You really think that AOL is going to like every user downloading the new client (read: hundreds of Tbytes of transfer within a few days) when they can fix it server-side and pretend it's okay?
When you start a hotmail/passport account, you get the other too.
However, the hotmail account is closed if you leave it inactive more than N days.
Then, l33+ h4x0r skips along and creates a hotmail account under your old name, changes the password on both accounts through it, and maxes out your credit card.
One might note that passport is deeply integrated into Windows NT 5.1 aka XP.
That last feature is client-side - a user using licq or any other program, just about, can add you without you being prompted or even knowing. For that matter, I'm sure a program could be written to send a local ICQ client forged replies stating that the authorization had been given.
Don't belive me? Download one of the third-party clients and try it for five minutes.
Well, if you don't use IE to view documents on the web, you won't run into any trouble, whether or not you have IE integrated for browsing local folders.
For those who aren't aware, MS does have a fix available for this problem. Their remark about not considering it a problem apparently applied to an earlier, less severe, version of the problem, which didn't allow random programs to be run without notice.
The fix, which was posted on December 13 (yes, almost a week ago, and before this article was posted), is located at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-058.asp
Log into a Unix machine. The operating system just read in the shadow password file and processed it in a specific, priviledged fashion - namely, to check if the password you entered was correct - while still protecting the contents of the file.
My understanding is that even national governments aren't exempt from patents. For example, there have been a number of high-profile cases involving third-world nations whose governments violated, or encouraged the violation of, AIDS drug patents - I don't know exactly who it is that doesn't allow them to do that, but evidently they can't, or arent't supposed to.
I don't know, also, whether you can claim prior art after a patent is already granted.
Well, I'm sure it'd be possible to write a script to shut down all their major routers or... SOMETHING. If you can switch off one machine, you can set up every machine to shut down when receiving a signal over the network.
Of course nobody would ever use the service again. IIRC, the whole point of the shutdown is to reduce the value enough that AT&T can legally buy it for the amount they're willing to pay, or that's how I read the article. This make NO sense to me, but I'm a college sophomore in CS, not a lawyer.
I still think what might be cooler is if someone sat on one of the big IRC networks to let us know whether the number of users connected suddenly went down, w/o server splits.
Also, what if they're just shutting down the DHCP servers first, and so the people who have their machines on this late at night (and ONLY those people) are fine? They might see whether that forces an agreement, and shut down the full network if it doesn't.
There's some slashdotters using these providers who are posting to let us all know that their own city is up, and thus @home as a whole must be fine.
That'd be like an elementary-school teacher saying "if you're here, raise your hand" and then noticing that no hands were down, and thus the whole class must be present.
I might also note that if you DO deny the charge, and a few dozen or hundred other people do, the store is imperiling their relationship with that card issuer.
How do you suppose it affects profits when, say, Mastercard can no longer be accepted by a store, and 1/5 or whatever of the population is inconvencienced every time they attempt to buy something there?
And what if the stores just don't let you return them, saying you didn't buy them in good faith or something?
There's no way you're going to be able to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour to make them take the CDs back - one of many ways corporations own the law.
This issue is to keep CDs - MUSIC cds - from being ripped on a PC.
That issue was Apple doing a bad job of stopping a disc that could be read on a Mac from being used to install a full version of an OS rather than an upgrade version.
Uhm, if I write an article telling how to make a neutron bomb, and then encode that article in a closed-source program to print it line-by-line, the DMCA may say you can't try to break my program.
It does NOT say that I'm free to distributed and use it in any way my little heart desires.
If you sell a copy-protected CD that makes it next to impossible to rip, it may well prevent 99% of people out there from ripping it.
Those 99%, as well as all the people who don't want to buy the CD because of its damaged nature, will get on their favorite file-sharing service and search for the songs.
Care to guess how long it will take for the cat to be totally and irretrevely out of the bag? Remember the proportion of MP3's out there that were recorded live, which is also exceptionally difficult to do.
As a note - don't return defective CDs to the store - drop them at the store and cancel the charges through your credit card company. If the store challanges that, they're imperiling their ability to sell to users of that credit card.
Also, I wonder who it is that owns the patent on the CD format, or administers the 'CD' trademark. Whoever it is has very good grounds to sue for very, very large amounts for people selling CDs that don't comply with the established formats.
Slashdot Mirror
Say, by claiming to be an underage girl who wants to send pictures of herself to random people?
NAH, nobody I know on AOL would EVER fall for that one.
You really think that AOL is going to like every user downloading the new client (read: hundreds of Tbytes of transfer within a few days) when they can fix it server-side and pretend it's okay?
When you start a hotmail/passport account, you get the other too.
However, the hotmail account is closed if you leave it inactive more than N days.
Then, l33+ h4x0r skips along and creates a hotmail account under your old name, changes the password on both accounts through it, and maxes out your credit card.
