if that's authentic, they're smokin' some major crack, and need to fire their entire web design team. making a file called index.html and putting it in the root directory just is NOT difficult.
Worse, they're running (according to netcraft) Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on HP-UX, so there is NO excuse. a symbolic link to the 'real' page they're concerned about named index.html in the publuc_html directory will work just fine. yeesh.
When I get portscanned, I usually take a notice, but presuming they wander off after finding no ports open they can sploit using their rootkit of the day, I ignore it. if, when reading logs, I see patterns of attempts, I usually rdns them back, see if it's my ISP scanning me, or some kiddie, and deal with it as appropriate. a portscan is a portscan, and if your system's well configured and proactively patched, nothing to worry about. repeated activity and explicit port-specific probes are something to investigate.
OK. I PROMISE that I can find a more beneficial project for mankind, can I get the grant money for this project? No, I don't know what my own goal will be, but c'mon--gimme some credit. I can beat out web browsing parrots.
I myself dance latin dances, paint, play an intrument, and have various other non-geeky pursuits. our sysadmin at work played college football..most of our coders bike in to work, and play basketball--we're not geeks!
Future Archaeologist: "So, Joe, I've been searching through this huge archive of chatter about some petrified girl named Portman and a lot of discussion about some really bizarre copyright law issue--I still haven't found what that means, or what this "Windows" thing is, but I did read in it about this really cool storage...hey... did you bring that coaster back from a dig?...um...could I look at it? with a microscope?"
Oh, fantastic. another unbreakable cryptosystem to secure digital music. yea. Not that I can't play it, and loop it back directly in with no loss of quality into another system. ooooh. who cares if it's encrypted??? If the consumer can listen to is, the consumer can record it. Simple. No technological controls will ever, ever prevent pirating.
While this cryptosystem sounds really cool technologically (possibly very powerful encryption) a) the cryptographic element of security is never the one broken--if you have five trillion brass-plated locks on your steel, reinforced door, people break through the window, for look for the key in one of those stupid rocks by the side of the door. b) cryptography is great for security and privacy and integrity, but is helpless against willful copyright violation by a cryptographically-authenticated party (like, say, the consumer).
And in any case, there is nothing to get consumers to move 100% to this system, as opposed to trading MP3s. even if bill gates includes DRM into windows, people will use Linux, or FreeBSD, or not throw their 'old' computers away and keep them for functionality sake to play mp3s and whatnot.
Publius, because it's be AT&T researchers, is only for free speech and protecting rights of chinese citizens, unlike of course FreeNet that is only useful to child pornographers and copyright violators. grumble
Not to dis the usefulness of this type of service, but the press Publius is receiving as opposed to the extremely negative and unresearched press FreeNet has gotten really torques me off.
Nope. None of the wireless providers I've talked to support mobile use of wireless networking--most require a stationary antenna for the implementation and then small antennas on each device which can be mobile within a very small area (for driving purposes).
Further, wireless internet tends to require LOS line of sight to a tower.
This is horribly funny. Anything a MS employee walks away with from a meeting between his two ears (in his natural memory) is considered the property of MS. And once it's theirs, as we see, they never, ever give it up.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. /s/ GriffJon ^--That's an electronic signature. Like in the real world, any mark with the intention to sign is a signature. Which is fine in the physical world where it's pretty easy to trace back any changes, erasures, cut-and-pastes that might've changed the document signed.
Here in the digital world, it don't work that way. It's trivial to change, and presuming you're not using MSWord, impossible to track back.
Generally, NEver, EVER opt-in to electronic signatures (the law requires a physical/paper-method of opting in. it does have/some/ consumer protection) unless there is a clause that requires cryptographic signatures (digital signatures) and implements some form of security to give you a cert with a protected private key.
First, the intro given is misleading--the concerns are valid. This in NOT just about turning intRAnet filesharing down, it's about limiting high-bandwidth apps, like Napster and Gnutella.
Second, this is not a bad thing. The clients demanding these are primarily bandwidth-strapped small universities, companies, etc., who have the complete right and often responsibility to make sure that the bandwidth is not saturated by mp3 downloads, but rather more useful pursuits. Y'know, thesis and dissertation research. Not to say that there aren't theses that use napster for real and valid research, but these will not be the norm.
Now, this is a slippery slope and some ISPs will use it to slam their users. Users will move to less restrictive ISPs and the market will continue.
I find it amusing to no end that I got modded fown for being redundant. But that's OK. I gots karma to burn. muahahahahaha. phear me. and stuff.
