Err, if that happened the times would eventually get hours out of whack. This is time shaving after the fact. It would be easy to notice if the time clock itself recorded the wrong time - especially with a receipt!
Tell that to all the windows developers who think the ultimate in UI design is a giant bitmap of Salvadore Dali-esque CD player where, to do anything, you've first got to spend 15 minutes playing a game of "hunt the hotspot".
These days UI design seems to come directly from marketing department - functionality?! who cares as long as it looks "k3w1!"
Heh heh... Even now I can picture Balmer rubbing his fat little hands together and giggling gleefully. Micorsoft's fondest hope is that a good chunk of open source software will come to depend on mono before they play the patent card. Assurances that Microsoft would "just never do such a thing", somehow leave me unconvinced....and I'm sure someone will tempted to respond with the "but, but C# is a standard!" line too - don't bother, just submitting the "standard" in no way prevents Microsoft from enforcing related patents anytime they choose.
Regardless of NET's good or bad points, it's a potential legal land mine for open source that could make the SCO fiasco look postiviely quaint. Unlike SCO, Microsoft would have an actual case.
That's why in "IT land" the point isn't to wait for the next hot new thing, but to go out and buy whatever the previous hot new thing was.
It doesn't matter if it's CPUs, Video Cards, or DVD recorders. Early Adopter pay a premium for often unstable products that at best give them a few months worth of bragging rights. After that, Joe next door will be paying half the cost you did for a revision of the product that actually works far better.
Heck, with all the media incompatibility problems still hounding single layer DVDs, I wouldn't put too much faith in the first dual layer recorders. Not to mention, with DVD media now under a dollar a disc, six buck for something that only holds twice as much doesn't seem like such a great deal.
Hm, yes I see. In a similar vein, perhaps we should remove all page numbers and tables of contents from books. Opening up a book to say, page 59, "effectively misappropriates that work causing a substantial part of it to be rendered as a new work." This clearly facilitate nasty copyright pirates reading books in an order other than God and the author intended.
Referrers are in no way a secure way to prevent linking. The real issue isn't so much that this sort of thing can't be overcome, but that one news site would even try to stop linking from another. Citing news stories has a long history behind it; and the "Press", more than anyone else, should support the fair use of information.
The net is only the medium of communication. A public street is likewise anonymous yet vendors have done business there for thousands of years.
EBay could choose to authenticate their users much better than they do, but they choose not to. They could even go as far as make all transactions go through their own escrow service if they seriously wanted to stamp out the fraud. However, since EBay makes as much money off a bogus transaction as a legit one, they'll really only care if enough people stop using the service to affect their bottom line or the law cracks down on them.
Actually I think this is great. If BT becomes a common way to distribute files, ISPs will eventually have to give up on the quaint notion that bandwidth really only needs to go in one direction.
The reason most broadband is really only "broad" in one direction isn't so much due to tecnical limitations. Providers just took advantage of the nature of common internet protocols at the time.
Still, for the Internet to continue to grow and develop new ideas, one-way bandwith will have to go the way of the Archie search.
Well, that's in no small part because anymore, selling hardware is a losing proposition for a local computer shop. When computer parts can drop 50% in price in just a few months, trying to keep stock on hand is impossible. Instead they just wind up ordering from NewEgg like everyone else.:-)
Computer service is really the only way left to make money. With most larger computer sellers short-sheeting their customer service, and PC's so easily collecting hords of spyware and viruses, it's got a good future.
One thing the article and most people here seem to miss is DivX *IS* MPEG4. XviD is as well - that's why a MPEG4 decoder like ffdshow can play them both.
The article can really give people the wrong idea - it's not the MPEG4 codec, but maybe Apple's implementation that's to blame. Perhaps it just doesn't support all of MPEG4's features. Then again, perhaps the people doing the review just didn't know how to set up the encoder properly. Regardless of codec, there's quite an art to good encoding.
Wow, this really has potential to be loads of "fun".
First, find two companies stupid enough to use the thing. Next DOS company "A" with packets spoofed as being from company "B". Then just sit back and watch the ensuing meltdown as they battle it out with each-other.
Er, yes. Are you actually trying to say that any document that includes the words "stream" or "packet" ipso-facto can't also mention file storage? Again I quote:
"ASF is well suited for storage of multimedia streams as well as transmission of multiple media streams over a transport medium."
Hate to break it to you, but phrases "storing, on a storage device" pretty much equates to "writing to a file" and is clearly mentioned several times. Yes it also mentions streaming, but an ASF file pretty much *is* just a stream stored in the described format.
As I said, it's for both:
"ASF is well suited for storage of multimedia streams as well as transmission of multiple media streams."