One might note that passport is deeply integrated into Windows NT 5.1 aka XP.
That last feature is client-side - a user using licq or any other program, just about, can add you without you being prompted or even knowing. For that matter, I'm sure a program could be written to send a local ICQ client forged replies stating that the authorization had been given.
Don't belive me? Download one of the third-party clients and try it for five minutes.
What if the hacker IM Images their victim first?
Well, if you don't use IE to view documents on the web, you won't run into any trouble, whether or not you have IE integrated for browsing local folders.
For those who aren't aware, MS does have a fix available for this problem. Their remark about not considering it a problem apparently applied to an earlier, less severe, version of the problem, which didn't allow random programs to be run without notice.
n /MS01-058.asp
The fix, which was posted on December 13 (yes, almost a week ago, and before this article was posted), is located at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
Unless, of course, they don't let you return it once it's opened.
That WOULD tend to increase the recording company's profits, which seems to be their only goal these days.
Well, in that case...
Log into a Unix machine. The operating system just read in the shadow password file and processed it in a specific, priviledged fashion - namely, to check if the password you entered was correct - while still protecting the contents of the file.
There's your prior art.
My understanding is that even national governments aren't exempt from patents. For example, there have been a number of high-profile cases involving third-world nations whose governments violated, or encouraged the violation of, AIDS drug patents - I don't know exactly who it is that doesn't allow them to do that, but evidently they can't, or arent't supposed to.
I don't know, also, whether you can claim prior art after a patent is already granted.
But then they'd have to shut down hotmail, given that it seems uncapable of running on windows :)
And the bankruptcy will be very likely to be permanent for any company that continues not trying to please anyone...
Yeah - the RIAA should be eternally grateful. They'd never have found Kazaa without you!
++parent
And they used 'affect' for 'effect' on top of that.
Go figure. Also, they're still accepting sign-up from potential @home customers:
http://www.home.com/xfooter/signup.html
On top of that, the connection is still advertised as being "always on"!
Well, if EFnet splits, or we see hits on default.ida, we'll know for SURE @home's still up.
Anyone seen either of these things?
Well, I'm sure it'd be possible to write a script to shut down all their major routers or... SOMETHING. If you can switch off one machine, you can set up every machine to shut down when receiving a signal over the network.
Of course nobody would ever use the service again. IIRC, the whole point of the shutdown is to reduce the value enough that AT&T can legally buy it for the amount they're willing to pay, or that's how I read the article. This make NO sense to me, but I'm a college sophomore in CS, not a lawyer.
I still think what might be cooler is if someone sat on one of the big IRC networks to let us know whether the number of users connected suddenly went down, w/o server splits.
Also, what if they're just shutting down the DHCP servers first, and so the people who have their machines on this late at night (and ONLY those people) are fine? They might see whether that forces an agreement, and shut down the full network if it doesn't.
There's some slashdotters using these providers who are posting to let us all know that their own city is up, and thus @home as a whole must be fine.
That'd be like an elementary-school teacher saying "if you're here, raise your hand" and then noticing that no hands were down, and thus the whole class must be present.
I might also note that if you DO deny the charge, and a few dozen or hundred other people do, the store is imperiling their relationship with that card issuer.
How do you suppose it affects profits when, say, Mastercard can no longer be accepted by a store, and 1/5 or whatever of the population is inconvencienced every time they attempt to buy something there?
And what if the stores just don't let you return them, saying you didn't buy them in good faith or something?
There's no way you're going to be able to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour to make them take the CDs back - one of many ways corporations own the law.
This issue is to keep CDs - MUSIC cds - from being ripped on a PC.
That issue was Apple doing a bad job of stopping a disc that could be read on a Mac from being used to install a full version of an OS rather than an upgrade version.
Uhm, if I write an article telling how to make a neutron bomb, and then encode that article in a closed-source program to print it line-by-line, the DMCA may say you can't try to break my program.
It does NOT say that I'm free to distributed and use it in any way my little heart desires.
If you sell a copy-protected CD that makes it next to impossible to rip, it may well prevent 99% of people out there from ripping it.
Those 99%, as well as all the people who don't want to buy the CD because of its damaged nature, will get on their favorite file-sharing service and search for the songs.
Care to guess how long it will take for the cat to be totally and irretrevely out of the bag? Remember the proportion of MP3's out there that were recorded live, which is also exceptionally difficult to do.
As a note - don't return defective CDs to the store - drop them at the store and cancel the charges through your credit card company. If the store challanges that, they're imperiling their ability to sell to users of that credit card.
Also, I wonder who it is that owns the patent on the CD format, or administers the 'CD' trademark. Whoever it is has very good grounds to sue for very, very large amounts for people selling CDs that don't comply with the established formats.