Seriously, though--if you like that kind of stuff, check out bbs.thing.net-- the site that inherited the Electronic Disturbance Theater (the first widely-publicised DDoS, against the.mx gov't) and more recently, affiliated with ToyWar and (r)(tm)Ark
or, horror of horrors, a stereo wire from where you'd normally plug in your 'puter speakers to the Aux-in of your hi-fi--a tenth of the cost of MP3 Anywhere( $6 at Radioshack for a 20' cord, give or take).
The remote capability is nice, as it is I have to get to my keyboard (and/or mouse) to do anything, but that could be solved with an extra keyboard, or a terminal into my (not-yet-extant) house network....
Now, waitaminute. Whatever happened to all the fair use clauses of copyright laws, where you could use the likness of a corporate logo, etc. etc. in a parody? These fair use precedents were set in early political satire cartoons. Are they not being argued in internet cases (like the starbucks case) for a reason? or are the lawyers just, well, blind to this precedent?
If you've never listened to The Symphony for Dot Matrix Printers, you don't know what you're missing. Celebrate the odd whirls and creaks of your system--they help tell you if your computer is healthy, as much as car noises do.
Exactly. The problem is that the cracks against digital media are blown waaay out of proportion, compared to joe blow selling pirated music tapes in the streets for $3 each. And piracy of that type is rampant in may parts of the globe, speaking from firsthand experience here.
Most people will find it more convenient to pay, just like normal--provided that the consumer is given rights in return for the payment, as is the case with 'traditional' media. This is why DivX and SDMI players died various deaths.
OK, this is back to my general DRM (Digital Rights Management) speech.
GIVEN: The entirity of the user base will not accept a technology that restricts or degrades their experience with a medium they previously had greater rights on.
given that, let's explore the possibilities here. Anything you can view can be copied. Remember the BetaMax suit. That's been solved by some tricks which don't noticably degrade the movie but do degrade any copies, if you don't have tech know-how or some low-grade video editing software. Computers make copying data much easier--no degradation that can't be fixed. In a perfect, trusted computing environment where the OS, nay, the hardware, was working in concert with DRM software, the data could not be copied digitally. Firstly, there are no such environments. Secondly, even in the perfect possible case, it doesn't solve the problem--if something can be viewed, it can be copied. Whether it involves getting a video-out from your video card and stereo from your sound card, (let's presume they're also working with DRM), or simply getting a dark, soundproofed room and setting up a video camera, it can't be stopped.
DRM in the digital world will be no better than the real world. Does the existence of VCRs manufactured for mass copying, copier machines, cameras, audio-out and -in jacks, and camcorders ruin the film/tv/music industry? no. When the dust settles, the digital world will be similar. Pirated data will be more available. Vendors will have to deal, or find better business models. Blockbuster and Xerox seem to be doing just fine on their business based off of technologies once thought to be the doom of their respective areas.
If this works at all, it will go a long way towards the acceptance of gnutella/napster w/ wrapster/freenet style data exchange programs (peer to peer with gnutella and freenet, private with freenet).
OK, hands up for everyone who believes this won't get cracked?
Don_Negro, put your hand down, I said "get cracked", not "be smoking crack"
OK. No hands. No surprise.
I mean, Stephen King's ebook got cracked within hours, and he wasn't even charging for it the first day.
So, next possibility, this will get cracked, and gnutella will be demonized along with the computer cr/h/ackers.
Conspriatorial-think, is MS testing it's DRM software, PR repair can be handled later, and SightSound is helping the MPAA and RIAA to demonize gnutella and the like.
hey! the problem is unlike the web it's hard to gather stats on email clients, right? So, let's just like send this email around asking people to put their email client on the list at the top, and forward it on, and every hundredth can cc it to a central location....
...waitaminute.;)
Seriously, tho, you could get rough numbers on Outlook users from the LoveBug stories I'd wager.
College Campus Studies?
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
I'd be very interested in seeing the comparison in campuses with depressed CD buying nearby and campuses which have banned napster. Anyone have a copy of the full report including which colleges were in the study?
The tech is aimed at the military, and the company claims that it doesn't give the sub's position away. I belive that an earlier press release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000608/ma_benthos.html) makes this statement more clear by tacking on..."without giving away its position by raising an antenna or surfacing", which is a different matter entirely. I'm highly dubious of this, but maybe we're guessing the wrong thing as to how this functions.
Further, the range is only 3 miles. This really limits the military uses of it. OK, so you can have it bounce of buoys (and maybe seafloor retransmitters?) but still--that's a lot of infrastructure if we're spying on someone across the pacific.
Slashdot Mirror
if that's authentic, they're smokin' some major crack, and need to fire their entire web design team. making a file called index.html and putting it in the root directory just is NOT difficult.
Worse, they're running (according to netcraft) Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on HP-UX, so there is NO excuse. a symbolic link to the 'real' page they're concerned about named index.html in the publuc_html directory will work just fine. yeesh.