"Windows spares people from many of these fatal mistakes, simply by not offering the functionality. (EG. Accidently enabling an anonymous ftp server with read and write access to all directories.)"
No in windows someone just shares their entire hard drive to the world!
You must not have read it very closely then. Look again, it describes the format of the ASF stream which is used for both transmission and "storing, on a storage device". It's mentioned specifically in the patent.
Also, what besides wishful thinking makes you believe it wasn't an official action by Microsoft? What makes you even think it wasn't a laywer? All the article said was "Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group." - it made no mention of what capacity the person worked.
However he or she was clearly convincing enough to make Avery Lee remove ASF support. Personally I'd doubt some random programmer would do this on their own - indeed someone not authorized to do so would be risking their job attempting to speak for the company that way. I'm sure it was official.
As for demanding a C&D letter, would you really want to tweak the tail of the tiger if you were in his position?
What makes you say that? The patent seems mention both transmission and storage of such streams.
For example, "storing, on a storage device, at least one packet containing information about the aggregated data stream to form a header section in a logical structure that defines the aggregated data stream" and "storing, on the storage device, packets containing samples of data from the multiple data streams to form a data section in the logical structure"
Yes, I agree the US could see a "brain drain" if this kind of stuff keeps up. However, don't forget any company wishing to sell it's product in the U.S. market will also have to comply with these laws.
True he wasn't actually sued, but he was contacted by someone officially representing Microsoft. Not many people developing open source software for free would really want to call that bluff.
I'm sure Microsoft's take would be that just the act of writing an asf file somehow infringes on the patent. That's all VirtualDub did - no actual streaming happened (unless you count "streaming" the file to disk:-).
Sure if Microsoft tried the same trick on a company like IBM, they might just laugh it off, but in the U.S. very few individuals can afford that attitude. Fending off legal action could easily bankrupt a person even if they eventually win.
OK Microsoft has a patent on encoding document files in XML format. Does anyone really think that they would try to enforce it? The prior art is called HTML. The only logical reason for filing that patent and many of the other recent ones is to stop a would-be Doyle doing the same.
Well, Microsoft also has a patent on the.asf video file format. I stress the file format - we're not even talking about something as complex as a codec or anything. Like the XML patents, it's nothing at all original, but that didn't stop them from using it to force the author of VirtualDub to remove ASF support from his program!
No, what we have is a situation where a big companies can use their boatloads of worthless patents to squash little guys who can't afford to fight and don't have the clout to pressure the USPO. While any patents, valid or not, an individual may have can easily be made worthless.
There's been a real attempt recently to create an economic situation where only large corporations can afford to do software development, and software patents and the DMCA are a big part of it. If Microsoft has there way all PCs will have X-Box like DRM protection where only signed code can be run, and any attempt to get around it will be illegal.
Well, that's what I think the AC was getting at, but that assumes the virus knows you're using this trick. Any virus attempting to overcome this by only mailing people in the "sent" folder would just limit it's potential to spread (since most people wouldn't use the trick).
You could also put the word in the body of course. More work for a procmail filter, but a virus would have to repeat the entire message body which would look a bit more fishy to the person getting it.
unless "RE:" is your special word I don't follow what you mean. Remember the person getting the mail isn't the person with the virus sending it - the infected computer may not even have a single message with the keyword, so even if the virus randomly used actual subject it found, it would be unlikely to make a difference.
Indeed, unless everyone started doing this (which I doubt), it's not enough gain for virus writers to even try to overcome it. They would much rather go after the low hanging fruit.
Well, many of these viruses *do* appear to come from people they know, so your advise may be contributing to the problem. Anymore they shouldn't trust any attachment they weren't specifically expecting.
The only other thing is to never run an executable attachment, but there's so many way to obfuscate this (especially using outlook) that most normal users really can't be expected to tell what's safe from what's not.
One simple thing average users can do is to give people they communicate with some special keyword they should always add to messages they send you with an attachment. It doesn't have to be anything special - even a company name would do. The idea is no mass-mailing worm would know to include it.
Heck you could even use a procmail recipe to only allow attachments with the keyword in the subject - much more accurate than trying to filter out all the "bad" subject lines these viruses use.
Oh quit your whining! Why, do have any idea how a project like this can drain resources away from critical first-person shooter development? My God, man - what if they had to lay-off one of the 8 member team working to come up with new marketable names for a rocket launcher!?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Err, if that happened the times would eventually get hours out of whack. This is time shaving after the fact. It would be easy to notice if the time clock itself recorded the wrong time - especially with a receipt!
A postmaster address is required if you're running a mail server...
