible for how it is used by others. But Napster is different in that it was a very calculated effort to essentially give the finger to the RIAA. Why, for example, couldn't Napster have facilitated ONLY the trading of MP3 files that have been approved by their respective artists?
If Moody issues a retraction and/or apology, or a clarification of his statements, his journalistic integrity might be saved. If not, that last comment in the article defintely has merit.
Who says you can't write a little robot to visit select websites, meandering from page to page at various intervals, all while YOU are nowhere to be found. What they have, then, is purely fictitious data. And it serves them right.
The FBI has been reluctant to reveal Carnivore details, partly on the grounds that such exposure would let programmers create their own, malicious Carnivore clones.
I rolled when I saw this. The Linux development community wrote a complete software environment, for god's sake...and the FBI doesn't think it can figure out how to put to together a glorified sniffer? What arrogance.
Dogpile sounds nice in theory, but it has some of the same problems that plagued other engines...for example, try searching for "c++". It attemps to second guess you, by telling you that you *really* meant to search for "c". Not good.
Because the U.S. is not a totalitarian regime (yet, anyway), this is precisely how our system of checks and balances works! If a law is unreasonable, it can be challenged.
I imagine that Earthlink could reasonably seek an injunction, and eventually challenge the law in court, with the hope that it would be ruled unconstitutional. I also suspect that Earthlink has the resources to pursue something like this.
I called not too long ago, and inquired about something else that was raising concern - Predictive Networks. I asked if they'd ever heard of this company, or have any plans to do business with them. The initial person I contacted didn't have any information, but they did have someone return my call within a couple of hours. In speaking with the second individual, she stated that customer privacy is very important, and that they'd never consider such an option. Earthlink's refusal to install Carnivore means one thing...they're SERIOUS about this! Good deal!!!! It's great to see a company that isn't "just" a company- a company that actually stands for something.
Just what is all of this "we're going to rid the world of crime through technology" mentality, which is slowly eroding the rights of the free world, supposed to accomplish? Will it *really* get rid of drug dealers, terrorists, or pedophiles - much less eliminate their intent? I don't think it will...people who want to commit crimes are like anyone else - they'll simply route around the obstacles, seeking the path of least resistance and the greatest potential for success. When criminals realise that their e-mail could lead to their demise, they'd have to be really stupid to continue using it. Crime existed long before e-mail and the internet, and any government official who thinks that things like Carnivore give them a leg up...belong...well...right where they are. Mindlessness and government are hardly strange bedfellows.
I don't think it's the same - if someone knowingly links to a site that carries pirated MP3 files for the purpose of aiding distribution of said files, or as a means of adding "value" to the link in that it provides the means to access said files, this is a lot like aiding and abetting a crime, isn't it?
I personally like Blender as a tool for creating stills, and since it doesn't do ray tracing, sometimes its a bit of a challenge to make things look as good as you'd like. Just the same, it seems to me that with the soon-to-be-released GameBlender, NaN isn't even after the same market segment as Maya, Houdini, and others. My hope is that NaN will continue to support the interests of both camps...those who see blender as a modeling/rendering/animation app, and those who see it as a game development app.
I used to moan about the interface quite a bit...but what I realized was that it wasn't so much the interface that I had a problem with, but a lack of some basic tools. Even without these, Blender is a very capable piece of software...it's just that with them, efficiency would improve dramatically.
>> Over classification is not uncommon. You're right about that! It's a common tool used by our elected officials to avoid accountability - that to say, taking any responsibility - for what they do in office. It makes it that much harder for any citizen to find out what's really going on...and even after getting information through the Freedom of Information Act, many times, anything that would implicate someone is STILL blacked out...in the name of "national security," of course. Give me a break.
And to this day, I could never understand why Apple refused to follow its own interface guidelines with HC. If HC supported more of the Mac UI more consistently, AND supported color without having to use some silly externals - that even then, did the trick in a somewhat half-hearted manner - AND, was updated more frequently...who knows...it might still be a viable player.
All Metallica is doing is protecting their interests, much like Napster will have to do with respect to Offspring's unauthorized use of its name. What really puzzles me is just what constitutes a "fan"...if I were Metallica, I wouldn't call someone willing to steal my music, a "fan". I'd call them what they are---a thief.
I don't think copyright is dead, nor do I think this is even a possibility. The *concept* of copyright may have to change to deal with the digital realm, but there *has* to be away to protect people and their creations. If there's no protection, there's really little reason to share anything that is created.
Napster, in order to "protect" its trademark, may pursue legal remedy with respect to Offspring's unauthorized distribution of Napster-branded merchandise.
Metallica, in order to protect is copyright, is pursuing Napster for facilitating the unauthorized distribution of its intellectual property.
What's the difference?
I totally agree with this. Until people change their (absurd) perception that they somehow have a *right* to help themselves to your creations, keep it out of the digital domain.
This is too funny. Some bored geek decides that it's ok write software that allows for the pirating of intellectual property (music), and someone else comes along and provides a way to collect the names of the guilty. There's really no issue here in my opinion. I have neither any concern, nor any sympathy for the people using Napster to steal intellectual property. If they can be identified, so much the better.
I'm at a disadvantage not knowing the details, but doesn't make any sense...it would seem that the invention itself was prior art. Someone in the patent office CLEARLY had their head tucked WAY up there on this one.
Perhaps finding Dickinson something more suited to his abilities would be a good start! (see http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/28/1435241.shtm l)
Put another way:
"The record companies should conduct their business in a manner that suits my complete lack of moral fortitude when it comes to acquiring something that I want."
Amazing. Simply amazing.
I don't understand what the big deal is. The record companies NEED talent in order to survive. That's a given. The sad part is that the talent, for whatever reason, THINKS they have to play by industry's rules. It's very simple...if you're an artist, all you have to do is pick up your marbles and go play somewhere else. I know that these companies provide funding and the like, but really...after you add up the score, there's only one BIG winner in all this.
One possible option might be that a group of existing artists create a co-op of sorts that performs the same functions that the record companies do. Maybe start off releasing one or two big names (or even medium-sized ones) to attract other well-known artists. Once the ball gets rolling on this, and artists are able to a) own their own work, and b) get paid a greater percentage and c) provide the product to their fans at a more reasonable price, I'm not sure what would keep this from becoming a successful venture.