When I get portscanned, I usually take a notice, but presuming they wander off after finding no ports open they can sploit using their rootkit of the day, I ignore it. if, when reading logs, I see patterns of attempts, I usually rdns them back, see if it's my ISP scanning me, or some kiddie, and deal with it as appropriate. a portscan is a portscan, and if your system's well configured and proactively patched, nothing to worry about. repeated activity and explicit port-specific probes are something to investigate.
Of the news that AOL was opening its intranet to the Internet at large. 'splains a lot, doesn't it? SQUAK! AOLly wants a cracker!
OK. I PROMISE that I can find a more beneficial project for mankind, can I get the grant money for this project? No, I don't know what my own goal will be, but c'mon--gimme some credit. I can beat out web browsing parrots.
I myself dance latin dances, paint, play an intrument, and have various other non-geeky pursuits. our sysadmin at work played college football..most of our coders bike in to work, and play basketball--we're not geeks!
we're riot nrrrrrds.
Future Archaeologist: "So, Joe, I've been searching through this huge archive of chatter about some petrified girl named Portman and a lot of discussion about some really bizarre copyright law issue--I still haven't found what that means, or what this "Windows" thing is, but I did read in it about this really cool storage...hey... did you bring that coaster back from a dig? ...um...could I look at it? with a microscope?"
Oh, fantastic. another unbreakable cryptosystem to secure digital music. yea. Not that I can't play it, and loop it back directly in with no loss of quality into another system. ooooh. who cares if it's encrypted??? If the consumer can listen to is, the consumer can record it. Simple. No technological controls will ever, ever prevent pirating.
While this cryptosystem sounds really cool technologically (possibly very powerful encryption) a) the cryptographic element of security is never the one broken--if you have five trillion brass-plated locks on your steel, reinforced door, people break through the window, for look for the key in one of those stupid rocks by the side of the door. b) cryptography is great for security and privacy and integrity, but is helpless against willful copyright violation by a cryptographically-authenticated party (like, say, the consumer).
And in any case, there is nothing to get consumers to move 100% to this system, as opposed to trading MP3s. even if bill gates includes DRM into windows, people will use Linux, or FreeBSD, or not throw their 'old' computers away and keep them for functionality sake to play mp3s and whatnot.
in short, cool idea, useless for the purpose.
Publius, because it's be AT&T researchers, is only for free speech and protecting rights of chinese citizens, unlike of course FreeNet that is only useful to child pornographers and copyright violators. grumble
Not to dis the usefulness of this type of service, but the press Publius is receiving as opposed to the extremely negative and unresearched press FreeNet has gotten really torques me off.
not a true BSOD, but a crash that requires a manual power-cycle, worked like a charm on my box, every time, dunno if it's replicatable.
Have a shortcut on your desktop to a folder on a network drive, rightclick-explore, wait 5 seconds,l try and do anything.
I was running NT4 SP5 with tons of random things. Try and do it without the server service running.
Nope. None of the wireless providers I've talked to support mobile use of wireless networking--most require a stationary antenna for the implementation and then small antennas on each device which can be mobile within a very small area (for driving purposes).
Further, wireless internet tends to require LOS line of sight to a tower.
This is horribly funny. Anything a MS employee walks away with from a meeting between his two ears (in his natural memory) is considered the property of MS. And once it's theirs, as we see, they never, ever give it up.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
/some/ consumer protection) unless there is a clause that requires cryptographic signatures (digital signatures) and implements some form of security to give you a cert with a protected private key.
/s/ GriffJon
^--That's an electronic signature. Like in the real world, any mark with the intention to sign is a signature. Which is fine in the physical world where it's pretty easy to trace back any changes, erasures, cut-and-pastes that might've changed the document signed.
Here in the digital world, it don't work that way. It's trivial to change, and presuming you're not using MSWord, impossible to track back.
Generally, NEver, EVER opt-in to electronic signatures (the law requires a physical/paper-method of opting in. it does have
First, the intro given is misleading--the concerns are valid. This in NOT just about turning intRAnet filesharing down, it's about limiting high-bandwidth apps, like Napster and Gnutella.
Second, this is not a bad thing. The clients demanding these are primarily bandwidth-strapped small universities, companies, etc., who have the complete right and often responsibility to make sure that the bandwidth is not saturated by mp3 downloads, but rather more useful pursuits. Y'know, thesis and dissertation research. Not to say that there aren't theses that use napster for real and valid research, but these will not be the norm.
Now, this is a slippery slope and some ISPs will use it to slam their users. Users will move to less restrictive ISPs and the market will continue.
Were you petrified? What about your wife?
Did you serve grits at the reception?
Sorry. Couldn't resist. But congrats, both.
