It should also be noted that this exploit is only possible if the user is running as a member of the Administrators group, since that portion of the file system is only writable by Adminstrators and System.
Running as Administrator in Windows is just as stupid as running as root on linux.
Microsoft is offering to license its FAT file system specification and associated intellectual property. With this license, other companies have the opportunity to standardize the FAT file system implementation in their products, and to improve file system compatibility across a range of computing and consumer electronics devices.
Here at/. we are so intent on hating Microsoft that we are blinded to what they are actually doing. This license isn't about squeezing money out of people, it's about making it easier for large manufacturers and software developers to implement the FAT file system in a Windows compatible way. It has nothing to do with whether the device is formatted in FAT or not, it has to do with whether or not the device or software is capable of using a FAT formatted storage device.
To help licensees implement the FAT file system, Microsoft will also provide certain reference source code and test specifications as part of the licensing package in both licenses.
How does this mean MS is not trying to get more money from helpless hardware and software manufacturers?
If Microsoft caught the Eolas syndrome and just wanted money from everybody who came close to treading on their patents, why wouldn't they just start suing vendors of Linux and other software that has an implementation of the FAT file system (whether or not FAT is used by default is inconsequential)? Depending on what's covered in those four patents, such lawsuits could be quite successful. But I don't think Microsoft is or will be doing this. Microsoft isn't stupid, and as the/. community quickly figured out, it wouldn't be good for business. If Microsoft, who is sitting on more money, and more profits, than most can imagine, were to turn in the File System Tax Collector, it would only server to drive customers away.
The Conclusion:
This move is intended ease development, at a cost, for big manufacturers. You can still create your own implementation of FAT, without paying, it's just that you won't have access to the technical specifications, standards, and source code that the big company who pays will be.
When I was a stupid little kid, and just learning about the internet, I wanted to be a "hax0r" so I was running around the internet with a ip scanner, port sniffer, and various password brute forcing tools. Eventually my ISP cut of my family's service because they were detecting the portscans or something. I quickly installed a trojan on my own machine and blamed it. We had our service back that day.
The power is in the code. The future of computer usage and the flow of information will be determined not by rules and regulations imposed by governments without the right or ability to enforce them, but by the people who write the code. The unknowing user is completely at the mercy of the skilled programmer. This type of software is just one example of that. There is a war going on right now, a war between the knowledgable users and the commercial programmers. Kazaa vs. Kazaa Lite is a perfect example of this.
"Now, most people, common people, really... can barely manage to control their own self-centered, myopic existence. They command armies of lawyers, armed with paper weapons, attackingwith spiteful, vengeful... cowardly litigation. Others... operate within elephantine bureaucracies. And then, Captain... There are extraordinary men... those who must identify... comprehend, and ultimately shoulder the responsibility for not only their own existence, but their country's, and the world's as well." The X-Files, Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man
I don't know about afordability, but it seems like a set up such as the one in the movie "Bone Collector" might work.
Re:Have I got a product for you..
on
Voices in Your Head
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you are missing the point. Retailers have used sound for the purpose of marketing virtually forever. The bell on an ice-cream truck is a good example, or a vendor shouting about they're product in a market. So why doesn't everybody use this? Because in most settings it's annoying, it disturbs everyone in the general area, and it raises the ambient noise in the area.
Imagine window-shopping in a mall. Now imagine every store constantly broadcasting about they're products loud enough for every one around to hear. All of a sudden this has become a very unpleasant environment. Now image that as you walk passed a particular store, looking at something in the window, and the store whispers to you, just you, about some of the products your seeing. Now you've been advertised to without disturbing all the passersby around you, the ambient noise is the same, and it's targeted marketing: don't yell at every one, talk to the guy who shows some interest. And as other technologies come along, such as face recognition, it can be personalized even further.
So you go ahead and boast your current audio advertising methods, but they only place they're useful is on an ice-cream truck.
What is music but a particular wave form? Is a copyright dependent on the devices and methods by which the wave form was created? Is there any difference between copyrighting a wave form of Enter Sandman by Metallica and copyrighting a flat wave form that represents silence?
I'm not saying one should be able to copyright silence, I'm saying there is something wrong with the idea of copyright in general.
A 3d modeling or animation, project would be great for high school students. 3d modeling helps students learn to visualize artistic and geometric ideas. It can also require allot of math, and physics (especially animation). And I know it isn't above anybody's abilities, because I'm 17 and I've been doing it for years, I even taught my 10 year old brother. The problem of expensive software is easily solved, thanks to blender (mesh modeling), rhino 3d (nurbs modeling), and the soon to be released 3ds gMax (mesh, patch, and animation).
Although not yet fully realized, Shor's algormithm for factorization blows the lid off encryption, and is an excellent example of quantum parallelism, and inteference.
Your both wrong. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared, regardless of mass. The only thing that would cause a difference in speed is air resistance.
Why do people think they can control information? Encryption will be cracked, programs will be reverse engineered, systems will be exploited, especially if publicly available. It may not be morally or legally right to do this, but it will happen. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to try to control information, but one day they're going to have to realized that, no matter how hard they try, they can't.
Our society and commercial structure must and will evolve in such a way that information can be freely distributed and edited, and the people who have put their time and resources into creating/compiling and distributing that information can still be rewarded.
DeCSS, and other such, mechanisms are clear evidence to this conclusion (although the DeCSS case is a rather unique one that I'm not well enough informed about to make any direct comment, and the 'system' may have to be torn down before our society can truly embrace the concept of freely flowing information.
Slashdot Mirror
It should also be noted that this exploit is only possible if the user is running as a member of the Administrators group, since that portion of the file system is only writable by Adminstrators and System.
Running as Administrator in Windows is just as stupid as running as root on linux.