"[RFC822 6.3, C.6] requires the presence of a <POSTMASTER@domain> mailbox name on all hosts that have an SMTP server"
However, a domain name in and of itself is NOT required to support SMTP or any other specific service.
Tell that to all the windows developers who think the ultimate in UI design is a giant bitmap of Salvadore Dali-esque CD player where, to do anything, you've first got to spend 15 minutes playing a game of "hunt the hotspot".
These days UI design seems to come directly from marketing department - functionality?! who cares as long as it looks "k3w1!"
Heh heh... Even now I can picture Balmer rubbing his fat little hands together and giggling gleefully. Micorsoft's fondest hope is that a good chunk of open source software will come to depend on mono before they play the patent card. Assurances that Microsoft would "just never do such a thing", somehow leave me unconvinced. ...and I'm sure someone will tempted to respond with the "but, but C# is a standard!" line too - don't bother, just submitting the "standard" in no way prevents Microsoft from enforcing related patents anytime they choose.
Regardless of NET's good or bad points, it's a potential legal land mine for open source that could make the SCO fiasco look postiviely quaint. Unlike SCO, Microsoft would have an actual case.
That's why in "IT land" the point isn't to wait for the next hot new thing, but to go out and buy whatever the previous hot new thing was.
It doesn't matter if it's CPUs, Video Cards, or DVD recorders. Early Adopter pay a premium for often unstable products that at best give them a few months worth of bragging rights. After that, Joe next door will be paying half the cost you did for a revision of the product that actually works far better.
Heck, with all the media incompatibility problems still hounding single layer DVDs, I wouldn't put too much faith in the first dual layer recorders. Not to mention, with DVD media now under a dollar a disc, six buck for something that only holds twice as much doesn't seem like such a great deal.
Hm, yes I see. In a similar vein, perhaps we should remove all page numbers and tables of contents from books. Opening up a book to say, page 59, "effectively misappropriates that work causing a substantial part of it to be rendered as a new work." This clearly facilitate nasty copyright pirates reading books in an order other than God and the author intended.
Well, in a word yes.
Referrers are in no way a secure way to prevent linking. The real issue isn't so much that this sort of thing can't be overcome, but that one news site would even try to stop linking from another. Citing news stories has a long history behind it; and the "Press", more than anyone else, should support the fair use of information.
The net is only the medium of communication. A public street is likewise anonymous yet vendors have done business there for thousands of years.
EBay could choose to authenticate their users much better than they do, but they choose not to. They could even go as far as make all transactions go through their own escrow service if they seriously wanted to stamp out the fraud. However, since EBay makes as much money off a bogus transaction as a legit one, they'll really only care if enough people stop using the service to affect their bottom line or the law cracks down on them.
Actually I think this is great. If BT becomes a common way to distribute files, ISPs will eventually have to give up on the quaint notion that bandwidth really only needs to go in one direction.
The reason most broadband is really only "broad" in one direction isn't so much due to tecnical limitations. Providers just took advantage of the nature of common internet protocols at the time.
Still, for the Internet to continue to grow and develop new ideas, one-way bandwith will have to go the way of the Archie search.
Well, that's in no small part because anymore, selling hardware is a losing proposition for a local computer shop. When computer parts can drop 50% in price in just a few months, trying to keep stock on hand is impossible. Instead they just wind up ordering from NewEgg like everyone else. :-)
Computer service is really the only way left to make money. With most larger computer sellers short-sheeting their customer service, and PC's so easily collecting hords of spyware and viruses, it's got a good future.
One thing the article and most people here seem to miss is DivX *IS* MPEG4. XviD is as well - that's why a MPEG4 decoder like ffdshow can play them both.
The article can really give people the wrong idea - it's not the MPEG4 codec, but maybe Apple's implementation that's to blame. Perhaps it just doesn't support all of MPEG4's features. Then again, perhaps the people doing the review just didn't know how to set up the encoder properly. Regardless of codec, there's quite an art to good encoding.
Wow, this really has potential to be loads of "fun".
First, find two companies stupid enough to use the thing. Next DOS company "A" with packets spoofed as being from company "B". Then just sit back and watch the ensuing meltdown as they battle it out with each-other.
Er, yes. Are you actually trying to say that any document that includes the words "stream" or "packet" ipso-facto can't also mention file storage? Again I quote:
"ASF is well suited for storage of multimedia streams as well as transmission of multiple media streams over a transport medium."
Hate to break it to you, but phrases "storing, on a storage device" pretty much equates to "writing to a file" and is clearly mentioned several times. Yes it also mentions streaming, but an ASF file pretty much *is* just a stream stored in the described format.
As I said, it's for both:
"ASF is well suited for storage of multimedia streams as well as transmission of multiple media streams."
and guess what it's in? That's right, a file.