I find it amusing to no end that I got modded fown for being redundant. But that's OK. I gots karma to burn. muahahahahaha. phear me. and stuff.
.mx gov't) and more recently, affiliated with ToyWar and (r)(tm)Ark
Seriously, though--if you like that kind of stuff, check out bbs.thing.net-- the site that inherited the Electronic Disturbance Theater (the first widely-publicised DDoS, against the
back in the "Computer Noise" thread. Cheater.
or, horror of horrors, a stereo wire from where you'd normally plug in your 'puter speakers to the Aux-in of your hi-fi--a tenth of the cost of MP3 Anywhere( $6 at Radioshack for a 20' cord, give or take).
The remote capability is nice, as it is I have to get to my keyboard (and/or mouse) to do anything, but that could be solved with an extra keyboard, or a terminal into my (not-yet-extant) house network....
Now, waitaminute. Whatever happened to all the fair use clauses of copyright laws, where you could use the likness of a corporate logo, etc. etc. in a parody? These fair use precedents were set in early political satire cartoons. Are they not being argued in internet cases (like the starbucks case) for a reason? or are the lawyers just, well, blind to this precedent?
If you've never listened to The Symphony for Dot Matrix Printers, you don't know what you're missing. Celebrate the odd whirls and creaks of your system--they help tell you if your computer is healthy, as much as car noises do.
Exactly. The problem is that the cracks against digital media are blown waaay out of proportion, compared to joe blow selling pirated music tapes in the streets for $3 each. And piracy of that type is rampant in may parts of the globe, speaking from firsthand experience here.
Most people will find it more convenient to pay, just like normal--provided that the consumer is given rights in return for the payment, as is the case with 'traditional' media. This is why DivX and SDMI players died various deaths.
OK, this is back to my general DRM (Digital Rights Management) speech.
GIVEN: The entirity of the user base will not accept a technology that restricts or degrades their experience with a medium they previously had greater rights on.
given that, let's explore the possibilities here.
Anything you can view can be copied. Remember the BetaMax suit. That's been solved by some tricks which don't noticably degrade the movie but do degrade any copies, if you don't have tech know-how or some low-grade video editing software.
Computers make copying data much easier--no degradation that can't be fixed. In a perfect, trusted computing environment where the OS, nay, the hardware, was working in concert with DRM software, the data could not be copied digitally.
Firstly, there are no such environments. Secondly, even in the perfect possible case, it doesn't solve the problem--if something can be viewed, it can be copied. Whether it involves getting a video-out from your video card and stereo from your sound card, (let's presume they're also working with DRM), or simply getting a dark, soundproofed room and setting up a video camera, it can't be stopped.
DRM in the digital world will be no better than the real world. Does the existence of VCRs manufactured for mass copying, copier machines, cameras, audio-out and -in jacks, and camcorders ruin the film/tv/music industry? no. When the dust settles, the digital world will be similar. Pirated data will be more available. Vendors will have to deal, or find better business models. Blockbuster and Xerox seem to be doing just fine on their business based off of technologies once thought to be the doom of their respective areas.
If this works at all, it will go a long way towards the acceptance of gnutella/napster w/ wrapster/freenet style data exchange programs (peer to peer with gnutella and freenet, private with freenet).
OK, hands up for everyone who believes this won't get cracked?
Don_Negro, put your hand down, I said "get cracked", not "be smoking crack"
OK. No hands. No surprise.
I mean, Stephen King's ebook got cracked within hours, and he wasn't even charging for it the first day.
So, next possibility, this will get cracked, and gnutella will be demonized along with the computer cr/h/ackers.
Conspriatorial-think, is MS testing it's DRM software, PR repair can be handled later, and SightSound is helping the MPAA and RIAA to demonize gnutella and the like.
hey! the problem is unlike the web it's hard to gather stats on email clients, right? So, let's just like send this email around asking people to put their email client on the list at the top, and forward it on, and every hundredth can cc it to a central location....
;)
...waitaminute.
Seriously, tho, you could get rough numbers on Outlook users from the LoveBug stories I'd wager.
I'd be very interested in seeing the comparison in campuses with depressed CD buying nearby and campuses which have banned napster. Anyone have a copy of the full report including which colleges were in the study?
The tech is aimed at the military, and the company claims that it doesn't give the sub's position away. I belive that an earlier press release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000608/ma_benthos.html) makes this statement more clear by tacking on ..."without giving
away its position by raising an antenna or surfacing", which is a different matter entirely. I'm highly dubious of this, but maybe we're guessing the wrong thing as to how this functions.
Further, the range is only 3 miles. This really limits the military uses of it. OK, so you can have it bounce of buoys (and maybe seafloor retransmitters?) but still--that's a lot of infrastructure if we're spying on someone across the pacific.