I think you should re-RTFA.
Microsoft is offering to license its FAT file system specification and associated intellectual property. With this license, other companies have the opportunity to standardize the FAT file system implementation in their products, and to improve file system compatibility across a range of computing and consumer electronics devices.
Here at /. we are so intent on hating Microsoft that we are blinded to what they are actually doing. This license isn't about squeezing money out of people, it's about making it easier for large manufacturers and software developers to implement the FAT file system in a Windows compatible way. It has nothing to do with whether the device is formatted in FAT or not, it has to do with whether or not the device or software is capable of using a FAT formatted storage device.
To help licensees implement the FAT file system, Microsoft will also provide certain reference source code and test specifications as part of the licensing package in both licenses.
How does this mean MS is not trying to get more money from helpless hardware and software manufacturers?
If Microsoft caught the Eolas syndrome and just wanted money from everybody who came close to treading on their patents, why wouldn't they just start suing vendors of Linux and other software that has an implementation of the FAT file system (whether or not FAT is used by default is inconsequential)? Depending on what's covered in those four patents, such lawsuits could be quite successful. But I don't think Microsoft is or will be doing this. Microsoft isn't stupid, and as the /. community quickly figured out, it wouldn't be good for business. If Microsoft, who is sitting on more money, and more profits, than most can imagine, were to turn in the File System Tax Collector, it would only server to drive customers away.
The Conclusion:
This move is intended ease development, at a cost, for big manufacturers. You can still create your own implementation of FAT, without paying, it's just that you won't have access to the technical specifications, standards, and source code that the big company who pays will be.
When I was a stupid little kid, and just learning about the internet, I wanted to be a "hax0r" so I was running around the internet with a ip scanner, port sniffer, and various password brute forcing tools. Eventually my ISP cut of my family's service because they were detecting the portscans or something. I quickly installed a trojan on my own machine and blamed it. We had our service back that day.
Welcome to McDonalds may I take your order?
Yes, I'd like a number 2, large fries, and a coke
Ok, that'll be $3.99 and would you like a side of WiFi?
The power is in the code. The future of computer usage and the flow of information will be determined not by rules and regulations imposed by governments without the right or ability to enforce them, but by the people who write the code. The unknowing user is completely at the mercy of the skilled programmer.
This type of software is just one example of that. There is a war going on right now, a war between the knowledgable users and the commercial programmers. Kazaa vs. Kazaa Lite is a perfect example of this.
"Now, most people, common people, really... can barely manage to control their own self-centered, myopic existence. They command armies of lawyers, armed with paper weapons, attackingwith spiteful, vengeful... cowardly litigation. Others... operate within elephantine bureaucracies. And then, Captain...
There are extraordinary men... those who must identify... comprehend, and ultimately shoulder the responsibility for not only their own existence, but their country's, and the world's as well." The X-Files, Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man
I don't know about afordability, but it seems like a set up such as the one in the movie "Bone Collector" might work.
I think you are missing the point. Retailers have used sound for the purpose of marketing virtually forever. The bell on an ice-cream truck is a good example, or a vendor shouting about they're product in a market. So why doesn't everybody use this? Because in most settings it's annoying, it disturbs everyone in the general area, and it raises the ambient noise in the area.
Imagine window-shopping in a mall. Now imagine every store constantly broadcasting about they're products loud enough for every one around to hear. All of a sudden this has become a very unpleasant environment. Now image that as you walk passed a particular store, looking at something in the window, and the store whispers to you, just you, about some of the products your seeing. Now you've been advertised to without disturbing all the passersby around you, the ambient noise is the same, and it's targeted marketing: don't yell at every one, talk to the guy who shows some interest. And as other technologies come along, such as face recognition, it can be personalized even further.
So you go ahead and boast your current audio advertising methods, but they only place they're useful is on an ice-cream truck.
What is music but a particular wave form? Is a copyright dependent on the devices and methods by which the wave form was created? Is there any difference between copyrighting a wave form of Enter Sandman by Metallica and copyrighting a flat wave form that represents silence?
I'm not saying one should be able to copyright silence, I'm saying there is something wrong with the idea of copyright in general.
There are allot of interesting and quite visually stunning experiments done by Nikola Tesla or based on his work
How does receiving publicly broadcast data bind you to a contract? It wasn't in the EULA when I bought my TV.
A 3d modeling or animation, project would be great for high school students. 3d modeling helps students learn to visualize artistic and geometric ideas. It can also require allot of math, and physics (especially animation). And I know it isn't above anybody's abilities, because I'm 17 and I've been doing it for years, I even taught my 10 year old brother. The problem of expensive software is easily solved, thanks to blender (mesh modeling), rhino 3d (nurbs modeling), and the soon to be released 3ds gMax (mesh, patch, and animation).
Although not yet fully realized, Shor's algormithm for factorization blows the lid off encryption, and is an excellent example of quantum parallelism, and inteference.
Your both wrong. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared, regardless of mass. The only thing that would cause a difference in speed is air resistance.
not quite as precise as a mars landing, but still... Frightening thought though. (and I don't think they'd let that happen twice)
Why do people think they can control information? Encryption will be cracked, programs will be reverse engineered, systems will be exploited, especially if publicly available. It may not be morally or legally right to do this, but it will happen. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to try to control information, but one day they're going to have to realized that, no matter how hard they try, they can't.
Our society and commercial structure must and will evolve in such a way that information can be freely distributed and edited, and the people who have put their time and resources into creating/compiling and distributing that information can still be rewarded.
DeCSS, and other such, mechanisms are clear evidence to this conclusion (although the DeCSS case is a rather unique one that I'm not well enough informed about to make any direct comment, and the 'system' may have to be torn down before our society can truly embrace the concept of freely flowing information.