While a lot of the comentary that followed assumed that Apple would not be releasing patches for older versions of 10.x, the original article said nothing untrue.
Were the vulnerabilities fixed in 10.3? Yes. Were the vulnerabilities patched for older versions? No. Did Apple comment when asked about whether they would patch older versions? No. (They did comment today).
Just because a lot of alarmists chose to interpret these facts as meaning that Appple would not patch the vulnerabilites for older versions does not mean that the article told any untruths.
Bah, 300bps was fast when I started, all we had was a 110 baud accoustic coupler. Not only that, but I was using a real TTY. What good is learning to use a computer if you can't go deaf at the same time by sitting in a room full of running teletypes?
I've had similar experiences to those claimed by others here. My father has the same first name, so at one time I was listed as having bought the house I grew up in.
At another time I had a problem when someone applied for a store credit card in my name and then charged $1000 worth of merchandise to the card in one day without even having the physical card ("Oh that's okay we'll look up the number for you"). When I refused to pay and offered evidence (incorrect info on the application, non-matching signatures, etc.), the credit card company still put a bad mark on my record.
The part that bugs me is the attitude of the credit reporting agencies. All it took to get the untrue but GOOD credit history off my records was a simple letter. Getting BAD credit history off my records was an ordeal even with documentation and the reluctant acknowledgment of the credit card company that I should not be held responsible for a card I never applied for and never used.
These people seem to feel that inaccurate reports are okay so long as the inaccuracy says you have bad credit. When there is only one bad mark on your record and you have evidence that the mark is inaccurate, why can't they just be reasonable?
It hardly matters how they did it. If this doesn't fly someone will come up with a better method of doing automated checks on Napster. The RIAA and others have too much to lose to let Napster continue to be pirate central. So maybe the next version they can only supply 20,000 users who've been supplying copyrighted material and it takes them 10 days, big deal.
Napster says they will remove users who are shown to be abusing the system. We all know that a huge number of users ARE putting up copyrighted material. Now that the cat is out of the bag, Napster opponents will just keep supplying user IDs to cancel until Napster goes broke trying to remove them all. Even if Napster can automate the removal process, without the copyrighted songs of the big name bands a lot of Napster users would stop using the system.
I know all of us slashdotters are fine upstanding citizens who would never put copyrighted materials online for distribution and we also have such refined tastes that we would continue to use Napster without the big name bands, but Joe Blow on the net will stop coming if he can't get his top 40 hits.
I'm amazed that so few people seem to get the following fact:
The intellectual property being protected has nothing to do with bits. The bits are just a representation of the actual IP, the music. When you buy ANY copywrited material, you are buying one represetation of the material and the right to enjoy that representation of the material.
Current fair use policies allow you to make a limited number of copies of the IP for your own use, but you certainly can't make money off those copies and still have it considered fair use. What form those copies take (tape, CD, mp3, etc) is largely irrelevant. What mp3.com did was made copies of music and then made money (even if indirectly) from those copies.
If I buy a book, make 50 copies of that book, then sell those copies only to people who already own the book because the loose leaf binders I've distributed them in are more convenient, then I've broken the law. Even if I give the copies away in order to attract people to my store, I've still broken the law.
Slashdot Mirror
While a lot of the comentary that followed assumed that Apple would not be releasing patches for older versions of 10.x, the original article said nothing untrue.
Were the vulnerabilities fixed in 10.3? Yes.
Were the vulnerabilities patched for older versions? No.
Did Apple comment when asked about whether they would patch older versions? No. (They did comment today).
Just because a lot of alarmists chose to interpret these facts as meaning that Appple would not patch the vulnerabilites for older versions does not mean that the article told any untruths.
Bah, 300bps was fast when I started, all we had was a 110 baud accoustic coupler. Not only that, but I was using a real TTY. What good is learning to use a computer if you can't go deaf at the same time by sitting in a room full of running teletypes?
I've had similar experiences to those claimed by others here. My father has the same first name, so at one time I was listed as having bought the house I grew up in.
At another time I had a problem when someone applied for a store credit card in my name and then charged $1000 worth of merchandise to the card in one day without even having the physical card ("Oh that's okay we'll look up the number for you"). When I refused to pay and offered evidence (incorrect info on the application, non-matching signatures, etc.), the credit card company still put a bad mark on my record.
The part that bugs me is the attitude of the credit reporting agencies. All it took to get the untrue but GOOD credit history off my records was a simple letter. Getting BAD credit history off my records was an ordeal even with documentation and the reluctant acknowledgment of the credit card company that I should not be held responsible for a card I never applied for and never used.
These people seem to feel that inaccurate reports are okay so long as the inaccuracy says you have bad credit. When there is only one bad mark on your record and you have evidence that the mark is inaccurate, why can't they just be reasonable?
It hardly matters how they did it. If this doesn't fly someone will come up with a better method of doing automated checks on Napster. The RIAA and others have too much to lose to let Napster continue to be pirate central. So maybe the next version they can only supply 20,000 users who've been supplying copyrighted material and it takes them 10 days, big deal.
Napster says they will remove users who are shown to be abusing the system. We all know that a huge number of users ARE putting up copyrighted material. Now that the cat is out of the bag, Napster opponents will just keep supplying user IDs to cancel until Napster goes broke trying to remove them all. Even if Napster can automate the removal process, without the copyrighted songs of the big name bands a lot of Napster users would stop using the system.
I know all of us slashdotters are fine upstanding citizens who would never put copyrighted materials online for distribution and we also have such refined tastes that we would continue to use Napster without the big name bands, but Joe Blow on the net will stop coming if he can't get his top 40 hits.
I'm amazed that so few people seem to get the following fact:
The intellectual property being protected has nothing to do with bits. The bits are just a representation
of the actual IP, the music. When you buy ANY copywrited material, you are buying one
represetation of the material and the right to enjoy that representation of the material.
Current fair use policies allow you to make a limited number of copies of the IP for your own use, but
you certainly can't make money off those copies and still have it considered fair use. What form those
copies take (tape, CD, mp3, etc) is largely irrelevant. What mp3.com did was made copies of music and
then made money (even if indirectly) from those copies.
If I buy a book, make 50 copies of that book, then sell those copies only to people who already own
the book because the loose leaf binders I've distributed them in are more convenient, then I've
broken the law. Even if I give the copies away in order to attract people to my store, I've still broken
the law.