"Windows spares people from many of these fatal mistakes, simply by not offering the functionality. (EG. Accidently enabling an anonymous ftp server with read and write access to all directories.)"
No in windows someone just shares their entire hard drive to the world!
You must not have read it very closely then. Look again, it describes the format of the ASF stream which is used for both transmission and "storing, on a storage device". It's mentioned specifically in the patent.
Also, what besides wishful thinking makes you believe it wasn't an official action by Microsoft? What makes you even think it wasn't a laywer? All the article said was "Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group." - it made no mention of what capacity the person worked.
However he or she was clearly convincing enough to make Avery Lee remove ASF support. Personally I'd doubt some random programmer would do this on their own - indeed someone not authorized to do so would be risking their job attempting to speak for the company that way. I'm sure it was official.
As for demanding a C&D letter, would you really want to tweak the tail of the tiger if you were in his position?
What makes you say that? The patent seems mention both transmission and storage of such streams.
For example, "storing, on a storage device, at least one packet containing information about the aggregated data stream to form a header section in a logical structure that defines the aggregated data stream" and "storing, on the storage device, packets containing samples of data from the multiple data streams to form a data section in the logical structure"
Yes, I agree the US could see a "brain drain" if this kind of stuff keeps up. However, don't forget any company wishing to sell it's product in the U.S. market will also have to comply with these laws.
Oh, forgot to add this mayt be the patent in question...
United States Patent 6,041,345 (Active stream format for holding multiple media streams)
It's not an audio patent like you described, but seems to be a patent on a "active stream" where multiple streams of data are multiplexed together!
True he wasn't actually sued, but he was contacted by someone officially representing Microsoft. Not many people developing open source software for free would really want to call that bluff.
:-).
I'm sure Microsoft's take would be that just the act of writing an asf file somehow infringes on the patent. That's all VirtualDub did - no actual streaming happened (unless you count "streaming" the file to disk
Sure if Microsoft tried the same trick on a company like IBM, they might just laugh it off, but in the U.S. very few individuals can afford that attitude. Fending off legal action could easily bankrupt a person even if they eventually win.
OK Microsoft has a patent on encoding document files in XML format. Does anyone really think that they would try to enforce it? The prior art is called HTML. The only logical reason for filing that patent and many of the other recent ones is to stop a would-be Doyle doing the same.
.asf video file format. I stress the file format - we're not even talking about something as complex as a codec or anything. Like the XML patents, it's nothing at all original, but that didn't stop them from using it to force the author of VirtualDub to remove ASF support from his program!
Well, Microsoft also has a patent on the
No, what we have is a situation where a big companies can use their boatloads of worthless patents to squash little guys who can't afford to fight and don't have the clout to pressure the USPO. While any patents, valid or not, an individual may have can easily be made worthless.
There's been a real attempt recently to create an economic situation where only large corporations can afford to do software development, and software patents and the DMCA are a big part of it. If Microsoft has there way all PCs will have X-Box like DRM protection where only signed code can be run, and any attempt to get around it will be illegal.
Well, that's what I think the AC was getting at, but that assumes the virus knows you're using this trick. Any virus attempting to overcome this by only mailing people in the "sent" folder would just limit it's potential to spread (since most people wouldn't use the trick).
You could also put the word in the body of course. More work for a procmail filter, but a virus would have to repeat the entire message body which would look a bit more fishy to the person getting it.
unless "RE:" is your special word I don't follow what you mean. Remember the person getting the mail isn't the person with the virus sending it - the infected computer may not even have a single message with the keyword, so even if the virus randomly used actual subject it found, it would be unlikely to make a difference.
Indeed, unless everyone started doing this (which I doubt), it's not enough gain for virus writers to even try to overcome it. They would much rather go after the low hanging fruit.
Well, many of these viruses *do* appear to come from people they know, so your advise may be contributing to the problem. Anymore they shouldn't trust any attachment they weren't specifically expecting.
The only other thing is to never run an executable attachment, but there's so many way to obfuscate this (especially using outlook) that most normal users really can't be expected to tell what's safe from what's not.
One simple thing average users can do is to give people they communicate with some special keyword they should always add to messages they send you with an attachment. It doesn't have to be anything special - even a company name would do. The idea is no mass-mailing worm would know to include it.
Heck you could even use a procmail recipe to only allow attachments with the keyword in the subject - much more accurate than trying to filter out all the "bad" subject lines these viruses use.
Oh quit your whining! Why, do have any idea how a project like this can drain resources away from critical first-person shooter development? My God, man - what if they had to lay-off one of the 8 member team working to come up with new marketable names for a rocket launcher!? :-)